And there it is. I'm not against responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns, but the reality is, shit happens. Carrying a gun lawfully is not a guarantee that you will not be a victim, and it concerns me that some seem to think that it is.

And...robbers don't even have to have a gun--they can just say they do. Or they can just forego the chit-chat and beat the crap out of you from behind, even without a weapon. Having a gun isn't going to help you then, and may even end up being worse for you, god forbid.

Having the option to defend yourself is never worse for you. Hypothetically, anything you do in a self-defense scenario could end badly -- that doesn't mean you shouldn't give it your best shot, no pun intended.

That's a straw man. Nobody said it was a guarantee.

But I claim you're vastly better off armed than disarmed. And the record (see Gun Facts) backs that up, even though so many of the cases where it does work never even make it to the record.

That is what Krav-Maga is for.

I'd never heard of Krav-Maga before, and was almost afraid to google it. :o Sure, that would work, or any martial art for that matter. A little story--a relative of mine, trained in something or other, plus a Vietnam combat vet and and a retired cop, was once attacked by two men intent on robbing him. But all they got for their trouble was a pair of broken knee caps, each. :eek:

"Martial Art" in the strictest sense. Mostly used by military and police/police-like groups. Developed by the Mossad to be a straight street fighting technique.
There is no form to it, just practical technique. Disarming and disabling is a lot of it, so someone with a gun behind you is not really an issue if your training has passed that point.
It is very effective.
Lately a lot of special forces and soccer moms have been taking advanced forms of it.
I saw a video of two guys who made the mistake of trying to take one of these ladies purses, it was caught on a security camera.
All I can say is "oucheeee".

The physical conditioning and training regimen required to be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan is not practical for most people.
The basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks. :D

Bush "it might be haaaaard work, but it will create thousands of jobs in martial arts training sector...." ;)

I just want to go on record that the pro-killing, uh, I mean the "guns for everyone" advocates have made two good points, IMHO.

First - Griff's "even playing field for women" point.

Second - Bruce's "if they don't have a gun they're more likely to just bash in your head before they even ask for your wallet" point.

I'd still like to see many, many fewer handguns on the streets.

See, I'm not a closed-minded conservative! :D

How do you "prevent gun violence"...?

Wage a war against gun crime?

The same way the "war on drugs" made people stop doing drugs?

Sorry, I was being ironic (sarcastic)

As you were.

It's too late for "sorry" . . . we're obligated to have a knife-fight now.