Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are talking about individual freedom to commit violence. I don't see it as amplifying the choice.

I accept that you do not see it as amplifying the choice. I and others argue that there is insufficient benefit to the public good to allow the state to infringe upon our freedom to use firearms for recreational purposes, use firearms for hunting, use firearms for pest control in rural areas and use firearms or other types of violence to respond to violence directed or threatened against our persons.

I do concur that there is sufficient public good in firearms safety regulations, required training for people wanting to use firearms in the public domain, waiting periods for handguns and background checks that I am willing to accept these as limitations on personal freedom.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I didn't mention suicides, but it's hard to deny that guns can be and are used for suicide. No stats seem necessary; we have heard news reports all our lives that guns are used for that purpose, over and over again.

The current evidence indicates that the absence of firearms does not dissuade suicidal people from completing a suicide - they simply find another means.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Relative stats on "Lives lost" is a curious idea to me. If self-defense was not effectively used in an attack, for example, that could mean that a gun was not used; it could also mean that the dozens of other methods available were not used. All these kinds of stats seem to me to be used to confuse things. I have posted stats that show societies with more guns and less control equals more murders.

Yes, you and I have gone through your data. In fact, here's a refresher on my counter to your first rebuttal of cost / benefit data that I provided.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

I was glad to see that % of households with guns has actually declined from the 1970s and 80s, thanks largely to there being more female heads of households. The % is now about 37% and decades ago was about 45-50%. Maybe my hyperbole about barbaric America doesn't entirely hold! I hope so. On the other hand, the more lenient concealed weapons laws these days still give me pause. In any case, I don't think I want to hang around in places like Alabama, where over 60% of households have guns, with very lenient concealed carry laws! Not to mention the "southern culture of violence."

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Let's assume that Hemenway (your source) is correct. This would then follow that Kleck's analysis that guns save 65 lives to every 1 lost should be reduced to guns save 6.5 lives to every 1 lost.

Unless you are arguing that Kleck's analysis should be reduced 65 times or more, these numbers still support an argument that availability of guns saves more lives that it costs, even when including the suicides.

Excluding the suicides, since there is evidence (see previous postings) that suicides are not deterred by absence of guns, then the reduction in Kleck's analysis needs to be even greater, perhaps over two orders of magnitude greater.

You then decided you wanted to completely disregard Kleck (my original source) thus nullifying my argument that Hemenway's data (your source) still did not support your hypothesis. I countered with:

Originally Posted by RyanJH

All right Eric, for the sake of discussion, let's completely disregard Kleck.

Instead let's use the 2002 Task Force on Community Preventative Services to the CDC on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Reducing Violence: Firearms Laws.

<--For the sake of brevity I removed most of the original extract-->

In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed (Table).

<-------Extract Ends--------->

My problems with adopting more aggressive gun controls or banning guns as a solution to our violence problems are threefold.

First, most gun control proponents only address the costs to society of firearms and fail to address the benefits side of the equation or if they do so, they address it on a theoretical basis only. I am a Gen Xer, show me the evidence.

Second, even if we disregard Kleck's studies or any others of a similar nature, there is not sufficient evidence to establish causality between gun regulation / banning and reductions in violence. Note, there is sufficient evidence to indicate implementing safety regulations, when done under the right conditions, will reduce accidental firearms deaths.

By the way, I concede that there is a correlation between non-violent cultures and the prevalence of weapons in that culture. The evidence I have reviewed indicates that non-violent cultures simply choose not to have a whole bunch of weapons, not that removing weapons from a violent culture induces them to become non-violent. Usually, violent cultures find new weapons when the old weapons become unavailable.

Third, the struggle between the opponents and proponents of gun control as a primary solution to violence in America distracts efforts from addressing the real root causes for our violence problems.

If you responded this post I missed it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Guns are used for violence, and for no other purpose. Possession of guns is a threat to use them. There is no other reason to have a workable firearm than to use it, or to practice using it for a future occasion-- which again means, to use it. To use it, is violence.

I can concede portions of this statement and disagree with other portions, but won't since I can see no relevance to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That other means of violence also exist, is irrelevant. Our bodies are possible weapons; we can't ban our bodies. Guns are not necessary; our bodies are. So are knives. Taking away weapons from people doesn't make them non-violent. But giving people easy access to weapons that make violence easier to do, causes violence.

