Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[Laufey]

Sometimes it can increase the likelihood of them killing you.

For example if they were just gonna rob you and then suddenly you have a gun pointing at them and they react to it.

I'll admit that in individual cases people can gain from having a gun. However I think the total effects of a lot of people owning guns does not make the public any safer... it rather has the opposite effects.

Ambrocious nobody invades you because you have the strongest military in the world... not because the public has guns.

[Ambrocious]

RE: T-Rexx


I'm sorry you feel that way and Im sure you have a good reason to say that, maybe something personal happend to you but guns overall are a method of protection. My step dad goes hunting and one time he came back with a nice big Buck and we made some pretty tasty Jerky from it!

Trying to ban guns is not the answer. More education about gun safety IS the answer.

[Laufey]

A lot of countries allow hunting type of guns only and have like a 10x lower murder rate than the US.

[Ambrocious]

Sometimes it can increase the likelihood of them killing you.

For example if they were just gonna rob you and then suddenly you have a gun pointing at them and they react to it.

I'll admit that in individual cases people can gain from having a gun. However I think the total effects of a lot of people owning guns does not make the public any safer... it rather has the opposite effects.

Ambrocious nobody invades you because you have the strongest military in the world... not because the public has guns.

But those military are coming home from long tours at war, with all the proper training on how to confiscate guns, along with all of the mental scarring that can destroy a person’s mental health. These are still our men and woman who went bravely to war but they have been trained to turn off emotions and do as they are told to do. They are the enforcers of an ever increasing tyrannical system of governance and most of them believe they are doing the right thing, some of them do still do the right thing and that’s good.

The United States is in a swift decline and the way I see it is that that Government has a divide and conquer tactic. They are getting us to fight with each other which makes it much easier for them to get us where they want us: dependent on them so that we are a nation more like North Korea where we are taught to love our government, even if they start killing us off by the thousands openly.

Mexico is an example of where a gun ban is very bad for the people. So many people are killed down there because they don't have the right to bear arms, but the criminal elements down there don't obey those rules and so they kill far too often because of that. The USA is turning into a weird system of degradation. A lot of people want the guns gone because they believe it would decrease violence when in reality; people will become desperate and fearful which will cause a rise in violence in many other ways.

People who own guns should not be made out to be the "bad guys" because they aren't. Owning a gun and knowing how to properly use it is very empowering and the fear that you might have had, it just melts away. Not everyone who owns a gun is the same man who killed those kids, that’s profiling a whole group of people AS THOUGH they were that one person. Anytime you wrap up a whole group of people in one package because of something they have in common, well heck, what is it called when straight people don't like gays? It's rooted in a large fear and ignorance basis that groups of people are hated selectively and we should be above those type of tactics being since we are gay and we know how it feels to be a target of hate crimes more than most people do.

I have no fear when I see people armed in public because I know that as long as we still have the right to bear arms, we are still free. Taking that right away is like taking away the breaks to a speeding car.

[T-Rexx]

But then you have the ruling by the court that says that the right to have that hand gun for self defense OUTWEIGHS any argument about how dangerous the gun is.

Yes. The courts have consistently ruled that we are allowed to be stupid enough to kill ourselves left and right.

But, just because we're allowed to be stupid doesn't mean we should be.

[T-Rexx]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet.

You may be right.

No one wants to invade a country where the residents are killing each other in the name of self-defense.

[Rolyo85]

But then you have the ruling by the court that says that the right to have that hand gun for self defense OUTWEIGHS any argument about how dangerous the gun is.

Well then the court made the wrong ruling and now that different judges are on the panel, needs to make a better one. Times change, societies change and the law should change with them.

- - - Updated - - -

Such as? What object can i use to defend myself that can not be used to harm me or end my life once removed forcibly from my possession?

