Oh...that last post was for you btw Maggie, just in case you couldn't figure that out.

Some people still believe the earth is flat, too. :cool:

That's your opinion, not fact.

Anything is possible. People in Philadelphia don't drink directly from the Delaware River anymore, do they?

Have I endorsed prohibitionism? No, just rational thought.

While I don't endorse this, that would make it easier for gun-using criminals to be erradicated. The pro-gun contingency seems to want to have a gun to protect them from potential attacks, right? If only criminals had handguns, they would esily be identified as potential attackers, and can be shot on sight. You'd like that, wouldn't you? You could change carreers, get into law enforcement, and finally get to kill someone - use that handgun you so intensely *need* to carry.

Do you acknowledge that this would require exponentially more police officers than we have right now?

Oh, come on! Talk about resorting to personal attacks!

If you're gonna argue the point, use reasoned points, not personal slurs against someone.

"Finally get to kill someone..." Sheesh! :headshake

Eh, it was just a little tongue in cheek. I've heard much worse. :)

Naw, just wait them out. As they're identified, they're dead. It'll be a hunt of attrition. ;)

Indeed there is. I know it, and you are yet not big enough a man, being but fifteen, to credit me with knowing it -- simply because I annoy you. That's all-important to you right now.

This is the difference between adolescence and, oh, about twenty-two... been there, done that. You'll probably do about the same.

Rational arguments are indeed the only kind that do convince. I am, quite rationally, persuaded that gun banners' efforts, if successful, will help kill my descendants -- but if unsuccessful, my descendants will not die in pogroms.

Don't seek for evil where it is not, laddie. You'll get laughed at, and head-wagged, and get derisive fingers pointed in your direction.

Spexxvet may actually have read Raging Against Self Defense on JPFO's website. He exhibits every one of the symptomatic patterns of thought as if he'd read the page and is now going down a checklist.

What will help Spexx become psychologically well adjusted? Precisely the thing he fears doing most -- and fears it so much he keeps it totally repressed: he must embrace the savagery that burns in his own heart, radiating through these fantasies of his (see above) about the gun and the gun people, and then find nondestructive outlets to express it. I can say from experience martial arts are one excellent way, as is SCA-type fighting/fencing with rattan swords; there is something so elemental about beating on somebody with a big ol' stick that it utterly satisfies any killer-ape urge you have. Thanks to the good armor the SCA wears, you can thrash the hell outta somebody and not hurt him, hardly a bruise. Meanwhile, and entirely in fairness, he's trying the same with you.

It's a rough and martial game, but in the process of exercising these killer faculties, the necessity of balancing them with civilized restraint becomes not only clear, but intensely desired by the practitioners of these violent arts also. The SCA, like the knights of old, speak of this simply as "chivalry," and this is clearly where all the ideals and ramifications of chivalry spring from.

Good soldiers in the combat arms, in particular the highly-trained SpecWar types, also find this balance.

Hunting game animals will also give outlet to this. Some, like the late Jeff Cooper, say that something life-and-death like hunting becomes through its seriousness something that is quite a sacrament -- Cooper has used that word -- and I suppose they have reason to. Personally, I'd have to shoot a few critters and get back to you.

Still subscribing to the Theory of the Evil Gun, I see. That subscription is how I know you're not rational on this topic. You've been getting the truth dinned into you from three different people who know each other only through the Cellar, and yet nothing do you learn. An anti-handgun view, Spexx, facilitates handgun crime, for the reason that the very same features of a handgun that make it attractive to commit crimes with also adapt the handgun as an efficacious defense against those very crimes. It then becomes a matter of who has a gun and who doesn't. You're asking me to be helpless in the face of a crime. That, Spexx, is pure, immoral, reprehensible and atrocious barbarism, and it is a barbarism I would not ever inflict upon you, yet you would afflict me with this atrocity?

Civilized? You? No. Not at bottom. But salvation is nonetheless at hand: see above.

Thank heavens London has become civilized and outlawed those evil guns. WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
Trite? Yes. Cliché? Yes. But it's still true. :eyebrow:

From here:

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

(1998-2000). Does not include accidental deaths by firearms.

#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people

Good of you to pluck one incident to point out. But big picture facts indicate that the US has 27 times more firearm murders than the UK, where firearms are illegal. Coincidence? I think not.

Reduce the number of firearms in a society, and reduce the number of firearms deaths.

In fact, from here:

Murders (per capita) by country

(1998-2000). Total murders by all means.