True - but as previously noted, lives saved by firearms vs. lives lost by firearms is not meaningless in a violent society and I think it must be addressed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Labeling people as "violent" or "not violent", or "law-abiding" or not, is nonsense. The same person may be violent one time and non-violent the next.

Also, true but irrelevant. One can assemble a model of the "violent" / "not violent" / "law-abiding" elements of society that contributes to the discussion. All models fail at some point when approaching reality, that does not make them nonsense.

As an aside, its interesting to note that many conservatives argue against 'global warming' because the modeling isn't reality. I counter that when the model is close enough to provide relatively good predictive results, like the global warming model, than its useful, even when it fails often. However, if the model does not provide good predictive results, like your data on some societies with more guns and less controls equals more murders, then other factors need to be examined. There are too many counter examples (see previous posts) to make your model / hypothesis useful.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Given that stats are so often used to support one side or the other, and can be interpreted in many ways, and can fail to take many other factors into account, I say stats are useful, but are not a substitute for also having a clear ability to observe and to have good ethical principles rationally-developed. You are using rational risk analysis to support use of violence. I am skeptical of this. The stats I posted are different than the ones you posted. Yours are no better, and only showed lack of conclusive evidence iirc.

I wasn't trying to show that more / less guns or gun control resulted in more or less violence. In fact, I was arguing that there is insufficient correlation to rationally decide to answer our violence problems with additional gun controls gun bans.

I do NOT think availability of guns is a significant root cause for violence in the United States. In my opinion, the significant root causes to our violence problems involves: young white / black men aged 14-24 (particularly when NOMADS make up most of this group) with low socio-economic options in mostly urban areas with poor civic institutions. Additional gun controls / gun bans will be ineffective and waste resources that should be spent addressing the significant root causes listed above.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think the answer is to minimize violence in all possible ways. It is clear that use of guns results in all the things I stated. Just which things are more common than which, seems irrelevant to me, when it is clear that they are all common, and which things happen most commonly changes from time to time.

I remain unconvinced of the clarity of your argument but will be fully supportive of addressing violence by addressing the significant root causes listed above.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I like that at least your discussion is "rational" rather than based on fear and prejudice, and you at least say you are open-minded. On the other hand, reason is not our only tool to determine truth and goodness.

Thank you and I concur that reason is not the only tool to determine truth and goodness. I probably use reason more than you do as a result of my disgust while observing the damage overly ideological based behavior has and is doing to our country. My own little attempt to "restore sanity."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I won't reply to most of your arguments; the part about the unarmed burglar is a good correction, but I covered that in the part about someone stronger who attacks you; yes "or" is fine. But your statements of false or irrelevant I just disagree and let my statements stand.

OK.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I mentioned many more possibilities than these. Murder or attempted murder (of whatever degree or justification, meaning use of a firearm) should be the last resort, not the 4th.

Your comments indicate that you mean higher injury to yourself. But firearms will always mean a higher injury rate to the attacker, so they are the most violent and last resort.

I disagree. Unfortunately, most of the data supporting my arguments, derived from government sources, has been published by authors you have already found objectionable. It may take me some time to find a comprehensive, peer reviewed academic or professional study from an author you might find valid. If I did would it contribute to our discussion or should I save myself the effort as it may not be germane to your position?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Giving people easy means to be violent, and making it easier for people to rely on for protection instead of on civilization, is to make a more barbaric society. Which is what America is.

That may be part of the cost of having a core value of 'freedom" with so many disparate cultures living in close proximity to one another, exacerbated by the fact that large portions of at least two of these cultures are predisposed to violence.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are misinterpreting my comment. Of course a ban would be enforced. My point is that it would be easier to enforce is there is a broad consensus in favor of a ban; unlike today where you have folks like some here who say they would resist if someone tries to take their gun away.

Misunderstood rather than misinterpreted. I concede that a gun ban would be easier to enforce where people, as you say, "have been convinced non-violently, and by persuasion, that non-violence is better." My overall point is that you can't get there without addressing the significant root causes to American violence first. The availability of guns may exacerbate that violence, but attempting to eliminate guns before the violence is addressed can not provide you with your desired broad consensus. Eliminate the violence first and gun availability will decline as fewer people see violence and its tools as a solution to their problems.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We agree that far. But that means you are not a "gun control opponent" as I would define it.

