Gun Politics and where I stand

This is from an article about the different aspects to the issues of gun ownership. I have included my own personal agreement and dissention from these popular stances.

In summary, those who support greater restrictions on firearm ownership believe some subset of:

1. (I disagree) that there is no fundamental right to own firearms
2. (I disagree) that gun control legislation may reduce violent crime
3. (I agree) that guns are more dangerous to the owners than intended targets because most gun related deaths are a result of domestic violence, accidents and suicides
4. (I disagree) that guns are often of little use as self defense for the typical owner because in the incidents where a hostile encounter with an armed criminal occurs, the criminal is usually more experienced and skilled with his/her weapon
5. (I agree) that even against unarmed criminals, the presence of a gun serves most often simply to escalate the likelihood and/or severity of violence
6. (I disagree) that citizens have no need to own guns to protect themselves against crime, since this is the task of the government
7. (I disagree) that citizens of First World countries today have no need to protect themselves against their governments if they are vigilant enough to confront government wrongdoing before violence is necessary, or that even if such a need should arise, it would be hopeless anyway to take up individual small arms against the sort of modern military technology that a government could bring to bear.

Those who favor maintaining or extending the private ownership of firearms believe some subset of:

1. (I agree) that owning firearms is a fundamental right
2. (I agree, however how can anyone know another person's intentions?) that the government has no right to interfere with an individual's right to own firearms as long as the individual is not harming or intimidating fellow citizens
3. (I don't necessarily agree, changes in crime rates are multi-variable and I have yet to hear of conclusive evidence of this fact, though there is a limited intuitive truth to this statement) that guns in the hands of the populace decrease crime
4. (I agree) that citizens have a right to self-protection
5. (I don't necessarily agree, see above) that an armed populace decreases the overall risk of violent crime, because it provides a deterrent effect for criminals who cannot know whether their next prospective victim, or someone nearby, will turn out to be armed
6. (I agree) that law-abiding citizens have a responsibility to provide their own protection because governments cannot be held civilly or criminally responsible for failing to provide such protection
7. (I disagree) That carrying firearms properly makes one safer, not less safe; for the same reason that police forces carry firearms
8. (I disagree) that gun ownership protects citizens from the excesses of government
9. (I agree that guns provide) the possibility of revolution, if necessary

So, where does that leave me? I suppose I'm generally a supporter of gun ownership with some restrictions (basically those defined by Class 3 firearms). I don't see much use in anti-assault weapon laws like those of NJ.