You know? I see now what you ment, but in order to avoid confusion next time, OmSigDavid, please, PLEASE, learn how to use such simple punctuation tools as comma's. Or how to write proper english sentences. That would avoid the confusion.
for someone who counsels me
to: " learn how to use such simple punctuation tools as comma's [sic] "
to avoid " confusion "
I suggest that u learn how to use an apostrophe,
and learn when to AVOID using one,
so as not to create " confusion " between possessive
Nevertheless, only the tinest fraction of 1% of 80,000,000 people
must be tiny indeed, if it is less significant to you then
(I'm not denying it was a horrible event!) the murdercase that opened this thread.
It sounds very much like utilitarianism, you know. And then only an utilitarianism from your point of view, I might add.
U fail to understand the 2 points
that I seek to establish, to wit:
1. crime is too easy for violent criminals
because their future victims are NOT sufficiently well armed in their own defense.
Better armament of the victims yields better results,
in the event of criminal depredations,
hence, gun control encourages more crime and needless death
in the discretion of the criminal predator
2. Even if were otherwise,
that crime were not reduced by having a better armed citizenry,
still each citizen, of any age, has a right to defend his life
and his property from criminal depredation,
and government was never granted any authority
to limit this right of self-defense.
They are equal insofar as
Funny, that you compare guns and theology. Actually, no, let me refrase that. Scary, that you compare guns and theology. very scary indeed.
the authority of government to control either one.