Re: MEME re: gun control
I have to agree with what WEAC has already said to at least some degree: you're splitting a mighty fine hair, here. In any event, I can assure you that that sole "intent" of gun ownership is NOT to shoot something or someone. For several years (until the police burst in, pointed machines guns at me, and took them) I owned a Beretta Model 92 and a Charter Arms .38 Police Undercover for home and self defense. Except for using the .38 for qualifying for a concealed-carry permit, I never fired it. I never fired the Beretta at all. Just didn't have the opportunity arise to get somewhere out in the country to try it out. (However, I was confident that it would have fired if I had needed it to, which is why it stayed on the table next to my bed).
Read what I just wrote to WEAC. I don't believe I'm splitting hairs at all. Nor to I believe you can say that the sole "intent" of gun ownership is NOT to shoot something or someone.
Even if your only reason for owning a gun is self-defense, self-defense means that you intend to defend yourself with a gun, you intend to shoot someone, i.e. home invader, if need be. Please make note of that "if need be." It's very important. I don't wish to engage in a further debate about how the mere sight of the gun usually works. Clearly, if the mere sight doesn't, as sometimes it doesn't, you do then "intend" to use the gun, i.e. shoot them.
I think it is far more hair-splitting to pretend that a gun is not used to shoot people simply because it was bought for self-defense.
When I was faced with home invasion, it wasn't just by one guy, but two. You might be surprised just how rapidly even a loyal Shepherd can be dispatched with a club, or a can of Mace, or a gun for that matter, by Assailant 'A' while 'B' strides right past.
Dennis, we could both go on and on about given scenarios in which neither a dog nor a gun would protect you, but what would be the point? My point was simply that a dog is also a good measure of defense.
I didn't feel the need to back this up with statistics. I thought it was common knowledge. Go to any home security site and you'll find dogs listed as a primary deterrent. This is not because of their bite, but their bark.
Home invaders work by doing things as quickly as possible and avoiding attention. A barking dog calls attention, and can slow them down in attempting to deal with them. The degree to which they are slowed down is determined by the dog's type, personality and training.
Security professionals say that criminals, when choosing a home to invade, in general, will simply rule out the homes with dogs. Why have to bother with another unknown factor when there are so many other homes without dogs?
Frankly, I had no intention of getting this involved in either a gun debate or dog debate. As I said to WEAC, I simply resented being told that I was, in essence, a slacker because I didn't own a gun to protect my family.
Meme
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