Such as a tazer or pepper sprays. Of course either could potentially kill you, but chances are that you won't die if the criminal takes them from you and uses them on you. You will be stunned, paralyzed, blinded or otherwise harmed, but the "sharp/fast moving objects not piercing your body" thing tends to keep the end result outside of the fatal area. Ultimately, the goal of a mugger is NOT to kill you, it is to overpower you. Using your own tools of "defense" to achieve THAT goal will produce the result that the tool is best equipped to serve. Which, in the case of guns, is death.

- - - Updated - - -

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet. Take away the guns, wait a few years, see what happens. We have been pissing off many different countries since 2001 when we engaged in a retalitory strike because of the false flag event that is infamously known as 9/11.

I agree that all people of appropriate ages (12 and older) should be able to take gun safety courses as well as target practice. It's not impossible to own a gun and be safe, just like it's not impossible to own a 2 thousand pound car and still manage to NOT run over a whole crowd of people.

Um, false. Nobody gives any amount of fuck about your guns. In fact, the average European DOESN'T KNOW you own guns. I didn't, until I came to live in the States, and I come from a very well informed background. We don't know that much about your daily lives, and we don't care enough. The reason you haven't been invaded is MOSTLY economic, and also because the First World doesn't invade countries anymore. Also, you have the largest military on the planet. None of these has any relation to your personal guns which are no deterrent whatsoever when it comes to invasion.

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to ban guns is not the answer. More education about gun safety IS the answer.

Um, no, the answer is SEVERELY limiting guns AND more education about gun safety.

[T-Rexx]

RE: T-Rexx


I'm sorry you feel that way and Im sure you have a good reason to say that, maybe something personal happend to you but guns overall are a method of protection.

It's not a matter of how I "feel."

It's a fact. The single most likely outcome, if any, of owning a gun is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Only an idiot would buy a gun for "protection" when it accomplishes precisely the opposite of protection.

[Stardreamer]

Actually the single MOST likely outcome, if any, is absolutely nothing will happen as is proven every day by the vast majority of households that have guns in them where nothing unusual happens. Yes owning a gun may statistically increase the possibility of death slightly but so does owning a car. Which was the courts point I think, the right being established and a legitimate use existing, you cannot deny the use of that right by statistical what ifs alone. The best one can do is apply reasonable restrictions to reduce the risk without hindering the use such as we do with cars.

[Stardreamer]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet. Take away the guns, wait a few years, see what happens. We have been pissing off many different countries since 2001 when we engaged in a retalitory strike because of the false flag event that is infamously known as 9/11.

I agree that all people of appropriate ages (12 and older) should be able to take gun safety courses as well as target practice. It's not impossible to own a gun and be safe, just like it's not impossible to own a 2 thousand pound car and still manage to NOT run over a whole crowd of people.

Well the US has been invaded in 1812 and citizen militias played a role in repelling it. But I doubt the current unorganized militia is a major deterrent in the planning of any attack the US, the military is a more relevant deterrent there. Though any successful occupation of the US would be a nightmare because of the number of guns in the population.

[TX-Beau]

Once again, the fed ALREADY REGULATES FIREARMS, this is NOT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE, or the 2cnd amendment, this national discussion is SOLELY about reinstating a regulation something like the one that was allowed to lapse in 2006

All you drama queens with the horror stories need to sit down and check it.

If you actually get a wild hare up your ass and want to say something useful - why don't YOU tell US what kinds of firearms should be illegal and which not - and since the FED ALREADY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES, saying any restriction is "unconstitutional" because of the 2cnd or homwrecking burglars, or what-the-fuck-ever you can invent is just fucking stupid.

[andysayshi]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet.

How do you account for the fact that nations with strict gun control and low gun ownership rates, like the United Kingdom and Australia, have also not been invaded?

[andysayshi]

As usual, the gun debate is obfuscated with semantics. I don't care what guns are called or how they're categorised, particularly. None of the women in the links above owned weapons with a magazine greater than 10 bullets. A Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic, or it's equivalents, which the NRA has actively campaigned to keep legal for years, is not required to make a home safer. The lack of reasonable limits and regulation, and the lack of meaningful testing for competency of gun owners, is the problem. These examples help to prove the point that advanced, high powered weaponry is complete overkill for personal protection.

