"Just a Piece of Paper"

[Crazed Rabbit]

I hope you're not referring to locking it away from your kids or else I'll bring it up next time some kid makes a school shooting with the gun his dad had lying around on the kitchen table.

Kids should be educated about the responsibilities of firearms. Depending on circumstances, one might want to secure almost all firearms in a house, save for one for self defense.

You know, cutting glass isn't all that hard and doesn't make nearly as much noise. You know, there are intruders who don't intend to wake the whole neighborhood.

And yet so many people wake up when people are breaking into their house. Hmm.

Well, I doubt your gun would help a lot once he put several bullets into your back but then I don't know how many criminals there are who can aim properly.
I've also been told that drawing a gun when one is already pointed at you is rather suicidal.

Once again, assumptions fall to evidence. The facts simply are that resisting robbery with a gun gives you the best chance of survival.

In one incident, a man was being led into his house by armed scum. He pulled his gun, turned, shot, and drove them off, though he was shot in the process, but survived.

CR

[seireikhaan]

CR, out of curiosity, do you have any, I dunno, actual stats to base on your theories, or just a series of anecdotes? And if you do have such evidence, I'd also like to know from what locations they draw evidence from. There is evidence for both sides that to make their points. Hence why I think it ought to be state decisions, not broad, all-encompassing laws.

Also, are kids being educated about guns? Not really. Who's responisibility is it to do so? The parents? Or are we going to put the onus on schools to do so? In fact, why not just give school kids guns so that they can 'defend themselves' against bullies who want their lunch money? This way, everyone can be their own personal 'Punisher' from the age of seven onwards.

[Don Corleone]

I get so tired of these gun threads, because it's not a question of guns themselves. At the end of the day, with a couple of notable exceptions, the anti-gun crowd is almost always anti-self-defense in any form. If you want to wet your pants and cry and hope that inspires a crackhead who has the inclination to home-invade in the first place, be my guest, but don't try to force me to live that sort of life. People that would cower in fear and beg for their lives instead of even attempting to defend their wives and children almost deserve to be enslaved by the criminal element.

[seireikhaan]

I get so tired of these gun threads, because it's not a question of guns themselves. At the end of the day, with a couple of notable exceptions, the anti-gun crowd is almost always anti-self-defense. People that would cower in fear and beg for their lives instead of even attempting to defend their children almost deserve to be enslaved by the criminal element.

WHOOOOOAAAAAAAA. Lets slow down here, Don. I am in no way against defending yourself. That's not even an argument, thats you just trying to down a giant mudslide on people with different views than yourself. Why? Afraid of actual discussion? Afraid of people different than yourself? Also, I'd advise you to be REALLY careful with the word 'enslave'.

[Whacker]

If someone breaks into my house, I'm going into kill mode. No negotiating, no complying with wishes, no nothing. Kill. This is my home, my refuge, fortress, castle, etc, where I and my family live and are supposed to feel safe. Either they kill me, which means I've failed (duh), or they can try to survive by fleeing. If they stay and fight, that means that they have serious intentions and I'm going to kill them if I can.

I have a friend from northern Illinois who watched his uncle kill someone who was breaking into this house. They were downstairs watching TV, when they heard shotgun noises go off upstairs, the now-deceased thief was using his shotgun to get the pesky door out of the way. Both he and his family own quite a few guns which they hunt and target shoot with. The uncle gave him a shotgun, and he grabbed a .45 handgun, and went upstairs. Uncle walked around corner to thief reloading shotgun, and dropped him with two shots. The courts and county prosecutor ruled he acted in self defense and let him go after some very short legal proceedings. That's pretty much how I would have handled the situation, if I was in their shoes.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

he could also have used his bare fists and beaten them to death if he was strong enough...

but the point is that Man with gun more dangerous than -> Man

with Machete -> Man with bare hands..

Doesn't matter Ronin. SOmeone can kill you with a Gun, their Bare Fist, or a machete. So ok, Ban Guns. But what would he have used then? A Machete, and he might have got a bright idea to mabye hack their limbs off. Grusome yes, but the truth. So then what? Ban Machetes? I mean, come on.

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR, out of curiosity, do you have any, I dunno, actual stats to base on your theories

Why yes, yes I do:

"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)

See this table:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html

And if you do have such evidence, I'd also like to know from what locations they draw evidence from.

