Fresh from my wine country trip I have decided to drop this pointless discussion once again with a few parting thoughts.

To any questions which revolve around asking me some form of "why I need X" the simple answer is : Because I want them and because I can. That is almost the most basic element of America’s founding and freedom, and it’s why those who rail against it are perhaps the most evil amongst us.

For further info I direct you to my previous post on the subject Message#1560316.

Automobiles provide the perfect counterpoint to your baseless gun statistics as demonstrated by your deflective and easily refutable response.

Guns have no social or economic value for joe average,

This is nothing more than your opinion, repeated often in hopes of making it seem as fact. Your "value" system is not mine and since when is the social or economic value of something a requirement for people to participate. I see zero social or economic value in a bunch of dudes kicking a ball back and forth only to result in a 0-0 tie yet soccer is quite popular around the world.

but instead are a real threat to personal and public safety.

This is why I repeatedly bring up automobiles. If you really cared about public safety you would look at things which actually cause more accidental deaths than guns. Automobiles are the hands down number 1 cause of accidental deaths. Followed by poisoning, fires, falls, choking all of which are more of a real threat to personal and public safety.

>>>Why? Do you feel les safe with restrictive gun laws?
>>
>>Yes. Any removal of my options in defending myself, family and property ovbiously makes me and them less safe.
>
>By putting something in place that is approx 40 times more dangerous to your safety? Or does that argument not apply to you? Just like having the attitude that you can drive a truck after consuming a whole bottle of scottish whiskey?
>
>I'm sure the parents of that 6 year old kid being shot by another 4 year old boy would have though the same before this happened.
>
>>>Is it really that dangerous to live there?
>
>>Are you making the false suggestion that where you live absolutly determines your safety?
>>http://www.myfoxla.com/story/21631091/home-invasion-robbery-in-upscale-neighborhood-leaves-residents-scared
>
>There is no such thing as absolute safety. Increasing your safety is about using common sense:
>1. Good locks on your doors and windows.
>2. Having modile phones
>3. instructing members what to do in case of incidents.
>
>>I live in a rural area, 15 minutes from any form of civilization and 20 minutes minimum police/fire/emt response time. I feel safe because my isolation. I feel more safe because of my security precautions. I feel less safe when those precautions are regulated away for no logical reason other than an irrational fear of an inanimate object. Note: I feel the same about ignoramouses who want to ban certain scary-looking breeds of dogs as well.
>
>Statistics prove that the gun in your house is 40 times more likely to hurt a friend than a foo. So how irrational is that?
>
>But lets say that in your circumstance, I can somewhat understand your position. How is an more strict backgroundcheck affecting your safety? And why do you need a handgun, autmatic guns? Isn't a double barrel hunting gun more than enough to defend your home? Wouldn't it be more safe as well?
>
>>>Or do you love your gun more than your family?
>
>>Based upon your faulty logic we should ban children from cars (auto accidents), remove stairs and tall furniture (falls), remove all cleaning products (poisoning), remove pools & bathtubs (drowning), remove fireplaces, ovens and gas furnaces (burning and smoke/CO inhalation) and anything larger than a childs airway but smaller than their mouth(suffocation). Items in parens are all more common causes of accidental death for children than firearms.
>
>This is not about Cars, this is about guns, or else we should ban Fast Food as well. I don't understand why people buy into such bogus arguments of cars. Cars are transportion vehicles, ment to transport people and goods. Guns have no social or economic value for joe average, but instead are a real threat to personal and public safety.
>
>Whether you like it or not, the US society is far more violent than any other western country, and you still keep your head sticking in the sand, not having to admit those facts.
>
>>The logic is as flawed as those that cite using a cell phone while driving as dangerous to children when the #1 distraction while driving is other people in the car, primarily CHILDREN.
>
>Again, it beyond me that you insist to compare gun related causulties to anything else that have economic and social value. Am I that smart or are you that stupid? I really can't believe that your using this kind of logic that indicates either having an IQ that has to be digged up before it can be measured or a total antosocial lack of compassion tho the tens of thousands that have to deal with the dramatic consequenses of having guns available at armreach to every nutcase in the US.