That's one of the things that I like about the libertarians, they are willing to agree to disagree. I see myself as a progressive libertarian but most of the libertarian parties seem to be more minarchist, which I don't have a problem with, but feel that the government's job might be more than just protection from aggression. I am by no means in favor of big government but sometimes people need a big brother. Also, how do you (thats a generic you) define aggression? Is a slur aggression? is spitting? Or do you have to physically attack someone? With how much force? What about property? Who will protect my property rights?
So my question, now is, I suppose, where do I fit in with my Pro death penalty, pro life, pro gun control and feel that some government social programs- albeit without the beauracracy- can work?

A slur could be aggression, but the punishment should fit the crime. A common example of aggression is when one person will use someone else to perform their aggression (or threat of aggression). An example is when a bunch of auto executives go to the government and ask the government to use the threat of aggression to take resources from taxpayers. For more info see Walter Block's discussion on the non aggression axiom.

How "pro gun control" are you? You sound mostly libertarian except perhaps for your desire to control my use of guns. I enjoy shooting guns at a range and in my backyard at targets against an earth berm. I have enrolled my daughters in a shooting league. I resent having to be on a government list for owning a gun and would rather buy out of state and sneak my guns into the state. Buying a gun in NJ is incredibly hard.

Most gun laws do nothing to make us safer. Gun laws do not keep the hands out of criminals anymore than our drug laws keep drug market out of the hands of criminals. Instead they make it more profitable for the black market. A2116 will do nothing to increase our safety, but it will make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy guns.

Well here's an interesting fact:
The United States has more deaths by homicide- by gun- than 7 other countries have a total death by gun rate combined. Coincidence? Could be. Could it be that the United States has the NRA and other countries don't? Maybe.
That statistic effects me. It leads me to believe that my personal safety is at risk because people can carry guns- concealed nonetheless. You claim that gun control laws don't make us safer, the numbers tell another story. States that have tough gun control laws have a statistically significant lower rate of death by gun than states that don't. I can understand the joy of target shooting, especially if it is a bonding experience with your daughters, but do you need even a semi automatic to shoot a target in your backyard? What about a bb gun or air rifle?
In light of this I would like to believe my stance on gun control is still a libertarian ideal, as you are infringing on my personal space and sense of freedom.
Alaska seems to have very lax gun control and the highest death by firearm in the country; Hawaii very tough = lowest; Arizona and Arkansas lax = very high death rate; California and Connecticut tough = very low death by firearm rate.
Can numbers lie, sure. Do guns kill yes. That starts infringing on my liberties. We have a well regulated militia in the National Guard and even have a standing army, so what is the point of the amendment?
If it were suicides and even accidental deaths that guns caused, I wouldn't mind so much, but the homicide rate skyrockets in states that have lax gun control laws. Will imposing tough gun control laws get rid of the problem? No, because as you say criminals will find a way of getting them. But it makes it that much more difficult.
I believe there is a reason this country leads the industrialized world in violent crimes. Actually two, one is our puritanical attitude and the second guns. They make a person feel invulnerable. Again, will laws keep criminals from getting guns? No, but it will allow the police to confiscate them when they find them.
Compare http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=2&ind=113
with http://www.nraila.org/media/pdfs/compendium.pdf
OK I think I'm done
Sigh, one last thing. You say it is incredibly hard to buy a gun in New Jersey. New Jersey, just happens to have one of the lowest rates of death by firearms (5.1 for every 100,000 people) in the country. If you exclude Newark and Camden that number goes down even more.
OK now I'm really done

Yeah - the charts you show have Washington DC as having the highest rate of gun deaths. Yet up until the recent supreme court ruling and Sept. 29th house vote, DC had the most draconian gun laws anywhere. Guns were banned from DC, yet DC leads the nation in gun deaths.

On the other hand New Hampshire and Vermont have barely any gun laws. Yet they have both have a very low rates of gun deaths.

I don't see the correlation.

I may not want to shoot a semi automatic in my backyard but I sure would love to shoot one at a range. It would be safe in my yard, but not very courteous to the few neighbors I have that wouldn't be lined up for a chance to shoot.

Not to worry, guns don't kill. Its people who use them that can kill (or can save a life). My guns don't infringe on your liberties either. But used properly they may be used to protect your liberties.

Jay Edgar wrote:

QUOTE:
... Libertarians reject using violence (or the threat of violence) ...

Not to worry, guns don't kill. Its people who use them that can kill (or can save a life). My guns don't infringe on your liberties either. But used properly they may be used to protect your liberties

So at first you claim that libertarians reject even the threat of violence, yet as a gun owner you tell me that guns can protect my own liberties. Can you please explain that?
Washington DC is an exception that proves the rule and is also right next to Virginia, which has relatively lax laws and a relatively high rate of death by firearms. Your including DC is a little like my including Hawaii. Not really comparable to the rest of the nation.
I admit to not having a reasonable answer to Vermont and New Hampshire, except to say that very few correlations will be a perfect one. On the whole places where any Joe Shmoe can own, carry and conceal a firearm, the death rate by firearm is much higher than elsewhere. We are the ONLY industrialized nation that has a double digit death rate by firearm. Again, is the correlation a perfect one no, but I still see the relationship.

kensternation wrote:

QUOTE:
So at first you claim that libertarians reject even the threat of violence, yet as a gun owner you tell me that guns can protect my own liberties. Can you please explain that?

Libertarians don't reject every threat of violence. They reject the initiation of force or the initiation of threats of force. Using force as a means of self defense may be perfectly acceptable.