Discussion about a "ban," in my opinion now, is discussion about the ethical question of should I possess and rely on guns. I say no.

Eric, I respect your decision. FWIW, I do not currently own any firearms because the risk of having one in the house is higher than the risk I will need to engage in self defense. However, should I find myself living or working in an much higher risk environment, I would, and have in the past, armed myself.

Ethically speaking I will be less likely to have to kill if I have a firearm than if I don't in a high threat environment as evidence indicates that the tiered self defense approach I described in my previous posting is the most effective way to conduct self defense for both parties. The gun is a powerful deterrent and unfortunately most other weapons have very low deterrent value.

This may not make sense at first glance but lets examine two cases, one where the defender uses the tiered self defense approach with a firearm and one where a defender uses the tiered self defense approach without a firearm but is a trained martial artist.

In the first case, our defender fails to avoid or deter an attacker. Non forceful resistance is not available (One of my senseis used to call this "run do" and "whistle do"). Falling to the fourth level, our defender displays and aims the firearm but does not engage unless forced to. A study the FBI had done states that this type of resistance resulted in fatalities in 17% of their sample cases while no resistance resulted in fatalities in 22% of their sample cases.

In the second case the encounter has a 5% higher probability of ending up in a fatality if no resistance is offered and much higher probabilities, depending on type of forceful resistance used, of fatalities. This is why the Tiered Approach to Self Defense has resistance with a firearm higher than no resistance or resistance by other means. It actually produces fewer deaths in these encounters and thus is the more ethical choice.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Gun control opponents think any gun control law will inevitably lead to a ban. This is like saying requiring drivers to get a license will lead to a ban on cars. If people like Galen think that government officials can't be trusted to carry out the law as written, and will use it to be more restrictive than the law allows, then once again they are defending anarchy and throwing out the constitution-- the 2nd amendment of which they claim to be protecting.

I know they can't be trusted since I grew up in a place where the cops were dealing drugs despite laws to the contrary. Then there is that small matter of the misnamed PATRIOT act that among other things pretty much finishes off the fourth amendment requirement of search warrants, indeed it allows the FBI to write their own which I believe the Founders objected to when the British did it. Then there was the little matter of warrant-less wiretaps that the great Obama seems to be continuing.

I give you the following quote from Douglas Adams for you to contemplate on how people handle power and the inadvisability on letting anyone have a monopoly on the use force:

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

This quote from Douglas Adams I think describes you about as well as anything he ever wrote.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Calling 911 and hoping is not a plan - all the real (non-training) altercations I have been involved in (three personal ones and several I responded to when I interned as an EMT for a summer) usually had the EMTs on scene before the police and always after the violence was over.

WHAT??!! You went on scene BEFORE the police? I've been responding to 911 calls for over four years now, and we NEVER intentionally go on a scene before law enforcement arrival where there is any chance of violence.

Originally Posted by TnT

WHAT??!! You went on scene BEFORE the police? I've been responding to 911 calls for over four years now, and we NEVER intentionally go on a scene before law enforcement arrival where there is any chance of violence.

I should have said we showed up before the police but did not go on scene before they showed up and declared it safe. My point was that in many cases where there are actual injuries / fatalities, they usually occur before government first responders arrive. I regret the confusion.

Since you don't trust government, there's no difference between one ban and another, or one law and another. So discussion of gun bans is not relevant to you; you are against all laws.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

...most of the data supporting my arguments, derived from government sources, has been published by authors you have already found objectionable. It may take me some time to find a comprehensive, peer reviewed academic or professional study from an author you might find valid. If I did would it contribute to our discussion or should I save myself the effort as it may not be germane to your position?

Probably not, but others might find it interesting. This is a group discussion. But I think it is obvious that guns are the most violent and dangerous option. I understand your stats, but they are of limited value. Conditions and times change, so stats change; plus too many other factors are left out. The downside of using guns extends beyond how effective they are as self-defense.