#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

#46 United Kingdom: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

All those would-be gun-using killers did not convert to stabbers, beaters, stranglers, or whatever – the murder rate in the US is still 3 times UK’s murder rate.

The question really is this: is it worth giving up firearms to reduce the murder rate by two-thirds? Notice, I said giving up, not have them taken from you.

But would those three people still be alive if there was more legal gun ownership?

Would they guy in bed have woken up in time to defend himself? He was attacked while he was asleep -clearly the attackers had already planned to get him when he was unable to fight back -with or without a gun.

And the guy at the icerink -if the gun used to shoot him were legal, the killers might have been able to argue self defence.....
....and imagine if some of those onlookers had been legally armed and decided to bring down the attackers. Could've been a whole lot more dead..... Would they still have shot him if there was a higher chance that he was armed? well they picked a crowded ice arena in the first place, so it doesn't seem like consequences for themselves were something they were considering.

An awful lot of speculation is required to arrive at the conclusion that these three deaths would have been prevented by legal gun ownership. But a little easier for me to imagine that more guns could have led to more deaths.

Monster has a good point. In terms of the number of deaths, there would be a wash, at best. For instance, if Bruce was in a fender bender with Maggie, and got out of his car and approached Maggie, and she was the only one armed, she might feel threatened and shoot Bruce. Or if Bruce was the only one armed, he might shoot her. Either way, there's only one dead body. The shooter would have all the time in the world to shoot, and probably wouldn't miss. If both were armed, they could rush their shots, and shoot innocent bystanders, or they could both hit their targets and kill each other. It's much more likely to have a higher body count.

I keep bringing this up, I wonder if you read all the posts or don't think of it yourself.
Making a gun of your own, or for others is quite simple.
I get the impression that you think that if you outlaw something it will just go away.
Many of the guns that are used by gangs in the US come from China along with their drugs. The laws would only harm those who are law abiding citizens, making them criminals... they would accomplish nothing else.

BTW, Canada and a few other nations have as many guns per household as the US and lower murder and violent crime rates than the US and the UK. Guns are not the problem, it is a social consciousness/attitude problem.
My personal feeling is we have lost our commitment to the family.

Places in the US with more liberal carry laws like Texas have lower violent crime rates.

Interesting debate going on and if you don't mind, I'm going to jump in for a bit. I own two guns and both are for home defense, a 9mm and a pump action shotgun. They're kept in plain sight at the end of the hallway, locked in a glass case. Once every 3-4 weeks I'll take them to the range so I don't get rusty. Only the ruger has ever been fired anywhere but the range but I was quite happy that I had it at the time.

I dislike the idea of needing them, I don't mind the fact that I have them. It's a right under our constitution, and they're to be used strictly for personal security reasons. I think many people may go overboard with their love for firearms, but then they may say the same about my love for computers.

Welcome to the Cellar, Jordan. :D

My point is outlawing guns in Britain didn't make them go away.
No.:p
I am not the problem or the solution.

This entire scenario has been utterly, completely debunked in all 38 states of the Union that have strongly liberalized concealed carry of weapons, Spexx. It simply does not happen, and is a hoplophobic fantasy of yours brought on by your unbalanced thinking on the subject -- as set forth in Raging Against Self Defense. I'll rely more on the experience of 38 states, with the body count and the economic loss count to crime going permanently down, than on the views of one hoplophobe. You should rely upon that yourself -- even if you're terrified of what this might open a trapdoor to, inside your forebrain.

We know the truth, and it has made us free. But if you can't know the truth, it shan't make you free. I think I'd want to be free of what afflicts you, though, if I stood in your shoes. You're really being creepy, Spexx.

Guess I'd better link to Raging Against Self Defense to show people what I'm on about.

You mean volunteer for genocide, and extra crime, the only results ever seen from this kind of thing. Spexx, even with your twisted values, it's not worth it even for you.

This idea we moral people reject forever and ever. If you wish to be a moral person, you must reject it forever also. Do it, man! No matter how much it scares you, I guarantee disarming yourself so you get killed without means of resisting it, retail as in crime or wholesale as in genocide, is much more terrifying, much more the pit of despair.

I don't think anyone could possibly disagree, though, that someone with NO guns is less likely to shoot me than someone with any.

Right?

Right but wholly irrelevant.