National (USA) Crime Surveys

Also, are kids being educated about guns? Not really. Who's responisibility is it to do so? The parents? Or are we going to put the onus on schools to do so?

We need to change the idea that such education is bad, first of all, spouted by the anti-gunners who love ignorance.

Hence why I think it ought to be state decisions, not broad, all-encompassing laws.

Do you also think states should be able to have their way with the right to free speech?

I am in no way against defending yourself.

Then why do you seem to be against the most effective form of self defense?

Why? Afraid of actual discussion? Afraid of people different than yourself?

You were the one just spouting the hyperbole about how apparently educating children is akin to starting a battle royale in the lunchroom.

CR

[seireikhaan]

In fact, Don, you know what, you're right. Lets let everyone who doesn't defend themself with force whenever they were under attack just be enslaved to their attackers. I mean, what the hell was Martin Luther King thinking? Non-violence? Not like that worked at all. And same with Ghandi! These guys just don't get it, obviously. And you know what, lets just let the Burmese govermnent have their way with those monks who wouldn't defend themselves against the police. /end sarcastic rant/

[Don Corleone]

WHOOOOOAAAAAAAA. Lets slow down here, Don. I am in no way against defending yourself. That's not even an argument, thats you just trying to down a giant mudslide on people with different views than yourself. Why? Afraid of actual discussion? Afraid of people different than yourself? Also, I'd advise you to be REALLY careful with the word 'enslave'.

Not you in the least. But ask Hore Tore sometime how he'd feel if I went after an intruder with a baseball bat or a golf club. He's not the only one. There's a large population out there that believes you shouldn't be able to defend yourself, period. Not everyone that believes in stripping people of their right to own guns believes this, but I'd say the majority, a distinct majority, believe this. If they didn't, they'd have no problems with pepper spray, tasers and other non-lethal forms of self-protection, right?

[Don Corleone]

In fact, Don, you know what, you're right. Lets let everyone who doesn't defend themself with force whenever they were under attack just be enslaved to their attackers. I mean, what the hell was Martin Luther King thinking? Non-violence? Not like that worked at all. And same with Ghandi! These guys just don't get it, obviously. And you know what, lets just let the Burmese govermnent have their way with those monks who wouldn't defend themselves against the police. /end sarcastic rant/

The reason their non-violent protests worked was because of the political ramifications of continuing to use violence against a non-violent protest. Do you think the average home-invader cares how his public image will suffer when this hits the press?

You do know that a lone policeman typically won't respond to a home invasion where the perp knows the house is occupied, and most police manuals advise against it, to wait for backup (which in a small town might be 1/2 an hour). Do you know why? Because the police, who study these things, know that people that invade homes they know to be occupied do it SPECIFICALLY to use violence, violence is not the means to an end for them. Begging them for your life, complying with their wishes... these things work with robbers and muggers. But a guy who breaks into a house he knows to be occupied? Even cops are afraid of those psychos and won't take them on one-on-one. Yet for some reason, we're supposed to try to reason with them?

[Slyspy]

These threads are so damn pointless. For crying out loud CR stop bringing the subject up!

[seireikhaan]

Don, the whole point of the rant was to be careful with the word 'enslave'. I do realize quite fully the scenarios I'm bring up and the ones we've been talking about aren't the same. I just have huge issues with slavery.

Anyways,

For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon."

You were saying, CR? I believe your evidence in fact points to using other devices as actually being more effective than using a gun in CONFRONTATIONAL robbery, the kind you and Don seem to like bring up. So clearly, guns aren't necessarily the best for house defense.

Do you also think states should be able to have their way with the right to free speech?

Do we really even have 'free' speech anyways? How 'bout that Patriot Act? Hell, people don't even have the right to dress as they please, look at what happens to American Muslims, they get treated like their freakin' convicted felons just for dressing like a Muslim. Contrary to what Fox may have told you, CR, not all Muslims are terrorists. Most are pretty regular people, who get sick and tired of people demanding they apologize for what crazed middle eastern Muslims, who interpret the Koran totally differently, did. But to answer your question, no, free speech should be a national law. The effectiveness of gun laws will vary from region to region, unlike free speech.

Then why do you seem to be against the most effective form of self defense?

See above.

You were the one just spouting the hyperbole about how apparently educating children is akin to starting a battle royale in the lunchroom.

