>
If you compare homicide figures from different countries and don't believe gun control is protecting society from these incidents, you must either be a complete idiot or born without a head.
>
>Its far more a kind of wishfull thinking that your gun increases your safety. the fact is that esspecially when children can have access (and don't come up with the classic answer that guns should be stored safely out of reach from children? How on earth is it going to protect you then) your gun is more of a threat to safety than it helps.
>
>IMO, it is unbelievable ignorance. >
>Walter, I believe a few weeks ago you tried to lump John Harvey's statements (which you partly misinterpreted) as ugly Americanism. Your comments are a good example of the very thing you criticized him for.
>
>Here's the bottom line...you can say what you want from across the waters. But the minute anyone takes action to prevent Americans from exercising their 2nd amendment right (which, by the way, is rooted in British historical law) to bear arms for the purpose of defending themselves, they'll have a fight on their hands.
>
>Also - it took me about 2 seconds to find a news story about a family that used a gun to defend themselves.
>
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2010/01/10/houston-tx-home-invader-shot-in-self-defense/>
>Walter, yes or no....in this case, do you oppose that family's right to own a weapon for the SOLE purpose of defending themselves? Yes or no?
>
>No country can ever make any
guarantee that a violent criminal will never break into their house - and so people have the right to defend themselves.
I am not going to stir up that particular hornet's nest for a raging debate, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment was not for citizens to defend themselves. It was to be part of a militia, which at the time was all we had. With professional armed forces, that is no longer an issue. Just adding a small (actually not so small) point of information. Carry on.
Not necessarily on point, just a recommendation, there was an excellent article in the NY Times yesterday about returning vets going to college on the GI bill. The stipends have improved, which IMO is a very good use of taxpayer money. It focuses on a 29 year old guy who did two tours of duty and is now at Columbia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/nyregion/09gis.html?scp=1&sq=iraq%20vets%20at%20columbia&st=cseAnother vet featured in the article, who also goes to Columbia, said it perfectly. He said he gets constant thanks from people for serving, even if they disagree with the war. That's me.
