There's absolutely no reason for anyone to own a gun for self-defense...

[Free Palestine]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

[memphis]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

Do you buy lots of powerball lottery tickets? It's the same argument. Except lottery tickets can't kill you

[Free Palestine]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

Do you buy lots of powerball lottery tickets? It's the same argument. Except lottery tickets can't kill you

Neither can a gun if you use it responsibly.  You're making way to many generalizations, in your argument.

Alcohol can kill you if you use it irresponsibly, as can a car.

[memphis]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

Do you buy lots of powerball lottery tickets? It's the same argument. Except lottery tickets can't kill you

Neither can a gun if you use it responsibly.  You're making way to many generalizations, in your argument.

Alcohol can kill you if you use it irresponsibly, as can a car.

Beer never blew my hand off. Look, there's certainly a great deal of exxageration of the danger of guns from the left. Millions own guns without any problems. Swimming pools are more likely to cause an accidental death that a gun but it's 100% statistically undeniable that putting a gun in your home makes you and everybody else in the home more likely to end up on the wrong end of a bullet. Also, the distinction the right makes between "responsible gun owners" and criminals is complete bs. There is a ton of overlap and there are millions of people who are neither.

[Free Palestine]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

Do you buy lots of powerball lottery tickets? It's the same argument. Except lottery tickets can't kill you

Neither can a gun if you use it responsibly.  You're making way to many generalizations, in your argument.

Alcohol can kill you if you use it irresponsibly, as can a car.

Beer never blew my hand off. Look, there's certainly a great deal of exxageration of the danger of guns from the left. Millions own guns without any problems. Swimming pools are more likely to cause an accidental death that a gun but it's 100% statistically undeniable that putting a gun in your home makes you and everybody else in the home more likely to end up on the wrong end of a bullet. Also, the distinction the right makes between "responsible gun owners" and criminals is complete bs. There is a ton of overlap and there are millions of people who are neither.

Well then, isn't it statistically undeniable that putting a pool in your home increases your chances of accidentally drowning?

We can't just nanny people.  We should make sure people understand the risks of having a gun in the home, but it is up to them to decide if they want one, as well as what kind they would have.  As I said, some people live alone and are aware of the risks.  Using such generalizations in favor of gun control would simply be absurd.

And isn't the risk of shooting oneself just as much of a personal responsibility, as the risk of drowning in your pool or dying of alcohol poisoning?  It's not something that's definitely going to happen in all situations.  It's simply a risk.

[Redalgo]

Using a gun for self-defense is fine. It's just that I don't think it should be a person's first or only line of defense. There are a lot of reasons why a person should be hesitant to use one.

For instance, say that you get mugged on the street. Trying to resist could very easily get you shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned faster than you can brandish a concealed weapon. A criminal knows their trade and is highly-motivated to get what they came for and leave as quickly as possible. Heroic delusions of grandeur on the part of a would-be victim can lead to more problems than it solves. Not to mention, is it really worth risking your life to save your dignity, a handful of bills, and some plastic? Also, what if you fire off shots while in a struggle, or otherwise miss the aggressor, putting bullets in the air that could conceivably hit innocent people? While a gun can be useful under a number of circumstances I think it would be much wiser for a person to focus on learning what kind of places to avoid and how to spot and quickly remove oneself from suspicious, potentially dangerous scenes.

Likewise, say someone breaks into your home. Once again, resisting will not go over well with the aggressor. To use a gun for self-defense you have to find it, load it and switch off the safety if applicable, and competently handle it while somewhat impaired by the adrenaline rush. Even then, if you have a semi-automatic weapon, a big clip, poor marksmanship, and/or a twitchy finger you may quickly find yourself doling out a lot of damage to your own property or innocent people caught up in the action. If the firearm is powerful enough, bullets may pass through walls and various objects to strike a friend, family member, pet, or (if in an apartment) a neighbor. I would think the more rational approach to home defense would be to fortify entry points and set up several visible layers of security features designed to impede the progress of and deter a criminal. If your property is protected elaborately enough the bloke in question may not think your place is worth all the trouble to break into.