You do realize I was not being serious with that, right? If not, then you truly are a diehard Republican. My point is this: You're claiming that people cannot rely on the police to help them. However, teachers basically double as police officers in school, in terms of enforcing discipline. By your logic, we should therefore be sending our kids to school with at the least a concealed handgun so they can 'defend' themselves from any potential bullies, since obviously teachers won't do anything. Now, I don't know about you, but I just don't quite trust the judgement of a seven year old enough to entrust sending them to school with firearms.

[English assassin]

The 2nd was written to create a last resort safeguard against tyranny.

That is not impossible today

CR, you SERIOUSLY need to upgrade your ideas of what a modern tyranny would look like.

These threads are so damn pointless. For crying out loud CR stop bringing the subject up!

I don't agree. Over the years I have changed my mind on this issue. (where's the drummer smilie gone?) The argument that if the government is going to deny you a means of self defence, they are under a duty actually to defend you seems to be a strong one. Given that the UK police do not in fact defend you, by what right are they saying that self defence is not an acceptable "good reason" foir a firearms licence? I can't see any good argument, anymore, for why (eg) a handgun should not be available on licence, subject to the existing UK FAC checks, to be held ONLY within your own house, or to and from a home office registered range for practice.

This is of course not what the Rabbit wants, but it would be very different to the existing UK situation too.

I still don't think I'd want one myself, but I think I should be allowed to choose.

[Slyspy]

CR, you SERIOUSLY need to upgrade your ideas of what a modern tyranny would look like.



I don't agree. Over the years I have changed my mind on this issue. (where's the drummer smilie gone?) The argument that if the government is going to deny you a means of self defence, they are under a duty actually to defend you seems to be a strong one. Given that the UK police do not in fact defend you, by what right are they saying that self defence is not an acceptable "good reason" foir a firearms licence? I can't see any good argument, anymore, for why (eg) a handgun should not be available on licence, subject to the existing UK FAC checks, to be held ONLY within your own house, or to and from a home office registered range for practice.

This is of course not what the Rabbit wants, but it would be very different to the existing UK situation too.

I still don't think I'd want one myself, but I think I should be allowed to choose.

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind). I'm in a minority by simply not caring about American gun control. I don't care for the ignorant Euros who are unable to see how deeply the gun is a part of American culture and I don't care for the gun lovers who fetishize the weapons or equate guns with freedom.

If they we legal here I would probably own and fire, for fun, a historical weapon or two. But they are not (with a few exceptions) and I don't really care.

It simply annoys me to see so many of these threads cluttering up the forum and causing bad blood for no real gain. I remember when gun threads were routinely closed. Now thats tyranny for you!

Now get off my lawn!

[Husar]

Well slyspy, why don't you use your freedom of choice and just don't look at gunthreads anymore?

[Productivity]

I get so tired of these gun threads, because it's not a question of guns themselves. At the end of the day, with a couple of notable exceptions, the anti-gun crowd is almost always anti-self-defense in any form. If you want to wet your pants and cry and hope that inspires a crackhead who has the inclination to home-invade in the first place, be my guest, but don't try to force me to live that sort of life. People that would cower in fear and beg for their lives instead of even attempting to defend their wives and children almost deserve to be enslaved by the criminal element.

I also get tired of these threads, but I'm curious as to where you are getting the notion that a majority of gun control advocates are against any form of self defence. Has anyone run a poll in the forum here to guage reactions? Are you up for putting that assertion to the test?

At the same time, the whole notion of carrying guns as planning ofr self defence seems ridiculous to me. I feel confident enough that home invasion is a significantly remote event that it is inherently flawed to plan for. If I was to plan for self defence against home invasion, to apply the same logic I would have to never fly again as given the rate I travel, I almost certainly have a higher probability of being involved in a fatal crash than having my home invaded.

Do you plan for every statistically remote event, or only when it suits your own line that you want to drive?

The whole line of we need guns for self defence is also legitimate only so far as self defence is required, which is a societal problem. Why is it that you feel so fearful of home invasion that you need to actively defend against it beyond standard implements (locks, windows etc.) and is this a problem?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind).

I can't say I have had my mind changed to any significant degree but I have certainly learned a lot about US ideas on the 2nd Amendment and the role of guns in the American view of things. CR and Don in particular have made good points that deserve reflection on several occasions.

