All it would take was a sudden flinch of the finger to squeeze the trigger and we would be reading about you in the obituary rather than talking to you on A.cc. Too many people mistake ignorance for courage. If you are attacking someone who is threatening you with a gun then you are still at his mercy. You are also changing the rules, if you start attacking them and they ultimately shoot and kill you, then you turn your attacker into self-defense giving them legal grounds to shoot you. This is one of the main reason law enforcement tell you never to resist someone holding a weapon on you.

[REVISION]
During the Casey Anthony trial there was another trial brought to my attention. A pharmacist was being robbed by two teen with guns, he shot one of the boys and the other one ran away. He then walked up to the one he had shot and shot him several more times, killing him. That pharmacist was put in prison for murder because once the boy was on the ground he was no longer a threat so killing him turned him from attacker to victim. Got to love how the law can make your good intentions turn against you fast.

Crap, you replied too quick for me :

During the Casey Anthony trial there was another trial brought to my attention. A pharmacist was being robbed by two teen with guns, he shot one of the boys and the other one ran away. He then walked up to the one he had shot and shot him several more times, killing him. That pharmacist was put in prison for murder because once the boy was on the ground he was no longer a threat so killing him turned him from attacker to victim. Got to love how the law can make your good intentions turn against you fast.

His good intentions was to protect his customers.

I find it humorous that the anti-gun people seem to assume that muggers/burglars/etc. mean you no harm if you comply with their demands. You are what is called a witness to their crime, and unless they are confident that you can't identify them they have a very good reason to make you incapable of reporting what you know about them, even if you didn't see their face or hear their voice. Life is not so simple. There are never guarantees. Nobody is saying that owning or carrying a gun makes you invincible. If you put that gun down during a confrontation then there is no more reason to shoot you than there would be if you didn't have one. If you have the opportunity to instead put your attacker down then you may escape when you otherwise wouldn't. There are no guarantees. When they tell you not to fight back I think that they are predominantly referring to untrained personnel that try to be heroes without preparing for it (the majority of us, probably). That said, sometimes fighting back is necessary, and the police do recognize this. Having a gun doesn't mean that you have to use it. Then again, having a visible gun might prevent the crime in the first place. If you were planning to steal $20 would you target the guy that might blow your face off or the guy that is most probably defenseless? Again, there are never guarantees, but there are plenty of variables that play into every situation. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect yourself. There are people in the world that wouldn't think twice about ending your life. Most people don't face off with them, but some people do, and sometimes the only way to survive it is to fight back. There are plenty of people that have successfully defended themselves with firearms, and AFAIK the successes outnumber the failures, at least in cases where the people took the time to prepare and train (as opposed to buying a gun and never learning to use it).

There have been several cab drivers in this town who have been killed without offering resistance (? no witnesses but they didn't have weapons found on the scene), as a matter of fact the guy that talked me into driving cab was shot in the back of the head for no reason by a guy in the back seat. They were caught, and in the trial the killer said he did it to see what it felt like to kill somebody, but some people think it was a "gang initiation" thing.

Oh, yeah, the "get killed with your own gun" argument doesn't take into consideration that the crimes prevented by brandishing a gun far outweigh the disadvantages.

Arthur, are telling these stories to convince us that it's a good idea to let people carry guns?

It seems to me that if it was not so easy to get access to a loaded gun, then people would be less likely to shoot each other to see what it felt like. I wonder if anyone has tried to gather hard statistics about this kind of thing... What do you think? Do lax gun laws lead to fewer killings, or more killing? Lower crime rates, or higher crime rates? Surely someone has looked into this...

No that statement is too broad actually. It doesn't just apply to robbers killing a person with their own gun, it also includes suicide, domestic violence, and accidental killings. I do have to admit that it is a fairly padded sweeping statement.

My mom hates guns, and was freaked out about me marrying a woman that had a father that was into guns. My father was shot in the back of the head after complying to a robbery at the gas station he worked at, I was only 9 at the time. Considering my past, one would think I would be all for getting a gun for protection, but I have seen it go both ways and know that having a firearm or not having one won't effect the outcome in a way that won't mess with you.

There are so many variables that come into play, and I'm sure there are a lot of cases where people have protected themselves with firearms (I actually remember a case where a woman shot and killed an intruder with her late husbands shotgun and while it was self defense and justified, she was reported as having serious depression problems afterward due to taking a person's life).

Well, in Indiana we had a thing where they took guns seized from robberies and such, melted them down and made a thing called the Crucible (I think it was). Most the guns that were melted, were mostly guns stolen from houses and not the perpetrator's actual gun.

I never thought you were saying that I, or anyone else in particular, should carry a gun. I don't know why you mentioned that. As I understand it, the issue we are talking about is what restrictions should their be on gun ownership and usage. One of the reasons the 'sheeple' might not want to let you carry a gun is that they have no way of knowing you won't decide that you want to shoot someone to see what it feels like; or no way of knowing that you won't shoot someone accidentally; or no way of knowing that you won't use the gun for some other criminal purpose. We're talking about whether people should be allowed to legally own and carry a deadly weapon just as a basic liberty, for no particular reason. That is not a liberty without consequences. It has very serious implications.

Ok. But I don't see how any of those things are relevant to our discussion.

Cool story, tough guy. I like the details about how well you took the punch.

As to whether or not your hands should be taken away. Do your hands serve some purpose other than being a weapon? Is it possible to restrict access to hands? Do people need special training to be able to use hands in a safe manner so that they don't accidentally kill people when they fumble?

No. No one is suggesting that hands be taken away. No slope could possibly be that slippery.

bamccaig, don't rail on me about the to see what it feels like thing. The only reason I mentioned that is because Arthur used it as an example in an earlier post. Apparently you guys are working at cross purposes at little bit.

He still made the argument that it was reason enough to restrict 300 million (or whatever) people's rights so that one guy couldn't satisfy that particular psychotic curiosity (I'm sure he would have lead a normal, healthy, harmless life if not for that gun ).

Nah, just build the world's biggest asylum and move everyone in there. Then you would be restricted from guns and shoelaces .

Should people have guns...well obviously no. If you want to shoot a gun there should be controlled places to go and use their guns, for a charge. Should thousands of Americans have guns under their beds? No, of course not.

Surely that's as simple as it needs to be? Why give morons guns?

Aha! Nice.