[Stardreamer]

Once again, the fed ALREADY REGULATES FIREARMS, this is NOT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE, or the 2cnd amendment, this national discussion is SOLELY about reinstating a regulation something like the one that was allowed to lapse in 2006

All you drama queens with the horror stories need to sit down and check it.

If you actually get a wild hare up your ass and want to say something useful - why don't YOU tell US what kinds of firearms should be illegal and which not - and since the FED ALREADY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES, saying any restriction is "unconstitutional" because of the 2cnd or homwrecking burglars, or what-the-fuck-ever you can invent is just fucking stupid.

Now who is being the drama queen? I have not said that state cannot regulate firearms or that all such regulation is unconstitutional. All the rights in the bill of rights is subject to 'reasonable' regulation. The threads and posts I tend to make on this subject are intended to be clarifying on what the actual 'right' the second amendment is about and how that can be limited and not limited. Unless you have that point clarified you cannot reasonably discuss what kinds of firearms should be illegal. Also once that is clarified it becomes clearer what can be achieved towards regulating firearms. And I have already made some suggestions as to what kind of regulation would be possible in this context.

I also started this thread in response to the folks who do exactly what you say noone is doing, suggesting that all guns be heavily restricted, and deny the legitimacy of self defense arguments with what if scenarios. They starting to pop up again here too. I started this discussion with examples of 5 different cases of mothers defending themselves and their children from intruders into their homes with firearms. These are real life, not what if, examples out of hundreds that I found. While I am certain there are cases of a person having their weapon taken and turned against them, I wonder if you would find them turning up in such numbers.

[Stardreamer]

As usual, the gun debate is obfuscated with semantics. I don't care what guns are called or how they're categorised, particularly. None of the women in the links above owned weapons with a magazine greater than 10 bullets. A Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic, or it's equivalents, which the NRA has actively campaigned to keep legal for years, is not required to make a home safer. The lack of reasonable limits and regulation, and the lack of meaningful testing for competency of gun owners, is the problem. These examples help to prove the point that advanced, high powered weaponry is complete overkill for personal protection.

Operationally, those guns are not all that different from the hunting rifles which even the most of the gun restricted countries allow. Quite frankly the ability to kill a deer is the ability to kill most anything smaller than a bear. The main thing that makes them more dangerous in the rare spree killer situation is the magazine capacity and the ability to rapidly change magazines. Both of which I think can be reasonably regulated even under the second amendment.

[TX-Beau]

Now who is being the drama queen? I have not said that state cannot regulate firearms or that all such regulation is unconstitutional. All the rights in the bill of rights is subject to 'reasonable' regulation. The threads and posts I tend to make on this subject are intended to be clarifying on what the actual 'right' the second amendment is about and how that can be limited and not limited. Unless you have that point clarified you cannot reasonably discuss what kinds of firearms should be illegal. Also once that is clarified it becomes clearer what can be achieved towards regulating firearms. And I have already made some suggestions as to what kind of regulation would be possible in this context.

I also started this thread in response to the folks who do exactly what you say noone is doing, suggesting that all guns be heavily restricted, and deny the legitimacy of self defense arguments with what if scenarios. They starting to pop up again here too. I started this discussion with examples of 5 different cases of mothers defending themselves and their children from intruders into their homes with firearms. These are real life, not what if, examples out of hundreds that I found. While I am certain there are cases of a person having their weapon taken and turned against them, I wonder if you would find them turning up in such numbers.

You are being the drama queen. WE MUST HAVE GUNS TO PROTECT THE WOMEN!!!

ARRRGGHHHHH!!!!

