Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Msloga another point the bar owner with the big civil war revolver on his hip during the times he does cash runs had in fact increased his chances of being shot from hiding with a shotgun or rifle as that is the only “safe” way to rob the man and I am fairly sure he is aware of that fact.

Now being aware of that I am also fairly sure he had weight that risk to the benefits of reducing his likelihood of a normal robbery to near zero.

Does he not have that moral right my friend just as does my female friend with the gun in her hands going to her car? Would you care to pass laws taking away their legal rights to have tools to defense themselves?

First I happen to legally carry a weapon I had not taken the law in my own hands as you had put it and neither had the bar owner of the female restaurant owner or my wfe.

However you for some reason seem to wish to greatly increase the hoops I and the others would need to jump through to have a firearm legally.

In no way will that however reduce killing sprees or reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals that I can see.

Perhaps you can explain to me he benefits of so doing and the reduction of crime that will result by so doing.

Are you of the opinion that the bar owner or the restaurant owner of myself or my wife are going for some reason onto the dark side and go on a killing sprees with our legal weapons and the added hoops will stop us? Or the millions of my law abiding fellow arm citizens for that matter.

Second are you of the opinion that your added legal restriction and need for proof and whatever other hoops you wish us to jump through is going to stop anyone from getting his or her hand on a weapon illegally?

Please explain the benefits of your news laws.

Bill, Bill!!
All these hypotheticals! (David was at it last night, too ...)
Are they part of the pro-gun training manuel, or something ? Seriously.

I honestly can't see the point of me giving you my opinions on any number of real or imaginary situations ..... all of which, of course, strongly suggest someone would be far better off with a gun!
And I imagine that I could come up with a few scenarios myself, which would suit my particular view point, so ...

The usual anti-freedom, pro-big government A2Kers are spreading manure all over this thread.

No law whatsoever is going to stop illegal things, cheating in taxes, drunking driving or whatever.
At least people caught illegally with guns will be prosucuted and they can´t just come up with a substory about having to shoot.

If you live in such a criminal infested area why don´t you move????

You don´t know where I live or where I have lived - in big cities always without a car.
The only time I was afraid was when I met a very angry elk on a golf coarse in Sweden. It must have been a laughable sight me running chaced by an elk.

You have finally looked in the mirror and seen the problem.

Not that interesting, just the same old big government, anti-freedom crap.

So predictable. And irrelevant. As usual ....

Every word that you shared here is irrelevant - why did you waste everyone's time like this?

Why We Should Ban Guns

Jeez.

Why must liberals resort to childish behavior?
Why are you anti freedom, pro big government types so vile?

You anti-gun fanatics need to be educated and protected.

Msolga I gave you a nice firm non-hypothetical situation where I had visited the lady in the hospital and I am beginning to think you have a moral problem with self-defense of any kind correct?

The taking of the law into your own hand comment seem to indicate that you view the act of self-defense as somehow wrong especially if it happen to involved using a firearm and is in fact taking the law into your own hands.

The law code of my state allow it citizens to used force to defense themselves and others and even their property and deadly force such as a firearm to prevent death or likely serial harm to yourself or others and to stop what is call a forcible felony such as rape.

In fact not being a lawyer I am not hundred percent sure however I think that if you have a duty to protect someone like you child and you do not act up to using deadly force if need be then you are a lawbreaker for not so doing.

You are either a moron or willfully dishonest if you think I actually support murder.

There was a point in time at which the nazi system was established but not as firmly as nazis might have hoped. Suppose that at that point, every time a squad of brown-shirts went out to knock on somebody's door and haul them off at 2 AM, six or seven of the brown-shorts had been shot to death...

You don't think that would have made any sort of a difference?? Try educating yourself:

http://www.jpfo.org ( Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership)

http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_list&c=11

http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=26

"I care more about my right to own guns than I do about the life that is lost because of guns."

OK, so explain what you actually meant, then.

I fail to see why my statement needs any further clarification, especially since the first 5 pages I go in to further detail around this point.

But here goes. I'll try to format it in the universal language of mathematics.

The HUMAN COST of the 2nd Amendment = X
The benefits of the 2nd Amendment = Y
Y > X


The HUMAN COST of Driving an Automobile = X
The benefits of Driving an Automobile = Y
Y > X


The HUMAN COST of allowing people to drink alcohol = X
The benefits of allowing people to drink = Y
Y > X


If I did a cost benefit analysis of the 2nd amendment, the benefits outweigh the costs. THAT is what my statement means. And it is no more shocking a statement than to if we're talking about drinking or talking about automobiles (hell, it's even less shocking since the human costs are so much less).

Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under

One thing you don't read about....

When you consider the highway carnage we get from the automobile age, pretty much nobody in our age remembers or has any idea as to the daily quantity of pain and carnage involved in a society dealing with horses on a mass scale.

There were arms and legs being broken and people being trampled, run down and run over all over creation and that's aside from the grief and disease of having city streets covered with horse ****.

Any time anybody ever lit a match, coughed, hiccuped, or did anything unusual at all there was the possibility of some stupid horse spooking and injuring or killing somebody.

I'd prefer it if you just explained your statement in plain English. Leaving out the mathematics, the stuff about alcohol, cars & whatever else ...that's all I'm asking you.
You were talking about what mattered most to you, when you made that statement, you weren't talking about the 2nd amendment, as I recall....