You should acquaint yourself with the House Rules
, then. Specifically, the point where they forbid trolling.
Do you really think that the rules alone will deter trolling? "Good citizens" abide subconsciously, others don't care until they're punished, and even that doesn't give you any guarantee.
Smart people might also abide in order not to be punished in the first place... And yes, punishing people does give us a kind of guarantee, in that breaking the rules tends to become a bit more difficult once you've been banned.
(Yes, I know there are ways to work around that - but there are also ways to combat such workarounds as well. And really, if you've got nothing better to do than to try to break through the security on a small marginal internet discussion board to troll on it, I think you should stop to think hard and evaluate your life*.)
*) At your own risk. The CBB shall not be held responsible for any resulting suicides (no matter how much we might like to take credit for improving the human gene pool).
EDIT: Since there has apparently been some confusion, I'll note that the "you" above is a generic you. I thought it would've been obvious enough, since I was reasonably sure no member has actually been in the hypothetical situation described. Now, if I was wrong, and we truly have a member who's contemplated suicide upon realizing that they have no other purpose in life than to keep attempting to break onto this forum to troll, then I apologize. That was an unnecessarily harsh joke to make. Still, I maintain that you seriously need help.
Criminals will always have a way in which they can access weapons which can then be used to injure and kill me, you and generally any other member of society. In the UK we have gun regulation laws which prevent any member of society from buying guns, this does not, however, deter criminals from buying and using them.
Career criminals, that is. For individual crazy people - who are much more likely to shoot you for a) breaking up with them b) belonging to the wrong political party or c) no reason at all, anyway - it might make it considerably more difficult.
We, the public, are only allowed to use 'reasonable force' when we are threatened, this is in reality flawed, what could an 80 year old couple actually do to prevent themselves becoming victims? In addition, a person under an adrenaline rush would not think straight enough, their natural survival instincts would come into play. Now, you could try to overpower the armed intruders, but you could be seriously injured or killed. So owning a gun would but you at a huge vantage point when it comes to surviving.
How much chance do you really think an eighty-year-old under an adrenaline rush and unable to think straight would have against an experienced cold-blooded criminal anyway? If anything, I'd suspect the criminal would be more likely to shoot an eighty-year-old with a gun (since he's clearly dangerous) than one without (since he's much less so, and killing him doesn't really serve much purpose in that situation).