If I had a gun in a situation like that I would probably end up closing my eyes and firing the gun wildly making a bullet ridden cut out in the wall of the attacker and not actually hitting him.

I will never own a gun because I would never ever be able to use it. I will never own a gun because I hate guns. I will never own a gun because I believe they are dangerous. I will never own a gun because I just can't picture myself with a weapon anywhere outside a video game.

But I will defend to the death your right to own one.

But I will defend to the death your right to own one.

Just not with a gun right? :)

That's the reason you have to have the commitment to practice to be justified in owning a gun.
Where I live there are no sidewalks, hence minimal pedestrians, so I don't practice as much as I should.

That doesn't answer my question, but that's OK. I know the answer is "no," in many cities that allow concealed carry, such as Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia...

Actually it does answer your question, and if it's your contention that gun violence has risen in Philadelphia, Denver, or Minneapolis since concealed carry permits were made, I'd demand proof and that you to provide a link between carry permits and the increased violent crimes. All the research I've done points to gangs fighting over drug territory and this would go away if we'd only end the drug war entirely.

I defy you or anyone else to provide a single example of a legal concealed permit holder that has ever committed a violent crime with a gun.

Nonsense, if they prevent you from exercising them they have taken them away. A right delayed is a right denied, and a right denied is a right lost.

Wrong. Our rights are our rights even when they are violated. Our rights can't be taken away, given away, bought, sold, or traded. They exist even when we are prevented from exercising them. A violated right is still a right. If someone cuts out your tongue, it doesn't remove your right to free speech.

Bah humbug.

What if those rights were changed or removed through a legal process by the government?

The government is a creation of the people. It derives its limited powers from the consent of the governed. Because individuals never have the right to "remove" the legal rights of others, they can't give this authority to government. Any "legal process" that attempts to remove or change our rights is an invalid one.

Government is here to protect our rights, not to define them, limit them, or especially "remove" them.

My contention?? Remember, you said:

So I asked:

Which you didn't answer, so I answered myself.

I don't know what that has to do with anything I said...but I'll take your challenge just for fun:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n16613984

What do I win?

1) Your article said the weapon was permitted, not that he had a concealed permit.

2) You neglected to mention that the old man who was robbed by the 19 year old thug, was a 70 year old man or that he'd taken a diamond ring worth nearly $18,000.

3) As far as I can tell the trial is ongoing and he has not been convicted of murder.

4) If you rob someone and you get killed by them, it's not murder no matter what anyone says... including a jury.

Nope, you've failed the challenge.

You asked if what I said applies to cities, and yes it does. Crime has dropped in every city that has allowed concealed carry laws including Philadelphia, Denver, and Minnesota.

I'm just barely smart enough not to compound the problem.

So what happens if the elected representatives decide to change your rights concerning free speech or other rights?