So what?. Everything in your original post is just so much alarmist dodging. It’s BESDIE THE POINT. Proves nothing whatsoever and isn’t even part of the conversation. It’s just you trying to insinuate guns are the only way for women to defend themselves. You didn’t find contrary accounts – because I’m betting you didn’t go looking for them.

There was a lady in the county here who was murdered by 3 high school boys because they wanted her new Mustang. She was heavily armed. They kicked in her door and shot her twice with a shotgun (belonging to the father of one of them). She didn’t even get a shot off. Now according to your logic, since her guns didn’t help her, OBVIOUSLY guns can’t be used for protection.

Please.

All of the above, your stories, mine, are BESIDE THE POINT.

Now why don’t YOU tell US what you think reasonable regulation should look like.

[Stardreamer]

You are being the drama queen. WE MUST HAVE GUNS TO PROTECT THE WOMEN!!!

ARRRGGHHHHH!!!!

So what?. Everything in your original post is just so much alarmist dodging. It’s BESDIE THE POINT. Proves nothing whatsoever and isn’t even part of the conversation. It’s just you trying to insinuate guns are the only way for women to defend themselves. You didn’t find contrary accounts – because I’m betting you didn’t go looking for them.

There was a lady in the county here who was murdered by 3 high school boys because they wanted her new Mustang. She was heavily armed. They kicked in her door and shot her twice with a shotgun (belonging to the father of one of them). She didn’t even get a shot off. Now according to your logic, since her guns didn’t help her, OBVIOUSLY guns can’t be used for protection.

Please.

All of the above, your stories, mine, are BESIDE THE POINT.

Now why don’t YOU tell US what you think reasonable regulation should look like.

An exaggeration but I will admit I intentionally selected women defending their children cases to emphasis a point.

I also did go looking for cases of a person being killed by an intruder taking their gun away from them when I made my last post. I found only one and even that was murky since the circumstances of how she was killed are unknown. Most people killed by their own weapons seem to be cases of murder by family members who had access to the weapon or suicide. Even your example is murky since the victim would have died anyway so having or not having a gun was ultimately irrelevant to how safe she was. I would also point out that the point you want to narrow the discussion to, which I assume is the assault weapons ban, wouldn't have mattered in that case also as shotguns are not being discussed either.

I've already mentioned what I think reasonable regulation should be. I wouldn't focus on specific models of firearms at all since manufacturers will simply make the same guns with minor changes, it is ultimately self defeating and inefficient. Instead I would focus on specific capabilities, no magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds and no ability to rapidly eject and replace the magazine. Must issue concealed carry permitting process that includes a firearm user safety training. Firearm non-user safety training as part of school health programs.

I think Kuli's ideas of managing access to high capacity and other such weapons using the existing militia regulations by requiring those weapons to be stored and kept in licensed firing ranges (designated militia arsenals) would allow the continued ownership and use of bushmasters and such while avoiding 2nd Amendment issues.

[T-Rexx]

Actually the single MOST likely outcome, if any, is absolutely nothing will happen

"Absolutely nothing" is not an "outcome." It's absolutely nothing.

The single most likely outcome of carrying a gun is that you or someone in your family will get killed by it. Period. Only an idiot would carry a gun for "protection" when the most likely outcome is that it will kill them.

[Kulindahr]

How so? The court ruling alone changes the dynamic of the conversation. The self defense argument is the most relevant discussion of the 2nd Amendment in the modern world, to me the tendency of these discussions to be directed off into the role of the militia in the modern world is more of a red herring.

Yes. The Left has repeatedly used the argument "if it saves just one life..." -- and the articles you found show abundantly that allowing citizens to have firearms saves lives.

[Kulindahr]

I have never said the government does not have the right to regulate. The ruling though does negate some of the justifications used for regulating.

I do expect regulations limiting high capacity magazines and if they asked me, rapid change magazines.

Government has no rights -- only authority assigned it by those who do: the citizens.

[Kulindahr]

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

Wow you can use the internet to be deceived.... None of those weapons meet the guidelines for assault weapons... so guess what WONT be banned????

