"I don't believe handguns were created for hunting. I just don't" - Luke
Well I assumed we were in the process of discussion not belief. If you "just believe" something this whole dialog is pointless no?
You will cling to your belief as proof, and others will never accept your belief as proof, and rightly so.
Be that as it may, many sidearms are clearly designed for other purposes than killing people. But again.. so what if none were? The deciding factor in my having a gun is to have it in case I need to kill someone. The recreational aspect is just gravy, and of late, infrequently asserted. For some people the latter is predominant. But it is the former which the Second Amendment protects, and rightly so. In fact it was generally considered that any gentleman SHOULD own a gun. And I do honestly think that if everyone (unconvicted) owned a gun we'd have a much safer lifespace, and there are many example that indicate this. In fact I suspect it's much easier (and socially safer) to arm enough people to have a critical mass of arms that violence is reduced than to interdict them sufficiently to achieve the same result.
For example if all of the faculty at Columbine were armed I doubt that massacre would have happenned. Those kids MAY have been prepared to die, but they wanted some fun of terrorising and killing first. Else they would have just killed themselves. Faced with widespread arms possession they would have known they would have had a very shortlived killing spree. They probably never would have planned it at all. But we presented them with a veritable paradise of ducks _gauranteed_ to be defenseless.
I know the very idea of arming treachers makes a lot of people's urethras' want to release. But the reality is that when arms possession is homogenous and approaches unity violent crime becomes largely untenable.
Predators don't prey on the strong, or else predators would cease to exist. Even cougars don't hunt even the weakest or oldest or youngest wolf in a wolf pack. So shall we be sheep or wolves?
More importantly shall we set other sheep to protect our lambs?
That doesn't seem to be working.
And it's not the police's duty to save people. This has been upheld by the courts. It's the polices duty to attempt to apprehend criminals after the fact. The police at Columbine were there a while before they went in. Too dangerous. And no the parents can't sue. Been tried and doesn't work.
Speaking for myself I would feel WAY more comfortable sending my child to school where I knew EVERY faculty member was armed, by policy.
"As for a .30 cal with a 4" barrel, you don't see those every day." - Luke
But I do see a 4.02" barrel length EVERY DAY
What is it with men and unrealistic mental images of how long several inches is?
"On the right, you have guys who just can't wait for some kind of civil war" - Luke
Well I don't know what "right" you are talking about, but it's my impression that most of that right that you _seem_ to be talking about are concerned for their right to bear arms to forestall just that revolution. There are always noisy people on both sides. But most people just like the hedge against tyranny that widespread gun ownership represents.
FK
