Re: safety and politics
 

I was with you.. up to the end there.

Different guns I purchase for different reasons... some for hunting - some for protection... I don't consider the latter to be resigning myself to fear.. but to be prudent preparation and/or planning.

I mean.. if I'm standing in a road and a bus is coming at me.. and I decide to step out of it's line of motion.. I wouldn't call that letting fear win - I'd call that being logical...

Now.. if after this particular incident I want to ban buses...... well....

Re: safety and politics
 

I don't see the connection. There is nothing "prudent" about buying a gun for "protection", any more than it is "prudent" to confiscate water bottles at airport security.

Wearing your seatbelt is a proven, prudent safety measure. It is very likely you'll be in a car accident, and your seat belt will very likely protect you. It is extremely unlikely that you will be the victim of a crime where your gun will protect you.

You aren't James Bond. You don't need a gun for protection.

Re: safety and politics
 

You and I disagree there... I see it no different than the fact that I purchase a lock for my house door. A car door lock. A Car and house alarm. Building a 72 hour kit. Stocking food/water. etc.

AND wearing a seatbelt. Now.. whether you look at the statistics for or against gun control .. there's one common theme - there are thousands upon thousands of attacks, muggings, rapes, break-ins, violent crimes, etc. per year.

If I am unlikely to ever have a house break in.. I do not need an alarm, a lock on my door, or a dog either. Nor do I need a fire alarm, or a co2 detector...

But I have all of those as well.

I believe what old Franklin meant was that anyone that wants their liberties taken away to purchase safety deserves neither.

I am not asking for my liberties to be taken away.. but rather exercising my freedom to buy a commodity for whatever reason I want.

Nothing I list above interferes with anyone else's right, or my own. In fact they promote it. However, to ask for my ability to purchase a gun to be taken away in the name of safety is exactly what Franklin was warning against.

Re: safety and politics
 

Remember to ask for your martinis to be shaken, not stirred.

Re: safety and politics
 

I missed this edit at first.. so I'll say this too. I got my AR-15 because the gun is just downright cool. I mean.. next to the 1911 .45 - the AR-15 is one of the most customizable firearms out there.

There's different uppers, different lowers, different rails, chambers, sights, accessories, oh my!!

Building one of those suckers is like a Gamer building his first dell XPS system..

"OOH! I want some of these.. one of those.. oh- This video card!"

And then.. like the XPS system.. if I so decide to program my houses security alarm system into my computer ... then the added benefit that maybe someday it might just save my life.

So there.. I qualify for Your legitimate reason for my guns.. AND if, someday, I happen to protect my family from an intruder that apparently doesn't exist.. well - that was just an added bonus!!

(BTW: Your whole "You aren't James Bond" stuff is rather silly. James Bond isn't James Bond. I am, however, Former Military; served in Iraq for a tad over 2 years; and earned both the Expert Marksmen Medal with a *gasp* M-16, and the sharpshooter ribbon with the Sig P226. While I wasn't a marine; I do know my way around my guns; and I have seen guns save lives - so my argument for me still holds a little more water than to you.)

Re: safety and politics
 

It's a difference of degree only, and different people will make widely different estimates of their lives' value and of the risk of losing it in a manner preventable with a gun. The latter, particularly, has provably valid variability, as crime rates vary dramatically place-to-place, and I intuitively suppose the former varies chiefly with ones' wealth. The net result: while a few hundred dollars on a gun and the time investment of training yourself, and staying practiced, may actually be wasteful (and hence imprudent) for you, it may not for someone else who values their life higher, or who has a greater risk (even if somewhat this side of James Bond).

It's fundamentally an economic decision each person makes for themselves, even though most never frame it that way; they're stacking up certain costs (the gun, ammo, training) and possible costs (shooting the wrong person, feeling guilty about shooting the right person, having your gun taken and used against you) weighted by their probability estimates, against certain benefits (shooting sports, feeling confident you can protect your family) and possible benefits (saving your life, saving others' lives, deterring tyranny by contributing to the specter of revolution, hey, even stopping tyranny in actual revolution!) weighted by their estimated probabilities, and they wind up either deciding that they come out ahead buying the gun, or spending the money on something else more profitable.

They make that decision themselves, and it (very nearly) affects no-one but them. That's far better than me making the decision that everyone must always own a gun, or some antigunner making the decision that no-one can own a gun. And definitely better than a whopping government bureaucracy to analyze each person's risks (and possibly life-value assessors, too!) and tell us each whether we've got sufficient reason to own a gun.

And I don't see any persuasive argument for how one can be wrong in judging the value their own life has to them -- the probabilities are fair game to shoot down with statistics, but as I said, most people don't see the decision they're making for the cost/benefit analysis it is, and so they don't make separate estimates for us to challenge.

Re: safety and politics
 

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone did careful cost-benefit analysis before making decisions. Sadly, most people are driven by emotions, anxieties, desires, fears, compulsions, and a host of other things that lie below the level where such analysis is done.

(EDIT: And Benson, your cost-benefit analysis was lacking on the "cost" or "risk" side. For instance, you have to make sure that everyone with access to your gun(s) is properly trained, not just you. And how do you make your gun accessible enough to be used when needed, but safe enough to ensure that your kid doesn't accidentally shoot himself or a friend? What about the fact that if your house is broken into, and your gun(s) stolen, you've added to the problem of guns in criminal hands?)

And remember, guys, when introducing yourself, you have to say your last name twice, before and after your first name.

Re: safety and politics
 

heh. sure... that's usually the second thing I say to unknown, unwanted, unidentified folks barrelling into my house in the middle of the night... the exchange is usually something like:

*pop* *pop* *pop*

"Who goes there?"

...then, perhaps, the introductions can take place... usually during the disarming and/or handcuffing.

Re: safety and politics
 

Huh?? Wait.. No.. I'm confused! You just got done telling me that this can't happen! :confused:

My head hurts. And I was all ready to cancel my alarm system, sell my dog, and buy new doors too!! :(

Re: safety and politics
 

That actually supports one of MY arguments... maybe even inadvertantly?

Regardless, nicely done. ;)