View Single Post


January 16th, 2013, 15:26
Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan View Post
It seems somewhat logical to me that the scenarios in which a gun is actually effective in helping you to get a "happy ending" in an encounter with an (armed) criminal are relatively limited, that is situations in which you have the initiative/element of surprise (such as surprising a burglar/murderer in your house, or coming in on a situation where the criminal does have his attention on someone/something else. In many other situations, i.e. all situation in which a weapon is already aimed at you, or the assailant has one ready, reaching for a gun or acting cocky because you have one is probably rather a risk. In short, I would consider a gun more effective as an offensive weapon than as a defense.
OK. So what in there makes your opinion globally applicable? What makes GBG's opinion (and it's not just you, we could put lots of names behind the exact same sentiment) more important than dte's or Sammy's or bn's choice? That only relevant data point says that taking away guns didn't solve anything and the laws of the land are extremely clear protecting that choice. So what gives you the right to take away my choice? Because you "think so"? "The greater good" that somehow didn't benefit in Chicago? Please.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline


dteowner's Avatar


Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,380