Because he crossed the line. He's not not arguing his position against handguns, he's making personal accusations, of me buying guns with the intent of killing people. That lie is unacceptable and can't go unanswered.

Whatever you say Bruce. I was just voicing my opinion. It's dissappointing to see normally reasonable adults speak to each other in that manner.

That's why Cloud started all those threads for you.

I don't think she started any threads for me Bruce.

Have a nice day.

Really? If someone forced their way into your house and threatened you with a baseball bat, what would you do? Don't avoid the question, this time. You're making accusations, answer the question.

Do bear in mind that Spexxvet has already demonstrated that this is a subject on which he cannot think rationally. This has been pointed out by me, by wolf, and perhaps xoxoBruce (implicitly if not explicitly). We beat Spexx into the ground.

The rational way is not to delegitimize armed self-defense. It's even less rational once you see in all its horror just what that opens the way for. (My least-favorite Cellar-Dweller leans heavily towards delegitimizing it too, and how very like him.)

And a ball bat is a potentially lethal weapon. Invading your dwelling plus offering you lethal violence -- every law in the land says you can do anything up to lethal force to stop him. The law only allows you to stop him, but he's the one who determines how much stopping is required. It would be bad for the rest of town to let him run, for one consideration.

The law prefers a proportionality of force to the situation, if at all available. Lethal possibility on one side justifies lethal force on the other. We are however, talking about only three percent of armed self-defense cases.

Well, the thing is, the people in this argument have all stated their case on numerous occasions and there's been no concensus.

I just wonder why it has to degenerate into something so base.

Why can't people just stop arguing if there's nothing new to present?

Sorry, V, but whenever you speak stupidly -- assuming I catch you at it -- I'll call you on your suboptimum thinking. It is hardly ad-hominem to point out errors. In a forum, stupid is as stupid speaks.

You are in effect asking me, through all your arguments, such as they are, to leave you in your previous condition of ignorance.

Knowledge is preferable to ignorance, is it not?

Leaving you in your previous condition of unknowingness would hardly be the action of a friend, now would it?

Is insisting upon ignorance the action of an intelligent adult human being?

You seem to have a little problem with me trying to bring a sort of balance here: I know something, and you don't. I do not understand your refusal to know better than once you did. Knowing better worked for me. I used to be ignorant too.

You are free to do the sort of thinking you do precisely because the people who think as I do are the ones standing watch -- in camouflage uniforms, in blue shirts behind badges, and in plain clothes.

Heinlein Was Right -- Again
 

Heinlein remarked of pacifists, somewhere in The Notebooks of Lazarus Long [Time Enough For Love] that their pacifism only stretches so far. When it snaps, he said, "they hoist the Jolly Roger." This is a textbook illustration.

Thanks for demonstrating how the hoplophobes crack, and show the viciousness within, to say nothing of logistical or anatomical incoherence.

Your kind of pacifism is not a well-advised, balanced path of life.

I've walked a better road in my life. It's not too late for you. Repent.

If someone broke in your house and threatened to kill you with a baseball bat, wouldn't you use any means at your disposal to defend yourself? Of course you would.
Does that mean you bought that knife, lamp, golf club, crowbar, to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.

If your dog attacks and rips the intruders throat out, does that mean you bought the dog to kill people? No, that's a stupid assumption.

Does that mean if I shoot that same attacker, I bought that gun to kill someone? No, that's a stupid assumption.

If you feel that is true, then why in hell are you reading this thread, other to scold people. Go read Clouds threads.

A gun is not purchased to kill someone. (unless, of course, it is, in the case of a criminal or whatever... but thats another deal altogether)
A gun IS purchased expressly to defend yourself with, up to and including using it to kill.

This is a semantics issue, I think.

Too, simplistic, there are more reasons to buy a gun than just self defense.

Well duh, but I mean, that's the most important reason... right?

Yes, maybe even primary for some people, just not exclusive.