A) The world cannot be sterilized from danger, nor would you want to live in such a place. But more importantly,

B) I caution, resist the urge to solve politics with equations. It seems like it would work that way sometimes, but math is perfect and humans are imperfect.

In exactly the same way that someone with no hands is less likely to shoot you than someone with any. Fantasy-land scenarios are a waste of time.

This reminds me of an "old" joke, which I tell for the humor and not at all as part of the debate:

Q: How many gun control proponents does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. They just pass a law against darkness.

Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions? For that to happen, you would have to have your gun with you, loaded, safety off, at the ready, and anticipate the threat, be able to correctly determine if the threat is real (don't want to make a victim out of an innocent person), be able to aim and hit a target, and have the willingness to kill and face the consequences of killing - all before the aggressor does it to you first.

I wonder how many American thought, in 1860, that slavery could be eliminated?

The factof the matter is that firearms are here to stay. There is no way of hunting down each and every criminal and taking away their weapons. Do you truly believe that our law enforcement is capable of rounding up every gun that every criminal currently has, and then keeping new ones from being smuggled in? If that were the case then no country would have a drug problem either.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating the use of firearms. As far as I'm concerned, they serve no purpose beyond killing. I'm a gun RIGHTS advocate, I believe that you have the right to defend what is yours within reason. If someone breaks into my apt and goes after me, my girlfriends, or Kait, we should have the right and ability to protect ourselves.

Sorry, not a fantasy.
 

I was in just that situation 1 1/2 years ago and the story's here

There have already been several firsthand accounts of that exact thing here. How many do you need?

How many do you need to justify all the shooting deaths? Philadelphia averaged more than a shooting death a day last year. How many lives does it take to justify foiling the theft attempts of Mrnoodle's sound equipment, Kitsune's car, and Jordan's generator?

I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.

Tell me, do you ever gamble? That's what criminals do, they know that they run the risk of getting shot and/or going to jail for doing something illegal... then they go out and commit the crime anyways. They willfully break the law, and the police can't be everywhere at once. Now you're saying we eliminate half of their risks? I just don't think so. Why should I work my butt off for a generator I may only use ever once 2-3yrs only to have a crook waltz off with it?

Not far from where I grew up they fire off guns for a birthday, Independence Day, New Years, sporting events and occasionally at one another. Are you saying that I should give up my defensive tools and allow others to prowl the streets with their firearms at the ready? Nopers, not gonna happen.

I don't gamble with my life or my family's life. I think owning a gun is taking a gamble. Will a child get hold of it? Will there be an accidental discharge that kills someone? Will I misjudge a situation, and kill an innocent person? Will my brandishing a gun cause someone to kill me before I can kill them?

No. My position is about handguns. Can you protect yourself and your family with a rifle or shotgun?

Would you have killed someone - taken a life - over a generator that you use once every 2-3 years?

No. There are plenty of defensive tools. Motion lights, alarms, tasers, bullet-proof vests, and all kinds of behavior. Most of them can't be used to commit crimes or hurt others.

No. I disagree that handguns would be around long, if it's handled properly. Just by enforcing or strengthening current laws, for instance a mandatory life sentence for using a handgun to commit a crime or for irresponsible use of a handgun, those who misuse handguns will be out of circulation pretty quickly. If they switch to rifles, they'll be more identifiable. I know there will be exceptions to these rules, but guns will go away the same way cigarette smoking is going away.

Listen, you can pack a piece, and protect your family while they are with you. Other gun owners may not be as responsible as you. If your child's classmate gets a hold of his father's gun, brings it to school and shoots your child, the gun in your pocket didn't help. If someone breaks into a house and steals guns, and shoots you pre-emptively while they're stealing your generator, your gun didn't help. If you get raped in a parking lot because your gun is locked in your gun safe at home, it didn't help. But, because you reserve the right to own a gun, others have guns, and can use them to commit crimes, and have lethal accidents. Is it worth it?

The only way that any child could get a hold of my firearms is to either take the key from my keychain or else break the glass. As I've already stated, I only have the two guns and they're kept in plain sight. I would notice right away if either were missing. Also, an innocent person would not be prowling my property and no one should never EVER pull out their gun unless you KNOW you may need it.

I can easily defend myself and property with a shotgun, the rifle concept is rather foreign to me.

I never shot AT them, merely discharged into the ground. That generator also supplied power to an eightyish great grandmother next door. This is the same woman who feeds the neighborhood cats went shopping for me and made me chicken soup while i was ill last week. Thanks to the cold front that came after the storm, the only things she had drawing on my generator were her refrigerator and a ceiling fan. IF there had been no cold front, and IF I had not scared away the thieves, she would have had serious issues with the heat and humidity in the aftermath of the storm.