It simply annoys me to see so many of these threads cluttering up the forum and causing bad blood for no real gain. I remember when gun threads were routinely closed. Now thats tyranny for you!

Ah but now all the moderators are fluffy bunny leftists* who wouldn't dream of curtailing the free speech of the liberal revolutionary anti-government erm, conservative gun lobbyists. BTW "Causing Bad Blood for No Real Gain" is the motto of the Backroom - T-shirts are available for very reasonable rates.

(Anyway, without gun threads we'd just have Evolution and Squid. )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*DevDave told me this so it must be true. And of course, the generalisation doesn't include Kukri, who has recently been revealed in the Politics thread to be Chinggis Khan's angrier cousin.

[Spetulhu]

There's a large population out there that believes you shouldn't be able to defend yourself, period. Not everyone that believes in stripping people of their right to own guns believes this, but I'd say the majority, a distinct majority, believe this. If they didn't, they'd have no problems with pepper spray, tasers and other non-lethal forms of self-protection, right?

You are right, there are some really messed-up people. The worst I happened to read about was this anti-gun couple who didn't want their kid's school to even mention the word "gun". Yup, not telling your child about guns means he won't get shot or threatened with firearms.

At the same time some pro-gunners sound like people that have no business living anywhere near normal people. Anyone as much as steps on their lawn, BLAM! I don't know about you, but I feel a bit uneasy about giving weapons to someone who publically brags about how he'd show no mercy to a burglar.

[English assassin]

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind).

DC's posts have been quite a part of it, actually, but I admit, being part of the UK shooting scene has been a part of it too. Gun control in this country is now so tight it is plainly nothing to do with reducing crime, and plainly everything to do with just banning stuff for the sake of it. Go back to Dunblane. The local police wrote to Hamilton's firearms licensing officers saying he was a nut and his licence should be revoked. Nothing was done, with the consequence we all remember. Do you (a) sack the police licensing officers who did not do their job or (b) revoke 40,000 firearms licences held by people who had given no cause for concern?

Here's another one. As Tribesman regularly points out, you can in fact get a s.5 licence for a pistol for self defence in this country. Guess what happens if you already hold a s.1 fireams licence or s.2 shotgun certificate, and you write to the home office, using the correct Home Office forms, to ask them to consider the grant of a s.5 licence?

They revoke your s.1/s.2 licences, that's what. If you think you are under threat, its evidence you cannot be trusted with a firearm. But unless you are under threat, you could not be granted a s.5 licence*. Someone at the home office must be a Heller fan.

The Americans are right. You register guns, sooner or later they will be prohibited. I'm sorry about that, but any complaints should be addressed c/o the Houses of Parliament, not to me.

*pedants note: other than for humane dispatch AFAIK

[Crazed Rabbit]

On the subject of banning things for the sake of banning things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

A prominent anti-gun congresswoman gets questioned on her bill, and doesn't know what the things in it she's banning are. Also note the lie about semiautomatic rifles being used frequently, instead of in 3% of homicides (which includes all rifles).

They revoke your s.1/s.2 licences, that's what.

And they probably don't even give you your pistol license.

At the same time, the whole notion of carrying guns as planning ofr self defence seems ridiculous to me. I feel confident enough that home invasion is a significantly remote event that it is inherently flawed to plan for.

I don't care one way or the other, the choice is yours (assuming you live in a place like America). I only mind when people try to force those ideas on me.

As could be seen in this thread, people are told we should 'rely on police' to protect us. I asked and have received no answer as to how police can stop a man breaking into your house.

CR

[Whacker]

After reading some posts and chatting with the liberal leftist crybaby pacifist Husar (I'm kidding mate) on IRC, I'd like to clarify my stance.

*IF*.. IF one can flee safely with all family members (including pets), then I would probably be inclined to take that route. However, I live in a two story house, and when we eventually do have children, they will obviously be sleeping down the hall on the 2nd story with us. Jumping 6-8 yards down to the ground with wife/children/dog is not feasible, the only safe way out would be downstairs, where the burglar/potential rapist/murderer is. In this case, our only way out would be through them. Again if they hear us upstairs and flee, then clearly all they wanted was our possessions. If they hear us and stay or advance, then obviously they've got other things in mind, hence I am going to kill them with whatever means I have possible, no warnings, no negotiations, no nothing.

