WEAC & Dennis re: gun control
I figured I'd kill to birds with one post since you both made essentially the same argument, and same mistake in reading my words. These are my words as I wrote them:
The only difference that I see is that the sole intent of gun ownership is to shoot something or someone. While a car can injure or kill, the primary intent is transportation.
WEAC you said: A gun is purchased most of the time for purposes of sport of for home defense - not for the purpose of killing someone.
And then Dennis said:
A gun does not and cannot possess "intent"; only the person holding it can. The car does not and cannot posses "intent" either, only the driver can. For instance, you can use a car to commit vehicular homicide. However, that it NOT what its essential legal reason for being is. A gun's essential legal reason for being is self-defense. Like any object, it can be misused.
Clearly, WEAC, you can see now that I didn't say anything about its purpose being to kill. Nor, Dennis, did I say that the gun possesses "intent." However, Dennis, I also would not go so far as to say that a gun's legal reason for being is self-defense. Guns are used legally for sport and for hunting, and, yes, also for killing people. It's a little ridiculous for anyone to entirely ignore the reason guns were created in the first place, as an instrument of death.
Then you both had similar reactions to this statement of mine:
SO people need to own guns to be self-reliant or to protect their families? I see, then you must think that by not owning a gun I'm not only dependent, but putting my family in jeopardy.
WEAC saying: There is more to it than that, safety and use training should also be encouraged, but yes, in this day of increasingly bold and violent two legged preditors, I believe a family is safer if a properly cared for and responsibly utilized firearm is in the home. Moreover, I'd make the argument, that although I don't believe gun ownership should be mandatory (it is not for everyone), you - in your home with no gun - are safer because of the gun in mine. Not because I'd come over and protect you (although if I were your neighbor, I'd be willing to, but rather because the preditors don't know which homes on each street have guns and which do not, making us all a little safer.
And Dennis, as well:
Sad to say it, but yes, I do. By not owning a gun, you are necessarily dependent on the police for your immediate personal protection in time of assault. And, were you aware that the police ARE NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for your protection? It's true, believe it or not. As someone else has already pointed out, by not having a reliable firearm nearby in case of attack, your family is in greater jeopardy than it would be with one on the premises.
I guess it would take having someone try to kick your front door down to get at you and kill you (as has happened to me) to bring the reality of your situation "home".
---------------------
Geez, guys, you both saw my photos on PI ALT. Didn't either of you notice the enormous German Shepard? Dogs like him have discouraged home-invaders far more than guns ever have. Statistics show that homes with dogs are avoided by criminals.
Further, a dog shouts a warning for both your family and the intruder, but intruders don't know ahead of time if you have a gun. Gun ownership doesn't discourage invaders from the attempt, a Shepard quickly will. Nor do you have to worry about hiding your Shepard from your children, finding bullets to load him, all the while trying to keep it ready in case of an unknown time of assault.
My next door neighbor owns a gun. You wouldn't believe how many times he's told me how thrilled he was to have our German Shepard patrolling the grounds. He said, nobody's going to mess with our homes, and in 20 years nobody ever has. I've had two Shepards.
However, his gun ownership doesn't make me feel any safer. He's a nice enough guy, but a major drunk. <VBG>
Currently, we are Shepard-less, but I'm sure it won't be long before we get another.
Meme
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
