Another school shooting

[Spexxvet]

That's a pretty hefty Rx, but SteveDallas has you beat by a long shot, IIRC. Luckily lens thickness can be radically reduced now, compared to even 10 years ago.

[morethanpretty]

Guns cause as many problems as the "solve". The only reasonable use for a gun is to hunt with it. And then you still need to be extremely careful and responsible at all times. If you want to protect yourself from hoodlums carry pepperspray, stun gun or one of these. The fatality risk is greatly reduced, they're just as effective and less likely to kill an innocent bystander.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hoodlum?.... maybe, but not hoodlums. And that's only for a hoodlum that doesn't have a serious bent to cause you bodily harm. Although those are admittedly rare.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

The fatality risk is greatly reduced, they're just as effective...

Nonsense. They're not anywhere near as effective. In many cases they don't work at all.

(And the Tazer you linked to is illegal in Philadelphia. :-) )

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Guns cause as many problems as the "solve". The only reasonable use for a gun is to hunt with it.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This viewpoint is friendly to genocide.

You will note that my viewpoint is very unfriendly to genocide. (It's not too sweet on genocide's supporters here in the Cellar, either.)

Which is the morally superior position, and why are you contenting yourself with the inferior one? There are two explanations -- both unflattering, you know.

General ownership of firearms, teacheth the JPFO, is the only known preventative of episodes of genocide, and surely resisting genocide is a "reasonable" use for a gun. While the fundamental rationality of general warfare is open to debate (I regard war as an inescapable part of the human condition, just as getting eaten by lions is part of the African antelope condition.) the fundamental rationality of resisting getting killed by hostile combatants is not. Morethanp, your approach makes refugees, not winners. What's the point of that?

You won't be blessed with an informed opinion on this until you've read Simkin, Zelman, and Rice's Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, available from the JPFO among other sources.

How is it that you inhabit a small town in Texas and are unable to understand guns better?

[morethanpretty]

Some one cleaning a gun recently shot a person I know in the back through the wall of her hotel room. Many of those who own guns are idiots. Many people are more than likely to overreact when confronted and therefore accidently shoot someone. And just because they "attack" doesn't mean they deserve to be killed. That is why we have justice system. Guns don't always work right either. I might have not have been entirely accurate when I said there are other methods of deterring attackers that are just as effective. You're right, none of the other methods of self protection normally cause as much mass harm as guns do. Just because it is the most forceful method doesn't make it the best method. Kill or be killed? Thats a very uncivilized view. UG I understand guns very well and I've known many incidents of things going wrong with them that have caused death to an innocent bystander. Most Texans own guns for hunting and recreation. Not protection against other people.
EDIT: I have never once said I have a problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with them being used as your main source of self protection. At my house we have a hand gun, we know how to use it. But 1st we have a large dog, a locked door, two warning dogs (rat/chihuahua mixes), a baseball bat, and 911. If I am ever in an unsecured location, I am by bright lights, my mother knows where I am and when I should be home, and I have my pepperspray. I believe I need a gun to keep me safe, neither would I be willing to use it. In this incident MaggieL where is the protective umbrella you provide me?

[Elspode]

I think I saw this used by The Penguin on Batman once.