Also, to build on one of Don's earlier observations, it would indeed seem that most of the pacifist crowd appear to be single teenage males, unmarried and without children.

Edit - I would also like to put forth that personally, I hate real violence. Video games, tv, etc, that's fine and not real. Real violence is something I go to lengths to avoid. However, the point at which I would kill is when someone breaks into my home and more than likely intends to do Very Bad Things© to my family. Everyone has a point at which they'd kill, it just differs.

[lars573]

I have a friend from northern Illinois who watched his uncle kill someone who was breaking into this house. They were downstairs watching TV, when they heard shotgun noises go off upstairs, the now-deceased thief was using his shotgun to get the pesky door out of the way. Both he and his family own quite a few guns which they hunt and target shoot with. The uncle gave him a shotgun, and he grabbed a .45 handgun, and went upstairs. Uncle walked around corner to thief reloading shotgun, and dropped him with two shots. The courts and county prosecutor ruled he acted in self defense and let him go after some very short legal proceedings. That's pretty much how I would have handled the situation, if I was in their shoes.

And here this uncle might have been charged with murder. More likely manslaughter. But for sure for sure 2 firearms violantions (improper use of a firearm and discharging it in unlawful way ). And he could have kissed those pistols good-bye, probably forever. As being charged with a crime negates your priviledge (and it is a priviledge) to own a pistol. Cops would have grabbed them and melted them.

[English assassin]

And they probably don't even give you your pistol license

Yes, sorry, that was so obvious from a UK perspective I forgot to mention it. Although self defence is in principle a lawful reason to want to own a firearm, actually wanting a firearm for self defence disqualifies you from owning one. Hence the reference to catch 22.

Oh, and none of this is enshrined in legislation. Its all conveniently unaccountable "practice". Like the requirement that all firearms must be stored in a safe that will resist an attack by a safe breaker for a minimum of 30 minutes, you won't find that in any legislation either. And so on.

[Husar]

And here this uncle might have been charged with murder. More likely manslaughter. But for sure for sure 2 firearms violantions (improper use of a firearm and discharging it in unlawful way ). And he could have kissed those pistols good-bye, probably forever. As being charged with a crime negates your priviledge (and it is a priviledge) to own a pistol. Cops would have grabbed them and melted them.

You know, in some countries it's best to kill an intruder and feed his remains to stray dogs and other animals or bury him in the garden though I think the former is more advisable.

I think Whacker has a rather healthy opinion on the matter.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And here this uncle might have been charged with murder. More likely manslaughter. But for sure for sure 2 firearms violantions (improper use of a firearm and discharging it in unlawful way ). And he could have kissed those pistols good-bye, probably forever. As being charged with a crime negates your priviledge (and it is a priviledge) to own a pistol. Cops would have grabbed them and melted them.

It's unlawful to defend yourself with a gun?

And merely being charged with a crime means the authorities can take your possessions?


CR

[English assassin]

And merely being charged with a crime means the authorities can take your possessions?

Do keep up CR. Here in the UK I know of a teacher in Scotland who upset a parent, so that the parent threatened to come round and do him. The teacher reported the threat to the police. The police came round double quick to the teachers house and confiscated his shotgun.

Yes, that's right, someone else makes threats, and they take YOUR shotgun.

You can see how exposure to a few years of these stories gradually changes your views on gun control.

(I knows you want to know the end of the story: the police said he could have his shotgun back......IF he wrote a letter of apology to the parent who had threatened him. Seriously, you can't make it up.)

[Watchman]

Around here the country's crawling with rifles and shotguns for hunting, and you can actually get a hunting permit at age 15 or something. Aside from hunters occasionally gunning down someone's cow or, more rarely, each other, this mainly shows up as the cops occasionally having to siege basckwoods hillbillies gone nuts in some out-of-the-way village.
Such incidents are over nine times out of ten resolved by flatly outlasting the guy and talking sense into him. The state equivalent to a SWAT team sometimes has to wound the more stubborn cases to disable them though.

Also, folks in the countryside fairly often commit suicide with the aforementioned guns, sometimes killing their families first (most suicidees are loners tho').