Actually I found one that did -- the HK, which does have selective fire. Of course they have just one, and as the information says, not only is the price $15,999.99, a buyer first has to get the required federal license.

So while there is at least one actual assault rifle there, it does not qualify as being available "on the open market", because to buy it you're going to have to welcome some BATFE agents into your home to interview you and do a very, very thorough background check.

[Kulindahr]

If you want to get murdered (or you want someone in your family to die unnaturally), the single best way to accomplish that is to carry a gun.

Period.

LOL

From the firearms killings in the United States each year, it's evident that the best way to get murdered is to be a drug dealer in a fight for territory with another drug dealer.

[Kulindahr]

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

Prove it..

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...ions_and_usage

You're the one who made the initial claim. A fair examination of the evidence you offered shows that it fails.

And now you offer 'evidence' that is really an attempt to change the subject.

[Kulindahr]

When you try to put words in my mouth try listening first.

Then address the point YOU SAY nothing that meets the definition of "assault rile" is for sale, I provided you the definition, prove it.

No, you changed the subject.

[Kulindahr]

The topic is as red herring as one could possibly get.

If this is, then so is any thread about Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech or Columbine or any other such event.

[Kulindahr]

THIS IS MY POINT!

The discussion of gun regulation IS NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE trying to say it is, is trying to dodge.

Is that clear enough for you? or shall I make it bigger?

Um, that's pretty obtuse. According to the FFs and the Framers and the Supreme Court, gun regulation most certainly is a Second Amendment issue. We know this because that's where the Constitution addresses the issue of firearms.

[TX-Beau]

What's pretty obtuse is all the drama-mongering from gun addicts over defense and Constitutionality when ALL THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED is regulations which are already constitutional and already have been law in one form or another.

All the rest of the hot air you and the others in here are providing is utterly pointless.

[Kulindahr]

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

From your source:


The web site you are using is using the term assault rifles incorrectly, amazing that someone would distort something in advertising? Who would have thought it possible? There were some guns there that might be assault rifles, I saw a AK-47 which I think is a full auto weapon but you couldn't buy it in the US unless you had one of the limited supply of federal licenses which are VERY hard to obtain and consequently make them very unlikely to be used in a crime.

It's actually simple to tell if there are assault rifles for sale: just scan the listings for anything with a price in five or more digits. If their "list high to low" price feature was working, it would be very simple.

As it is, they're not using the term incorrectly, they're just using a rare possibility on their site to label the whole thing. Misleading? Certainly. False? No.

[Kulindahr]

And the most likely outcome of carrying a handgun is NOT that it will ever protect you from harm. The most likely outcome is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

This lie is getting old. If this were true, we'd have a murder rate far, far higher than it is.

Firearms protect people from harm hundreds of thousands of times a year. People are killed by firearms less than a tenth as often -- even counting suicides.

[Kulindahr]

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

Now there's a fantasy. Any form of self-defense which brings the possibility of being effective is such that if taken away by the attacker it could result in the defender's death.

[TX-Beau]

This lie is getting old. If this were true, we'd have a murder rate far, far higher than it is.

Firearms protect people from harm hundreds of thousands of times a year. People are killed by firearms less than a tenth as often -- even counting suicides.

Yeah, I didn't say that. Your lie above is getting old too. You have absufuckinglutly NO way to substantiate that. It's probably just something you like to spend time contemplating while you whack off.

[Kulindahr]

Yes. The courts have consistently ruled that we are allowed to be stupid enough to kill ourselves left and right.

But, just because we're allowed to be stupid doesn't mean we should be.

I have yet to see you propose anything to address the issue of stupidity; rather you propose to let people keep on being stupid, and take away things they might do something bad with when particularly stupid.

[Kulindahr]

It's not a matter of how I "feel."

It's a fact. The single most likely outcome, if any, of owning a gun is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

Only an idiot would buy a gun for "protection" when it accomplishes precisely the opposite of protection.