Using a gun in self-defense is more glorified and conceptually simple to certain elements of America's gun culture than it actually is in practice. If you feel that possessing such a weapon will make you more safe - which it certainly can under the right circumstances - then by all means get one... just don't get cocky about it, go stereotypically alpha-male or cling to your pride when confronting a violent criminal, or expect for the gun to be a guaranteed golden ticket out of the tough bind. Call the police if at all possible and try not to do anything too reckless or stupid while waiting for them to arrive. If you are forced to act that is fine but do what you can to avoid having to get to that point in the first place, yeah? Most of us are not soldiers, cops, expert martial artists, or otherwise prepared for combat.

Being legally entitled to use a gun in self-defense does not necessarily mean one should use that gun unless he or she has been forced into a situation where it is the only reasonable option left.

[Smash255]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Yes it is. Otherwise the public would be free to acquire nuclear warheads if they considered them vital for their self-defense.

[Franzl]

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Of course it is, that's the purpose of having an elected government that can pass laws.

[Smash255]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Ok so some nutjob decides they need a nuke for defense purposes, then what??

[memphis]

All this home invader hysteria is so f'ing unlikely. And even if it does happen, the chances of getting to the weapon in time and successfully using it are astronomical. You know what's a hell of lot more likely consequence of gun ownership? Domestic violence getting out of hand in a hurry. Ditto for accidents and suicides.

Just because it's "unlikely" doesn't mean it does not happen.

And what if someone lives alone, and rarely has visitors?

Do you buy lots of powerball lottery tickets? It's the same argument. Except lottery tickets can't kill you

Neither can a gun if you use it responsibly.  You're making way to many generalizations, in your argument.

Alcohol can kill you if you use it irresponsibly, as can a car.

Beer never blew my hand off. Look, there's certainly a great deal of exxageration of the danger of guns from the left. Millions own guns without any problems. Swimming pools are more likely to cause an accidental death that a gun but it's 100% statistically undeniable that putting a gun in your home makes you and everybody else in the home more likely to end up on the wrong end of a bullet. Also, the distinction the right makes between "responsible gun owners" and criminals is complete bs. There is a ton of overlap and there are millions of people who are neither.

Well then, isn't it statistically undeniable that putting a pool in your home increases your chances of accidentally drowning?

Of course it does. But nobody's rushing out to get a pool to protect themselves from drowning. People need to inderstand that gun ownership makes you more likely to be injured or die from gun violence. It in no way offers protection.

[Franzl]

The thing that pro-gun people are missing is that.....while someone having a gun in certain cases might prevent some terrible things from happening....having guns be so easily accessible creates a lot of other unpleasent side effects that actually create the very situations they supposedly solve.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Obviously Morgan would feel right at home in Somalia.

[Beet]

Surveys on the "number of defensive gun uses" are notoriously bad; basically, the question is extremely subjective and there is no real way of knowing whether it was a real defensive use and what would have happened without the gun. So any statistic cited on number of defensive uses per year is extremely suspect.

Meanwhile, a lot of research shows that "A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

This too is disputed because obviously this has become a very politicized debate and it is very difficult to separate out objective social-scientific studies with politically motivated ones, even within academia.

Nor is any of this to say that [1] all guns are always bad or [2] guns should be 'taken away'. Just that there is a lot of pseudo science or only looking at what you want to see from both sides out there.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Ok so some nutjob decides they need a nuke for defense purposes, then what??

Presumably a nuke would be ridiculously expensive.

[Torie]

I choose not to live my life worrying about whether some intruder will invade my home and off me, and that was as equally true when I lived in the 90026 zip code, rather than the 92677 one. The odds are low, and I live by the odds, when I balance things out, and when I do that, for me personally guns are out, because as a hobby guns bore me - yes they bore me. I also find the recoil thing discommoding.

[Smash255]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Ok so some nutjob decides they need a nuke for defense purposes, then what??

Presumably a nuke would be ridiculously expensive.

Nice way of playing the game of deflection.  What about a rocket launcher then?  And if you are going to use the expensive argument, lets say the person can afford it.

[Free Palestine]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Ok so some nutjob decides they need a nuke for defense purposes, then what??

Presumably a nuke would be ridiculously expensive.

Nice way of playing the game of deflection.  What about a rocket launcher then?  And if you are going to use the expensive argument, lets say the person can afford it.

I don't think the government should have an absolute monopoly on such things.