Motion lights? Do they have raccoons or opossums where you live? Bullet proof vests don't do anything to defend the home. Tasers require you to get too close and when you're talking two or three to one odds, I'd like to keep things as much in my favor as possible. FYI: Tasers can and are used to commit crimes, they're simply not as "popular".

Do you truly think that by signing a new amendment into place abolishing firearms, the criminals will simply cease to carry them in the next ten to twenty years? Do you know the laws they have against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse...? Yet these crimes continue, why is that? Possibly because in order to first be a criminal one must first make a conscious choice to break the law. If we have people that are willing to break the law in order to commit all of the above and NONE of the aforementioned crimes require firearms in order to commit them, then it stands to reason that none of these crimes would be prevented by abolishing firearms.

Abolishing firearm sales in the United States will only mean that they will be smuggled in from Mexico, Puerto Rico or Canada by criminals. That means that law abiding citizens such as myself and many others would be at even MORE of a disadvantage against them.

Oh yeah, your argument that others should loose their property for someone elses negligence holds no water. Should you lose your car because someone went out and purpousfully ran over their mother-in-law? They aimed their weapon, pressed the "trigger" and took someone's life. I reserve the right to own a gun and a car, others have guns and cars, both are used to commit crimes and both are involved in lethal accidents.

Let's abolish cars as well. :)

Absolutely, scum that prey on people trying to survive in the wake of a natural disaster deserve to die. Shooting looters has always been Standard Procedure for all levels of government and should be followed by the citizens. :apistola:

Your concern for this lower than whale shit, predator that causes untold suffering and possibly death to people in trouble, is foolish. You remind of the guy that went, unarmed, to live with the bears because they were just misunderstood creatures doing their thing. He was 100% right. Their thing was to eat him.

Concern for human life should always be applauded, the issue is when excessive force is taken. I would backup anyone that shot the people trying to steal their generator. That would be out of basic principle, you can not discern what an individual's mindset is at the time of crisis. The best you can do in that particular situation is interpret their actions and act, which is what I did. A mandatory curfew in effect, my neighbors lawnmower in my yard and my AC unit no longer functioned, I "interpreted" that they were stealing my generator. IMO, their lives are worth no less or more than my own, I was merely defending my property as I deemed I should. Personally, I could not make the decision to shoot at them and so chose to scare the crap outta them and call it in.

I applaud Sexxvet for her (his?) vigilance and agree with many of her/his views, I simply lack the optimistic idealism to believe it would ever work. I came into this debate in the middle, and apologize for stepping on anyone's toes in the process.

Just saw a program about US home videos. There was a footage of a guy who was angry that his neighbour walked on the porch of his house to get to the street.

He was waving a gun at the neighbour who was yelling "Yeah, why don't you shoot me". He did shot him, 3 times. The neighbour was dead. All on video...

Ouch - Something tells me there might have been more to the story than just that simplified version. Even so, you don't bait someone waving a gun by screaming "shoot me", and you don't go waving a gun at someone just to prove a point.

This is why there are laws about keeping your firearms locked up and secured. The trigger happy SOB should get life in prison and the dead guy's probably been punished enough by now. The jail time won't bring the dead guy back, but maybe he shouldn't have been antagonizing his gun wielding neighbor... Just my $.02

So you would and could take someone's life for material things?

You've got me wrong. I was asking to find information, it was not a rhetorical quetsion, though I'd rather see a non-violent resolution to the conflict. Jordan resolved the conflict without violence. Well done. And I'm glad they were caught and punished.

Completely true, but my point right from the start, far from 'ban guns!', was...


Therefore, the statement that people with guns are more dangerous than those without them applies only to the extremes in politics, not to the criminals - which is exactly why I dont want to ban them in the first place.


Are you done arguing with me yet? I'm NOT anti-gun. I'm not for gun control.

But not every gun owner is as responsible or thorough as you are.

Or as "lethal". My point is that there are plenty of things you can do to protect yourself and your home besides having a handgun at the ready to kill someone. Isn't that true?

So you're saying that laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse don't stop those crimes, so laws against gun posession won't stop gun crimes, is that right? By that logic, we should revoke the laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse - after all, they're not stopping those crimes. Let's just not even attempt to stop those crimes, the way you want to not even attempt to stop gun posession. I do not support legislating the abolishment of firearms, I support voluntarily giving them up.

