You said "always". You even put it in bold. Do you know what "always" means? Now you are saying "sometimes" and "it depends on the situation." Which is it?

The debate isn't and never has been about why we should be able to own guns. There are a lot of people - reasonable, normal, Constitution-loving citizens- that are just never going to be comfortable with that right. On that, we just have to find a way to get along.

There are an endless number of anecdotal justifications supporting gun ownership and for undermining it. Its not about who can whip out the bestest, mostest ones for the side they like.

Can you read at all?
I said if you do not have a gun you are always at a disadvantage against someone with a gun.

If you have a gun you may be able to kill the perp.

I would much rather be in the latter category.


Beestie... then they should not buy a gun, problem solved.

Here are a few instances where your "always" categorical imperative can be debunked: if the person with the gun is blind, mentally challenged, asleep, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated.

I honestly don't see the use for personal handguns for protection when there are non-lethal alternatives readily available.

Name one that is as effective as a gun at distance. BTW, I am one of the three-to-five percent that can withstand a standard commercial tazer. If you had tried me before I became too ill I would have broken your neck. When I was a bouncer it was the fastest way to meet Mr. Floor in a hurry.

I have, repeatedly, stated that if you do not like guns that you should not buy one.

The question was about the likelihood of getting shot, not about being at a disadvantage or being the victim of a crime. Simply getting shot.

If someone wants to kill you, they will shoot you pre-emptively. You'll have no chance to "protect"yourself with your gun unless you have your weapon ready, safety off, identify the threat, and are faster on the draw than your attacker. If your attacker wants anything else, why would they kill you if you're unarmed? Unless, of course, you pose a threat to him by packing heat.

Have you been in the situation? I have, you always don't get hit the first time. They don't always shoot you and back down when they realize you have similar force and they may die (most often scenario). Also, it is not always human, I have been charged by animals and had to save my life with my side-arm, more than once.
No choice, no chance for hesitation and no other option available other than a side-arm (a rifle would not have been possible in the situation). Many would have wanted me to die in that instance.
Also, you don't always wait for them to shoot first.

Again, don't like em', don't buy em'.

This is why I think we should all go back to using swords and shields and things like that.

I have no problem with guns, I just don't like irresponsible people with guns. Not buying a gun doesn't help me keep me and everyone around me safe.

Oh, so we are talking about you forcing your opinions on others and turning them into rules?
If you are uncomfortable with a gun, you not buying one is, absolutely, keeping those around you safe.

Sure, as long as you are ok with getting rid of all technology that is capable of making a gun as well.
Say good-bye to your car and surgery.
Because I can make a gun and would as soon as mine was stolen by the fascists if it came to that.
It is quite simple and my family has the plans, the milling equipment, the brass and loading materials for a lifetime for all of us... as well as plenty to sell and trade to live off-of.

Wait, so you're going to post this, then a few posts later write that if someone fires a gun at you, it's not guaranteed that you'll be hit? Which is it. . . weapons like tazers are useless because guns are so much more effective at range, or chances are your assailant won't hit you anyway, so having a concealed gun is going to enhance your odds of survival in the event the guy misses his first shot and you're able to shoot him before he manages to fire a second shot? If this were the case, guns wouldn't be needed for protection, would they? If it's not, then what good is having a gun going to be if you're unexpectedly attacked?

Either way, the only way I'd try tazering you if I carried one for personal protection is if you seemed to be a threat to me. So, what's that have to do with you having been a bouncer or you breaking my neck?

I don't like guns and I don't buy them. That doesn't make me feel any better about the fact that it's exceedingly easy for just about anyone to buy a gun, and in some cases (if I've read this right about the incident in Virginia) be able to walk out with it without waiting for a background check. I'd be crazy to stay in places where I feel a sidearm or other weapon might be necessary to protect myself. That has nothing to do with my opinion of guns or if I buy them or not.

You never know where you may need a side arm.

This makes no sense to me... perhaps it is your wording.

Again for VT. It as illegal for him to carry a gun where he was carrying it. Illustrating that guns laws are ineffective. Columbine, also, clearly showed that.
People who want to commit mass murder, VERY illegal, don't care about laws.

Taxers have very limited range. I am talking about non-lethal weapons that you can use that compare to a gun.

Maybe he was actually a Negro??