So, for that reason, we should keep guns out of the hands of people who are responsible, mentally stable, and well equipped to make such a decision?

My wife and I were walking home from a movie. We weren't looking for trouble. We were walking home...

I always thought it was pretty damn unlikely.

And then we were attacked...

Killing them? Maybe not. But often, shooting them is. Whether they die or not as a result is secondary. The main intent in using deadly force is not to kill a person, but to stop them...

When the police aren't around, and a decision has to be made, what would you do?

The police were a couple blocks away when my wife and I were attacked. We'd have been beaten, robbed, and prpbably even killed, had we waited for that cruiser to drive past where we were.

Clearly, you're not the type of person who would feel comfortable being armed. Perhaps you simply don't drust your ability with a firearm. Perhaps you'd prefer to be a victim. Perhaps you simply like to hope for the best when presented with a clear indication that your day is about to take a dramatic turn for the worse. Whatever your reasons, fine. But know this: They're only your reasons.

In your situation, I would suggest that you hope for the best, hope your assailants get caught, hope you live, hope you're attackers are convicted, and then hope they get put away.

I'm sure you believe that would work for you.

I, however, and people like me, are not willing to subject our lives, and the lives of our loved ones, to chance. We're willing to accept responsibility for our actions. Crisis, I shot two people. I think about that every single day. In that thought is the knowledge that I did absolutely, without question, the right thing...

Huh? When someone is protecting themself, the situation resulting in death is always a possibility. When those who are properly trained are involved, it may even become a probability.

I was handcuffed, put into the back of a police cruiser, and questioned by detectives for almost four hours. The Assistant District Attorney said it was one of the most obvious cases of a justifiable shooting she'd ever seen.

They returned my gun to me, thanked me for being patient and cooperative, and sent me home...

Your problem is that you're operating from a position that anyone who wants to carry a gun wants to be some kind of gunslinger. That's simply not true. Believe it or not, there really are people on this planet who can own and use a firearm responsibly. Until you can get that through your head, you'll never even see the other side of the issue, much less accept or agree with it.

Unfortunately, I don't know what can be said that would break through such a profound level of ignorance...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

If the issue is about who is willing to “take the responsibility to do whatever's necessary to protect him or herself” and that means using a gun then it is about proliferation. It is about millions of people owning guns for that reason. When millions own them there are people who are ill equipped on many levels to make responsible choices about their use. Not simply when confronted by a group of people with pipes and bats.


Of course it is about society being armed. They all have to be able to have weapons under what I understand is your preferred scenario? Taking the “responsibility” to shoot someone you consider a threat means different things to different people. To you you may well have thought out the consequences and pro and cons. But to someone else their level of what represents a threat may have a far lower threshold. In any case the consequences of everyone being able to have and therefore owning them presents society with millions of potentially lethal weapons that can be used and misused. If it was only a matter of people having guns to defend themselves and that could be guaranteed to provide that outcome and no other consequences could arise then there is no argument against. But that is not the case.


Maybe , maybe not. That can never be proven for sure. And in a far less potentially dangerous situation another person may however make the same assumption. And kill needlessly.

If I could carry a pistol to defend myself and my family I gladly would. There is nothing noble about that. I, like the rest of the world consider myself to be responsible. But we all are not. Maybe me too. And if I can have one then so can everyone else. Proliferation.
I never said guns are bad. That simplistic dismissal does nothing to further the debate. I can appreciate to an extent your experience would have an effect on your position but that doesn’t change the fact I find it unreasonable to base a whole attitude on one instance.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

Well, we're so happy that works in Denmark.

Why do you think we should have the same kinds of laws here?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You've still not shown why that arguable fact should be sufficient to keep me from being able to protect myself...

I don't know how old you are, but I would suspect you're at an age where I would expect someone to be able to understand that there are no guarantees.

Ever...

It was pretty clear to me. As I was there, and you weren't, you're not able to make any educated assessment...

And that person would have to take responsibility for such an action.

If one guy had walked up to me and said "Gimme' your watch", and I parted his hair with my .40 cal, I would expect to be charged, tried, and convicted.

Yes, each person, when in such a situation, needs to be prepared to take full responsibility for their actions, and act in the manner they deem appropriate. Will some people over-react? Probably, and that's unfortunate. But that, in no way, should ever preclude me being able to protect myself or my family...

I made the decision to carry a gun before my wife and I were attacked. My decision to continue to carry is reinforced by that incident. There are plenty of good, decent, sane Americans who make the same decision I do, and for the same reasons...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Yes well so far that hasn’t worked. Do you have any suggestions on how we should proceed?

And it will happen to people but it won’t happen to most of us. And if it does producing a gun will not necessarily be the best way to deal with it.


Yeah but in this case EricOKC is definitely of the opinion that some people need killing. And anyway even shooting them may be unnecessary. And when the general public are making the decisions on what is "necessary" you are going to get a whole wide range of what is “necessary”.

This is why we differ so much. I am not arguing from my personal point of view. I would be happy to carry a gun myself. Really. I would like to. I doubt that I would ever have to use it but on the off chance why the fuck not? BUT if I can it follows that unless the rest of society grants me this special privilege then everyone else can. And from what I see of everyone else they tend to behave in ways ranging from barely able to tie their shoes to those I would trust with my life. So the consequences of me carrying a gun on the slight chance I may need it and it would in that instance provide a better outcome than if I never had it, is that I and more importantly society has to deal with the adverse consequences of widespread gun proliferation. And that is the trade off I can’t not justify.