The legislative stance on pistols and other small personal firearms, however, is roughly "no you don't". Seems to keep firearms involvement in crime and violence down quite nicely; indeed, about the only ones who ever conduct armed robberies and such with a gun tend to be hardened career criminals, and professional enough to know engaging in violence unless absolutely necessary mainly just screws you over as the cops will give the case a priority.

The law's also pretty strict about the acceptable use of force in self-defense.

'Course, our law enforcement also actually does its job properly, which seems to do wonders to deter crime but apparently isn't the case everywhere. Mind, they also have very strict rules and controls about their own use of firearms; apparently this is a developement of the decades since Seventies, before which the issue wasn't actually monitored at all and it is generally suspected officers may have been a fair bit too trigger-happy in tense spots...
...which rather reminded me of some of the things I've read about US cops' training and mentality re guns.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do keep up CR. Here in the UK I know of a teacher in Scotland who upset a parent, so that the parent threatened to come round and do him. The teacher reported the threat to the police. The police came round double quick to the teachers house and confiscated his shotgun.

Yes, that's right, someone else makes threats, and they take YOUR shotgun.

You can see how exposure to a few years of these stories gradually changes your views on gun control.

(I knows you want to know the end of the story: the police said he could have his shotgun back......IF he wrote a letter of apology to the parent who had threatened him. Seriously, you can't make it up.)

Good grief. The truth is stranger than fiction.

How...did such a crazed view take hold? I mean, I've read a bit on how British police regulations on owning guns changed from WWII to the present, with self defense becoming an unsuitable reason decades ago, but that just takes the cake...

[lars573]

It's unlawful to defend yourself with a gun?

It's a case by case grey area to kill an assailant. But the two types of infractions I cited were about shooting a gun in populated area (this is illegal), and having a loaded gun in your home (also illegal).

And merely being charged with a crime means the authorities can take your possessions?

If you loose the priviledge of owning them, yes "the man" can seize them. Under Canadian laws there are three classes for weapons. Prohibited, restircted, and unrestricted. All pistols are restricted. Like any firearm you have to register the gun, and have a license. But a pistol license has all kinds of riders and top of the list is a crminal record and probity check. You have to be a member of a gun club, and 2 others. But if your charged with a crime, you void rule #1. Thus you lose the priviledge of owning a pistol(s). And you loose the pistols too.

Also about 10 years ago more and more Walthers and Lugers started turning up on the collectors market in the U.S. They came from Canadian pistol owners who managed to get them out of the country before their date with the smelter.

[Don Corleone]

You know, I'd like to disabuse some of you of some of the misconceptions you appear to be laboring under. I think I'm about as prototypical a 'gun nut' as exists out there. I own handguns (with license), shotguns and rifles. I hunt, I shoot for sport, and I am prepared to defend my home.

- I don't play first person shooters. When I first met Mrs. Corleone about 10 years ago, she caught me playing GTA3. Now, her brothers are cops, and cop-killing is a big part of that game, but she made some rather valid points.

- I hold a permit to carry concealed. I have never carried concealed in my life. I hold my permit so that I won't be arrested and tossed in the pen for 3 years on a felony weapons charge driving to a shooting range with my pistols locked in a case in the trunk.

- I do not believe defense of property is a valid reason for shooting someone. But I do believe that if somebody is in your house, when they know you are there (and awake and shouting at them for that matter), they are not simple burglars.

-My home defense plan actually doesn't involve handguns. Mrs. Corleone stands at the top of the stairs with a 12 gauge with a skeet barrel and 1 1/2 oz turkey loads (enough to put anybody to the ground, but you'd have to be up close to be seriously wounded). My job is to stand on the stairs with a handgun within reach but a bat in hand.

-I live in a town of 4000 in relatively rural southern New Hampshire. There were 4 home invasions with violence within 10 miles within the past year. Crime statistics say I actually live in a low crime area.

-Now, Productivity made a good point about playing odds. But there's a difference between a sense of control and random odds. We all drive every day, and the odds of dying in a car crash are exponentially higher than dying in a plane crash. But why does everyone 'take note' when the plane takes off the ground? Because you're not in control. I will not surrender my ability to control my destiny, and I certainly won't ask my wife to when she lives alone in the woods with as much traveling as I do.

If you live in a country where violence is inconsequential, I salute you. I think that's terrific, I really do. But I suspect, you're in as much denial as you accuse somebody like me of living in.