Really?

I wasn't aware that the murder count in the United States was in the hundreds of thousands per year. Seriously, if that were true, even Benvolio would be begging for more immigration because we'd be running out of people!

The single most likely outcome of owning a gun is... not even touching it for months on end.

[Kulindahr]

If you actually get a wild hare up your ass and want to say something useful - why don't YOU tell US what kinds of firearms should be illegal and which not - and since the FED ALREADY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES, saying any restriction is "unconstitutional" because of the 2cnd or homwrecking burglars, or what-the-fuck-ever you can invent is just fucking stupid.

Sure. That's why the courts haven't overturned any gun laws at all.

[Kulindahr]

What's pretty obtuse is all the drama-mongering from gun addicts over defense and Constitutionality when ALL THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED is regulations which are already constitutional and already have been law in one form or another.

All the rest of the hot air you and the others in here are providing is utterly pointless.

We're talking about constitutionality in this thread because posters like you are trying to change the subject.

The point of the thread is that people do use firearms to defend themselves. That means that any attempt to take away firearms is pro-murder, because it is a preference for those people to have been or be killed.

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, I didn't say that. Your lie above is getting old too. You have absufuckinglutly NO way to substantiate that. It's probably just something you like to spend time contemplating while you whack off.

FBI. NIH. NSI.

You know -- government agencies charged with keeping track of such things. The LOW estimate of the times annually people use firearms to protect themselves is in the hundreds of thousands. The HIGH end is around two and a half million.

So if the assertion were true, we'd have to have a murder rate also in the hundreds of thousands... or millions.

[TX-Beau]

We're talking about constitutionality AND defense (which NOBODY EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER had a problem with) because you and the originator of this thread have Icon-ized guns to the point where you seem to be revering with religious significance.

Get over it. A gun is a tool, NOT holy objet handed down from on high. It's right and proper to regulate them.

[TX-Beau]

FBI. NIH. NSI.

You know -- government agencies charged with keeping track of such things. The LOW estimate of the times annually people use firearms to protect themselves is in the hundreds of thousands. The HIGH end is around two and a half million.

So if the assertion were true, we'd have to have a murder rate also in the hundreds of thousands... or millions.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. So you don't have any way to substantiate your whack off fantasy.

[Kulindahr]

We're talking about constitutionality AND defense (which NOBODY EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER had a problem with) because you and the originator of this thread have Icon-ized guns to the point where you seem to be revering with religious significance.

Get over it. A gun is a tool, NOT holy objet handed down from on high. It's right and proper to regulate them.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. So you don't have any way to substantiate your whack off fantasy.

Congratulations -- you've completed your journey, and are now a benvolio.

[Stardreamer]

"Absolutely nothing" is not an "outcome." It's absolutely nothing.

The single most likely outcome of carrying a gun is that you or someone in your family will get killed by it. Period. Only an idiot would carry a gun for "protection" when the most likely outcome is that it will kill them.

Of course it is an outcome, by this logic one could ignore the that vast majority who operate a car every day without an accident and just point to the crash statistics to say that dying in an accident is the MOST likely outcome of operating a car. But we all know most people drive cars in the US and most people do not die in automotive accidents. Hell flying is the safest means of travel but if we use your methods it is statistically down right suicidal. To ignore 'nothing happened' as a potential statistical outcome is scientifically and statistically stupid.

[Kulindahr]

Of course it is an outcome, by this logic one could ignore the that vast majority who operate a car every day without an accident and just point to the crash statistics to say that dying in an accident is the MOST likely outcome of operating a car. But we all know most people drive cars in the US and most people do not die in automotive accidents. Hell flying is the safest means of travel but if we use your methods it is statistically down right suicidal. To ignore 'nothing happened' as a potential statistical outcome is scientifically and statistically stupid.

Actually the most statistically common result of automobile ownership is repair bills.