In my situation I avoid places and situations I think may be potentially dangerous, I don’t mix with people likely to be involved with others involved in crime or violence, I accept nothing is guaranteed and "I hope for the best". You too hope for the best. You hope that using your gun is the best outcome.

You are still subjecting yourself to chance. To the chance you made the right decision with your gun. The chance drawing it does not make the situation worse or more lethal. I am just as willing to accept my responsibility for not having a weapon and I don’t see that the outcome will necessarily be any worse for me .

I don’t doubt you do. It still doesn’t mean that everyone in a similar situation will.

What I am saying that in the case where a judge and jury is involved death may not be an optional punishment . Even when someone may richly deserve it.

Your problem is that you think I think that way. I am certain there are people on this planet who can own and use a firearm responsibly. Just as I am certain that there are those who are dangerously ill equipped to. And they get them too. And those who can own and use a firearm responsibly can still have accidents or subject their loved ones to situations where they can.

Try to loose yours first. That would be an excellent start.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

Not nessecarily. If you get conored by some scumbags at a distance of 15 - 20 feet and cant get away, then there is plenty of time to fire a warning shot first by my judgement.
FYI a warning shot is always fired up in the air - not horizontal, or down in the ground. The chance of some poor dickhead getting hit by a downcoming bullet from a warning shot is slim to none - and slim left town. Hell, a person would have a better chance of getting hit by a meteor for Christ's Sake.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

I was going to respond to the entire post, but his one sentence really makes me wonder about you...

That was in response to my position to sane, rational people being able to have guns.

And you say it hasn't worked.

Well, it has pal. It's worked for me, and it's worked for others. I'm not the only person who's ever made a sane, rational decision to defend myself with a firearm.

Instead of wondering how you can get guns out of the hands of those who pose no problem, simply to remove them from the hands of people who do, perhaps you should focus your efforts on simply getting them out of the hands of people who probably shouldn't have them.

In either case I, and thousands of sane, rational people like me accept the responsibility that comes when one makes the decision to carry a gun, and nothing you, or anyone like you, will ever do or say will ever convince us that us giving up our guns should be acceptable...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I never said you shouldn’t be able to protect yourself. All I argue is that owning a gun is not a necessarily a crucial or vital element in doing so.

44. And I know. That is why I said it.

What I am able to do is state that it is impossible for you to know what would have happened despite the likelihood. Your assumption may have more veracity but it is still an assumption.

But someone will be dead. Perhaps innocent. Unnecessarily. Does this concern you?

Yes you would. But the next guy? What about him. What about EricOKC? What about AdrienXII with his warning shots or Wallaroo with his leg shots? Four of you here cannot agree on exactly what is a reasonable reaction and I am sure you all think you are right.

The fact that some people will overreact and kill uneccessarily is exactly the reason why the public cannot be trusted to walk around armed on public streets. This however has little to do with you being able to protect your family.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

You need to accept the fact that your judgement is tragically flawed.

If I may ask, what is the level of your training and experience on this topic?

I'm pretty sure how this is going to play out, but I cannot allow such an ignorant and irresponsible claim to be made without asking for some form of reference for it.

Please provide reference data for that claim...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Sorry I miss read that. However in answer yes. I believe that the consequences far outweigh the benefits. There is no reliable and unbiased evidence that shows that guns necessarily provide better outcomes in confrontations to mitigate against all of the adverse consequences we know they are involved in. And again your particular case is proof on nothing.

This is what I thought you meant. And as you are the one who thinks they should be restricted to those “who pose no problem” I would firstly like to know how we can ever know who will never pose a problem and secondly how to ensure they don’t fall into the hands of those who will or may. As I said in my previous misconstrued reply, so far that hasn’t worked. Do you have any suggestions on how we should proceed?

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

It was absolutely crucial for me...

The difference here is that you'd be willing to wait and see what four armed men would do to you and your wife. I was not willing to take that same chance where my wife and I were concerned.

I had little doubt how the evening was going to turn out...

No, not really. An unnecessary death would certainly be tragic, but I'm also smart enough to know that innocent people will die every day as a result of poor decisions. The best thing I can do is make the best possible decisions that I can, and hope others do the same.

Even the police, on occasion, make mistakes. The difference is in taking responsibility. I was willing to do that. I would be absolutely willing to do it again. I know that, when I do, if I use my weapon, that I will be making the right decision. If someone else makes the wrong decision, that's unfortunate.

But it's his decision he has to take responsibility for, not mine, and vice versa...

I'm not concerned about him. I'm far more concerned with someone like you preferring that someone like me not be armed than I am of someone making a poor decision and killing an innocent person. While that's tragic, it should never preclude me from being able to protect myself...

I'd say it's a pretty fair bet that Erik's fuckin' somebody up if he was threatened, so I'm not worried about him...

Frankly, Adrien and Wallaroo would be killed by their assailants.

If an assailant has a knife, it's a fool who concludes he doesn;t have a gun. Expect the worst. While Adrein's