That may be part of the cost of having a core value of 'freedom" with so many disparate cultures living in close proximity to one another, exacerbated by the fact that large portions of at least two of these cultures are predisposed to violence.

That may be. We really have a misunderstanding of what freedom is. Freedom is not owning guns; guns are a means to infringe on others' freedom, just as unregulated business and wealth are. These "cultures" must include southern and mountain whites.

My overall point is that you can't get there without addressing the significant root causes to American violence first. The availability of guns may exacerbate that violence, but attempting to eliminate guns before the violence is addressed can not provide you with your desired broad consensus. Eliminate the violence first and gun availability will decline as fewer people see violence and its tools as a solution to their problems.

Bob Butler made that point too. I agree, but not necessarily the "first" part. As well as the other problems, we need to work toward eliminating guns, and we can start by controlling them, and persuading people that violence (including possession and use of guns) is not the way to deal with our problems. But I agree the first place to start is not to try to ban guns, as I said. We're not ready for that.

Eric, I respect your decision. FWIW, I do not currently own any firearms because the risk of having one in the house is higher than the risk I will need to engage in self defense. However, should I find myself living or working in a much higher risk environment, I would, and have in the past, armed myself.

Good, and I think staying out of such risky environments is a good way to avoid these dangers, if you can.

Ethically speaking I will be less likely to have to kill if I have a firearm than if I don't in a high threat environment as evidence indicates that the tiered self defense approach I described in my previous posting is the most effective way to conduct self defense for both parties. The gun is a powerful deterrent and unfortunately most other weapons have very low deterrent value.

It's true, the more dangerous the weapon, the greater the deterrent. But I would think if someone knows that there is mace or karate or a dog in a house, it would be an effective deterrent. Let people know.

I continue to argue that making violence easier and more ready to hand, adds to violence. More determined people may find others way; they may not be as effective. Others will be deterred, since in their moment of anger there won't be a weapon handy. We hear about lots of cases like that.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

First of all, in reply to Ryan, looking at that list, which I had looked at myself just a few days ago, there seems to be a high correlation between urbanization and gun violence. Vermont and North Dakota have nothing in common except that they have no cities, and that's the only way I could possibly explain their low gun violence rate. Forty years ago, the professor I referred to did tell us that southern states had higher homicide rates than northern states with the same degree of urbanization. Whether that's still true I haven't tried to figure out.

Professor Kaiser,

I just came across the piece from the New York Times that, if accurate, provides some insight on this subject. The entire article is fascinating but the material relevant to your observation is:

When Bettencourt and West analyzed the negative variables of urban life, like crime and disease, they discovered that the exact same mathematical equation applied. After a city doubles in size, it also experiences a 15 percent per capita increase in violent crimes, traffic and AIDS cases. (Of course, these trends are only true in general. Some cities can bend the equations with additional cops or strict pollution regulations.) “What this tells you is that you can’t get the economic growth without a parallel growth in the spread of things we don’t want,” Bettencourt says. “When you double the population, everything that’s related to the social network goes up by the same percentage.”

Originally Posted by RyanJH

I should have said we showed up before the police but did not go on scene before they showed up and declared it safe. My point was that in many cases where there are actual injuries / fatalities, they usually occur before government first responders arrive. I regret the confusion.

Sure. That happens. In fact, I've called for police support on four occasions when we ran into issues while on scene and they didn't get there in any case before we figured out another way to handle the situation. I'm just glad that there were no guns involved in any of the four situations.

Originally Posted by TnT

Sure. That happens. In fact, I've called for police support on four occasions when we ran into issues while on scene and they didn't get there in any case before we figured out another way to handle the situation. I'm just glad that there were no guns involved in any of the four situations.

So am I. They would have shown up just in time to draw the chalk outlines. This would have been true if knives or baseball bats were involved as well.

A Dummycrat Senate candidate is calling for violence in the recent union protests.

"its time to get bloody" according to him.....

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...when-necessary

Originally Posted by Weave

A Dummycrat Senate candidate is calling for violence in the recent union protests.

"its time to get bloody" according to him.....

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...when-necessary

Oh, are we now considering figures of speech to be actual threats of violents again, now that someone you disagree with is doing it?

If this is a call for violence, then Sarah Palin is an accessory to murder. Of course, both are absurd, but what the hey.