[Franzl]

I'm pretty content with the government having a monopoly on nuclear weapons, to be honest.

I guess that makes me a fascist.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm pretty content with the government having a monopoly on nuclear weapons, to be honest.

I guess that makes me a fascist.

At least an authoritarian.
But if you insist on government having a monopoly on tanks and fighter jets, then you're a bona fide Brownshirt.

[Smash255]

Who said you don't need a gun for self defense? 911 incompetence aside (they usually do a very good job though), there are plenty of rural places where as a practical matter the authorities can't show up for half an hour after you place a call. You need a gun to protect yourself in these places. But do you really need a semi-automatic for that? Do you need a semi-automatic for hunting? Do you need clips that hold 30 as opposed to 15 bullets? Instead of starting strawman threads, maybe you should try justifying guns that actually might be banned/have been banned in the past.

Maybe because, as you said, criminals will still have access to those guns.  Why should criminals have more rights than law-abiding citizens?

There are a lot of people who have things like Uzis in their homes for self defense, who do not harm a single person -- except in the case of self-defense -- during the entire time they are owned by an individual.  There is simply no logical reason why these people should have their guns confiscated, simply because they might blow some kid's head off.  That would be like banning cars because someone might run a kid over.  There are many responsible drivers, as there are responsible gun owners.

I simply do not think it is the right of the government to decide what is "reasonable" for someone to use in self-defense.  That opens the door for the government further prying into our lives based on what is "reasonable."

I don't think that in an egalitarian society, one individual should have an exclusive right to tools of coercion -- i.e. guns -- over another.  Either everyone -- police, military, and civilian -- should have access to guns, or nobody should have access to guns.

And what is so f--king wrong with people being able to defend themselves?  Why should I have to wait for someone else to protect me?  Why cannot I protect myself?

You can protect yourself, however you don't need to fire off 30+ rounds without reloading in order to defend yourself, nor do you need an uzi to defend yourself...   There is no defense purpose to either of those.

So?  I wouldn't be hurting anyone.  What difference does it make if I have a semi-auto Uzi for self-defense?  The fact that someone else thinks I don't "need it" isn't a valid reason.  You could advocate banning a lot of things with the justification that you don't "need" those things.

There is no self-defense purpose of a semi-auto uzi.

That's not for you or anybody other than the person buying the gun to decide.

Ok so some nutjob decides they need a nuke for defense purposes, then what??

Presumably a nuke would be ridiculously expensive.

Nice way of playing the game of deflection.  What about a rocket launcher then?  And if you are going to use the expensive argument, lets say the person can afford it.

I don't think the government should have an absolute monopoly on such things.

This ladies and gents (well mostly gents considering the forum) is where the pro-gun crowd loses it.  The thought that anything and every kind of gun/ weapon should be legal and no restrictions whatsoever.  You can't have a rationale argument when someone thinks citizens should have access to rocket launchers and nukes if they so wanted.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I guess we can go even further than that.

Who says that citizens can be denied access to biological or chemical weapons? I'd guess that a canister of sarin gas or some anthrax spores could become handy if someone intrudes our home.

[SvenssonRS]

I guess we can go even further than that.

Who says that citizens can be denied access to biological or chemical weapons? I'd guess that a canister of sarin gas or some anthrax spores could become handy if someone intrudes our home.

Your arrogance and self-righteousness never cease to astound me, px.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1,500,000 is the conservative number from the Department of Justice. Unless you want to swallow the VPC discredited talking points and allege that the DOJ is cooking the books for some reason, you have no leg to stand on here.

Not to mention Cook, Ludwig and Hemenway have been thoroughly debunked as frauds. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=317&issue=010

This is a direct quote from the Department of Justice report that you've repeatedly cited in this thread:

"The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether
consumers who buy guns for protection against crime
get their money's worth. The NSPOF-based estimate
of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates
the true number, as do other estimates based on
similar surveys."

As for your other link, Cook, Ludwig and Hemenway aren't the only ones who reached the conclusion that DGU numbers are greatly exaggerated; we can go back and forth with endless links. My point was that, like climate science, gun statistics have become so heavily politicized that it's almost impossible to distinguish objective and reasonably accurate social science from stuff that is ideologically driven.