[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

xoB, wolf, MaggieL, all:


You're right. Children should not be armed. However, 72 millon plus children is hardly a minor concession, especially in light of the fact that the very story that started this thread is about a school shooting.

Yes, and was it caused by one of the 115,000 guns someone said kids take to school each day?
I'm not saying they should, heavens no. Just reminding you all those guns didn't cause any shootings today, I've heard about.

snip~This is known as "security through obscurity", a misnomer if there ever was one, since it is hardly secure. You yourself point out that it is the uncertainty that is the deterring factor. Not the gun.

But wouldn't exist at all without the availability of them.

As to your second point, that a person who wouldn't use a gun gains no self-defense benefit from one, concisely explains why your statement is false. Would a gun, unused, in this example provide any self-defense benefit at all? Of course not.

False, most of the time displaying the gun will do the job.
Not a good practice and I highly advise against it if you're not willing to use it, but it works most of the time.

It is the *person*, by virtue of their training, confidence, initiative, willingness to act, and above all, their situational awareness, that generates the benefits of self-defense. Not the firearm.

What? You're kidding, right? What the hell good are any of those things, except awareness, without the tool?

A firearm is a tool. It has a primary purpose, and some secondary purposes. Like all tools, it can be used well or poorly. There are situations where it is the right tool for the job, and other situations where it is not, and some in between. But it is folly to say that the tool does the job, when it is the person who does the job. "A poor workman blames his tools." What do you call one that credits his tools? A fool, I say.

So you'd take away shovels because sometimes a pick is a better choice?

So your statement fails on two counts; it certainly doesn't apply to anything close to "all" people, and it any self-defense benefits a person enjoys are the result of that person's actions, not the tools used in those actions.

No, but it's umbrella effect covers many of those people. If Bruce Waynes father had been armed there would be no Batman.

A firearm is a tool, only, not a talisman.

That's 100% true. Now why do you want to take away any of my tools?

You chose the name Big V. Methinks it was not because you are a 90lb weakling. You are also seriously into bossing kids .....er, I mean teaching Boy Scout credos to children. OK, I was jiving ya, sorry. But, I'll bet you firmly believe in and try to live by those credos, which is very commendable. You also live in an area that has crime problems, like everywhere, but you must admit is not known for it/them.

Put this all together and we have a man that looks like messing with him should not be taken lightly, leading an exemplary lifestyle, avoiding most places even close to seamy, in an area not noted for crime. I would expect your attitude based on that. I'm saying it's not a profile of someone who might feel they need a gun.