Originally Posted by Galen

So am I. They would have shown up just in time to draw the chalk outlines. This would have been true if knives or baseball bats were involved as well.

No. It would not have been the same in those four situations if knives or baseball bats were involved. An ambulance serves as a really good fort, only better, it drives away. In our four police-less cases, we were able to retreat to the ambulance, and bring our patient with us in three out of the four, and get the hell out of dodge. With guns, it's a whole different story.

I saw a report today on the news that the shooting of a federal agent in Mexico by a machine gun purchased in the USA is becoming even more of a scandal in some quarters than the Giffords shooting. Apparently the ATF was following the sale of hundreds of such weapons to gun runners, but they allowed the sales to go through so they could follow the trail. Sure enough, those in the ATF who loudly protested this policy were right; one of those weapons was used to kill an American, not to mention many Mexicans. What is going on? I suspect it's because the ATF felt compelled to "prove" that weapons for the Mexican drug war are coming from the USA, but the pressure from gun control opponents (including at least one poster I was discussing this issue with on this thread) to deny the obvious, that the guns are coming from America. This war is stamped "Made in USA." Both our gun market and our drug market are to blame. I think this could be one of the nations that could be subject to American intervention, along with the Middle East, as the 12-year US intervention cycle comes around again in 2012-2013.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I saw a report today on the news that the shooting of a federal agent in Mexico by a machine gun purchased in the USA is becoming even more of a scandal in some quarters than the Giffords shooting. Apparently the ATF was following the sale of hundreds of such weapons to gun runners, but they allowed the sales to go through so they could follow the trail. Sure enough, those in the ATF who loudly protested this policy were right; one of those weapons was used to kill an American, not to mention many Mexicans. What is going on? I suspect it's because the ATF felt compelled to "prove" that weapons for the Mexican drug war are coming from the USA, but the pressure from gun control opponents (including at least one poster I was discussing this issue with on this thread) to deny the obvious, that the guns are coming from America. This was is stamped "Made in USA." Both our gun market and our drug market are to blame. I think this could be one of the nations that could be subject to American intervention, along with the Middle East, as the 12-year US intervention cycle comes around again in 2012-2013.

We need to have a federal law that provides a long prison sentence to anyone who attempts to smuggle firearms into Mexico from the United States -- or start enforcing such a law if it already exists.

And, oh are you right about American addicts!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I suspect it's because the ATF felt compelled to "prove" that weapons for the Mexican drug war are coming from the USA...

-I proved you wrong on that long ago:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...Many of those guns are taken from the Mexican government (stolen or "bought"). As I posted before, most come from places other than the US:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-small-fraction-guns-mexico-come/

The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market...

-- Russian crime organizations...

- South America...

-- Asia...

-- The Mexican Army (as I previously posted)... Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

-- Guatemala...

You stand corrected.

You're welcome...

You're welcome. Again.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...but the pressure from gun control opponents (including at least one poster I was discussing this issue with on this thread) to deny the obvious, that the guns are coming from America...

...no, it would have been proponents of gun control who would have pushed the BATF's scheme in order to provide ammunition for their bogus arguments.

Congragulations.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

We have already had this discussion, and I said then that I thought such situations were so hypothetical, and so unusual, that they should not determine public policy. However, I do not think Weber would have tried to ban immediate self-defense if one is under attack.

A bit late to respond to this one however it recently came to my attention that there is a book written on this very subject. It is called "Dial 911 and Die" written by Richard Stevens.

http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-R.../dp/0964230445

The book is made up of true (that is to say not "hypothetical") stories of police either arriving late or failing to respond at all to 911 calls reporting violent crimes.

Perhaps you would like to check it out David.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

A bit late to respond to this one however it recently came to my attention that there is a book written on this very subject. It is called "Dial 911 and Die" written by Richard Stevens.

http://www.amazon.com/Dial-911-Die-R.../dp/0964230445

The book is made up of true (that is to say not "hypothetical") stories of police either arriving late or failing to respond at all to 911 calls reporting violent crimes.

Perhaps you would like to check it out David.

I don't doubt the author was in earnest, nor that he could put together a book worth of absolutely true horrific incidents. However, there are other authors equally earnest, equally truthful, who will list equally horrific tales of what happens when a deadly weapon is stored in a house unsecured, or when the owner isn't emotionally mature, sane, trained in the handling of weapons, or careful.