[T-Rexx]

^ Your point is that you think it a good idea to take a drug that is several times more likely to kill you or a family member than it ever is to help you in any way.

And you keep insisting that putting your own life and your family's lives at risk is a wonderful idea. That the more people who take this dangerous drug, the better! It's okay, because most people will finally survive the toxicity, while almost nobody will benefit!

Are you insane? Such a drug would be banned in every country on earth. No reputab

Your analogy with driving a car is ridiculous. Almost every time you go somewhere in a car, you derive some benefit from that journey. So, you balance enormous benefit against very, very limited risk. With guns, you balance very, very limited benefit with enormous risk.

Only an idiot would "protect" himself with a device that is far, far more likely to kill him than to shield him from harm.

[T-Rexx]

There is an old joke about a statistician who refused to ride on airplanes. He had calculated the probability of there being a bomb on a plane which he boarded. Although a minute probability, he decided that the risk was just not acceptable to him.

Then, one day, he began flying everywhere. His colleagues asked him what had changed.

He had calculated the probability of there being two bombs from two separate terrorists on the same plane. The chances were astronomically small. So, he just carried his own bomb with him wherever he flew.

Of course, the plane would be even safer if more than two people on board had brought bombs. And safest if everyone aboard had a bomb.

That is the logic of the gun lobby. That we are all safer when we are surrounded by as many potential explosions as possible.

[Rolyo85]

I will only point out that the court has never overturned any same-sex marriage bans either. Or - so far - DOMA. Courts' rules come from people, the "Court" is not some divine infallible institution. And people rule as the times dictate. America is STILL riddled with nut-jobs who revere guns. I imagine it was only more pronounced in the past.

[Stardreamer]

^ Your point is that you think it a good idea to take a drug that is several times more likely to kill you or a family member than it ever is to help you in any way.

And you keep insisting that putting your own life and your family's lives at risk is a wonderful idea. That the more people who take this dangerous drug, the better! It's okay, because most people will finally survive the toxicity, while almost nobody will benefit!

Are you insane? Such a drug would be banned in every country on earth. No reputab

Your analogy with driving a car is ridiculous. Almost every time you go somewhere in a car, you derive some benefit from that journey. So, you balance enormous benefit against very, very limited risk. With guns, you balance very, very limited benefit with enormous risk.

Only an idiot would "protect" himself with a device that is far, far more likely to kill him than to shield him from harm.

The vast majority of Americans do exactly that every day, its called caffeine.

[Laufey]

Sure but there aren't 15.000 homicides a year by caffeine poisoning.

[chrisrobin]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet.

The military at Pearl Harbor had a fair amount of arms at their disposal - more than any private citizen could have hoped for. How did that work out?

[Stardreamer]

The military at Pearl Harbor had a fair amount of arms at their disposal - more than any private citizen could have hoped for. How did that work out?

An excellent point about how circumstances could impact any situation but it would have taken only a very minor change such as the radar reports being taken seriously to have completely changed that outcome and then that firepower would have made a world of difference.

[Rolyo85]

An excellent point about how circumstances could impact any situation but it would have taken only a very minor change such as the radar reports being taken seriously to have completely changed that outcome and then that firepower would have made a world of difference.

Yeah, because nothing scares kamikadze bombers as much as handguns...

[T-Rexx]

The vast majority of Americans do exactly that every day, its called caffeine.

This is absolutely not true. Caffeine most emphatically does not kill people, unless it is deliberately ingested in concentrated industrial form as a suicide attempt. You can't kill yourself with the caffeine in a cup of coffee.

The benefits and risks of caffeine have been studied by the medical establishment for decades. The conclusion is that caffeine is generally a positive benefit for people who use it routinely.

I mean you no disrespect, stardreamer, but to compare the risk of guns to caffeine is beyond absurd. You people who argue for unrestricted gun distribution do not do yourselves credit by such illogic. You prove to the rest of us that your advocacy is driven by emotion, not reason.