Perhaps some willfully become a victim of or victimize others through actions related to their fear of being a "willing" victim. Uh, Yeah.

Well if I called you a spider, that would be short for rock spider which is slang for an old man who likes to have sex with young boys.

So no, I wasn't calling anyone here a spider. :)

Which is worst, becoming a victim of loss of posessions, becoming a victim of death, or becoming a killer?

If I weren't prepared to kill in my own self-defense, I wouldn't be carrying.

Emotional arguments that work for you do not necessarily work for others.

What wolf said. If a criminal must die to reduce crime -- of any description -- I can't see harm in it. Some lives are so ill spent that death actually improves matters. Dead men don't kill people and don't steal stuff. Would-be villains who get scared straight when having to make an instant choice between gratifying their unfair and heinous desires and continuing to register a heartbeat are improved thereby. Is this never to be desired?

Of the three choices, becoming a victim of death, untimely, is the worst. Be certain you do not interfere with others' relying upon themselves to save their own lives, or you will be humanity's enemy, and get treated as the barbarian you'd of course be.

Think swords are any less lethal? They're just shorter range, is all, and no need to reload. Might even hurt worse than a bullet.

Sufficiently dead all smells the same.

No.

And there is likely at least one civilian defensive firearms training course in your very own home town. There's one just up the road in the next town from mine. They are there to teach you all of that, from beginning to end. The training is equivalent to what the average policeman receives in his first couple of years on the force.

Don't argue with us, Spexx. Your ignorance is absolute, and indeed it discredits your cause to have so complete a vacuity where your information ought to be, while our knowledge is profound and detailed. You lose, and forever. Those who agree with you lose, not only their fortunes, but their lives along with their sacred honor -- because their igorance is absolute, and their ability to take care of severe problems is nil.

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas is an essay that may be instructive. Take particular note of the paragraph next to the picture of the cold cuts sandwich on white bread, and the remark to the effect of only the ones who survive have the luxury of worrying about the next day, which I think answers Spexx's fretting about having to live with having killed someone. He doesn't want to, but we've decided we can better live with this than with being dead, about as obvious a no-brainer as I've ever heard of.

Kind of like a suicide vest, is that what you're thinking? :3eye:

Ringer's Paradox comes to our philosophical rescue here, as a freedom restricted [Minimally -- UG] is a freedom preserved, id est, drawing the line at nukes, but not on an ad hoc basis.

See, it is readily enough possible to use a firearm, even a crew-served weapon, as designed and as intended and in a moral manner. It is for all practical purposes impossible to use a nuclear weapon as designed and as intended, in a moral fashion. The only exception I can think of is its use in outer space, an environment already full of hard radiation. The pollution problems, back Earthside, to say nothing of others like overkill, are too severe. The circumstances of a general war are about the only ones where anyone thinks it would be even remotely tolerable, and even then their skin still crawls.

The attempted generator stealing story is in this other thread.

You say that like it's a bad thing.:cool:

Wait, back up, who's having sex with young boys?

And what's wrong with that?

A handgun is just a tool, one made for a specific kind of cover and use.
You can carry it easily, it is easier to use the toilet, drive, keep both hands free, etc, and remain armed. That is all. They are no worse or better than a shotgun.
When there was no law for months and months during the storms our neighborhood's first two actions were to see who had water, power sources, food, medical training and supplies, and firearms with training. We owned our neighborhood and were safe, unlike others who suffered looting and other things that were only reported locally because they did not organize and because they were not guarded.
We were not overt, but if you came into our neighborhood you saw, within moments, that you were watched by someone armed. At night, you were hit with a light and followed with it for a time.
Rifles should not be used for home defense, they go through walls and harm unintended targets. Shotguns are unwieldy and easily taken away in close quarters and around corners.
Handguns are best for home defense, best used with hollow-points... again, a tool for a specific use, not to be imbued with animism.
I have pulled my weapon while working, as I have stated, more than once. The gun was just a tool, always just a tool and I am glad to have had it.

Hmmm...well if some old fart tried to have sex with my boys it would be very bad for that old man.

Sorry, but one more thing. If you plan to protect yourself from something like a home invasion, you'd better have your handgun with you, ready to fire. If your gun is in the bedroom, or locked in a safe, before you can get to the gun the invader will have bashed in your skull with Jim's old bowling trophy.

Now, if you are carrying the gun around the house, or keep it in a convenient place, it's much more likely to be gotten a hold of by the kids, with the result possibly being injury or death. That's a risk I'm not willing to take, in my house with my family. The likelihood of a home invasion is much less than the likelihood of misuse or accident.

I find that a good dog is best for home invaders. Guns are not always close to hand but a dog is foolproof, even more scary than a handgun anyway and will announce itself before you even open the door. Which gives the bad guys a chance to change their little minds.

Works for my truck all the time.