There are many aspects of the gun question. One can look at modern law as interpreted by the courts, the intent of the founding fathers, statistics, deeply held personal values, and horror stories about what can go wrong in either direction. I'm not saying that the horror stories are irrelevant. I will suggest that those who hold strong values are apt to find the other faction's horror stories irrelevant.

But no doubt about it, there is a surplus of horror stories on both sides. I have just found that human beings will find the other side's horror stories unlikely, irrelevant or otherwise not worth considering while the opposite side's stories strike a deep intense and unshakable chord.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't doubt the author was in earnest, nor that he could put together a book worth of absolutely true horrific incidents. However, there are other authors equally earnest, equally truthful, who will list equally horrific tales of what happens when a deadly weapon is stored in a house unsecured, or when the owner isn't emotionally mature, sane, trained in the handling of weapons, or careful.

There are many aspects of the gun question. One can look at modern law as interpreted by the courts, the intent of the founding fathers, statistics, deeply held personal values, and horror stories about what can go wrong in either direction. I'm not saying that the horror stories are irrelevant. I will suggest that those who hold strong values are apt to find the other faction's horror stories irrelevant.

But no doubt about it, there is a surplus of horror stories on both sides. I have just found that human beings will find the other side's horror stories unlikely, irrelevant or otherwise not worth considering while the opposite side's stories strike a deep intense and unshakable chord.

That's fine. David may choose to read it or ignore it. That is his decision, not mine. David's belief is that police not responding to criminal complaints is hypothetical. I am simply introducing evidence to the contrary. People on either side of the argument can do with it what they will.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

David's belief is that police not responding to criminal complaints is hypothetical. I am simply introducing evidence to the contrary.

You are aware, no doubt, that presenting evidence which runs counter to a Boomer's opinions or feelings is among the worst of sins you could commit?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You are aware, no doubt, that presenting evidence which runs counter to a Boomer's opinions or feelings is among the worst of sins you could commit?

I have always had a real talent for sinning.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

David's belief is that police not responding to criminal complaints is hypothetical. I am simply introducing evidence to the contrary. People on either side of the argument can do with it what they will.

Cards on the table ... I'm a gun owner, and I have no intent of not being a gun owner.

However ...

This notion that having guns in my home protects me in any practical sense is simply not true.

The probability of someone breaking down my door, or breaking through a locked window while I am in the house is relatively small. Sure it happens to people, but still, the probability is small.

If that's what I'm worried about, the only real way to use my firearms to protect me, is to have them near at hand, most or all of the time.

I've done some careful self-examination, and I find that the change in my personality when I have a handgun on my person is not the sort of change that I want to live with, day in and day out. I don't like the sense of hyper-vigilance that a handgun in a holster on my belt seems to force upon me. It decreases my quality of life.

If our societal environment changes and things get a lot more dangerous, then perhaps I will consider going to DEFCON 3. But not now.

I went shooting with a friend last saturday.
It was much like every time I've taken in some shooting practice since moving to SC.We drove for a while to get to the range. Bought some practice ammno (it's cheaper) and did our best with the target. Being as I don't get to practice often, I start out rusty but within a few practice shots, I've got my aim back.
To me shooting isn't really about fun. It's about being as prepared as I can for an experience that I never want to have but feel the need to be ready for.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

That's fine. David may choose to read it or ignore it. That is his decision, not mine. David's belief is that police not responding to criminal complaints is hypothetical. I am simply introducing evidence to the contrary. People on either side of the argument can do with it what they will.

It is interesting how hard it is for people with an agenda to quote their opponents accurately. I said both hypothetical and unusual. And Bob Butler is right. Just because something happens very occasionally is no reason to pass laws or take personal action to take care of that very unlikely contingency. I feel sure that the chance of me being hit by a car and killed on my bike, on which I spend hundreds of hours a year, is much higher than the chances of me being killed by an intruder, but I'm not going to stop riding. There's a saying in the legal profession: "Hard cases make bad law."

Here is death threats sent via email to the Wisconsen Republican senators....more union thuggery...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/wi...-death-threat/