Actually, you lose "property" for other people's negligence all the time. Car insurance rates increase in proportion to the likelihood of your "group" getting into an accident. Same with health insurance. Your buddy's doughnut eating is increasing the cost of your health insurance. Go figure.

When you reserve the right to own a gun, you reserve the right of others to own a gun... others who may use those guns for criminal activities or who allow children to have access to them.

I've heard the "(insert ludicrous object here) kill people, and nobody wants to outlaw them" argument before. I'm sure somebody's been "spooned" to death before, so let's outlaw spoons. Bottom line: Handguns were made for killing people. (Quick, someone jump in and say how they are used for sport or protection from dangerous animals.) They were made for killing people. The world would be a better place without them.

Aaah, the power of misinterpreted quotes :)
 

So I should voluntarily pay the price for someone elses negligence? Now we're back at the "let's all give up our car" theory, around and around we go lass.

You show me something that's as accurate as a handgun at 20 feet with 100% of the same stopping power and, (after a bit of judicial research), I'll be the first one applauding.

I never said the laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse etc don't help to prevent these crimes. What I did say was that none of these violent crimes require a gun and that those who make a conscious choice to break the law would do so regardless of the time they must spend in jail. I never advocated eliminating those crimes from the dockets. By all means, let's increase the penalties on them.

But again I say, your argument holds no water. I reserve the right to drive and own a car, for dinner tonight we all had steak, potato wedges and spinach with a desert of lime sorbet. Does that mean that "Average Joe Citizen" will pay for our health care if we all come down with cholesterol induced heart failure? Incrementally speaking, sure, but somehow I doubt it. Yes, increments amassed can lead to much more; the same way many creeks may lead into a stream and several streams will form a river.
IMO: That river never formed in any of your arguments. Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society. You're correct in saying that handguns were made for killing, but it's the person who dictates what the target is.

Again I say that I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and not have it.

In the case of looters, absolutely. :yeldead: Then you'll be canceling your insurance, life and home owners, since you have all these defensive tools, right?

If you're screwing with my property, me on my property. You are subject to get shot at.

38

Hell, if you are so adamant about bearing arms, how about pocket nukes for everyone, man, woman and child? If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is.

How about a shotgun, ma'am?

And your argument is held in a seive.
Regarding guns:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"

Same logic:
Regarding drugs:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their drugs via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"

Regarding rape:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their penises via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"

Just curious, have you ever killed anyone?:worried:

Who said I have all those things? :eyebrow:

Spexxvet, I've followed this thread since it's start and re-read it from beginning to present. Yet, I haven't grasped your definitive opinion yet. Would you answer some questions directly and concisely?
1. Do you think there should be an amendment to the constitution to remove guns from American civilians?
2. Do you think guns should be legislated out of the hands of American civilians?
3. Do you think American civilians should voluntarily give up their firearms?
4. Do you think any of the above alternatives will have a major impact on violent crime figures?
5. Do you think Americans who are opposed to gun ownership are more civilized than Americans who own guns legally?

ok

IF and if and if
 

If firearms were made illegal and if the police could round up every last one out of the hands of every citizen, the only way for them to get into the hands of criminals would be through our oh-so-tight national borders. Sorta like how the drugs get through on a daily basis, except it would probably be easier to sneak the guns through.

This is the idea you've been proposing is it not, that all firearms be handed over to the police and henceforth be illegal? Theoretically possible, but so is the chance of the Earth getting devoured by a von Neuman machine. Not too likely to occur, but theoretically possible.

I shot a man in reno, just to watch him die.


Since they're readily available, you'd be foolish not to and much cheaper than insurance.:cool:

There's nothing more to it. Interesting fact is that it was the gunmans own cam system which recorded the shooting. He installed it to prove that his neighbour was tresspassing his property. Sure tresspassing is a transgression, but certainly not such a felony to kill him? Why not use a dog to keep intruders away?

So you are for the death penalty for thieves? Can't we just chop of their hands?

Nope, no hand chopping, looters die. :cop:

How are you going to catch them? ;)

Maybe kill em first and then chop their hands? To be sure?

No.

No.

Yes, but only handguns.

Yes

No, but they're more civilized than those who use handguns, legally or illegally.

Hope that helps. Let me know if I can answer any more questions.:)

If and if and if
 

You want guns so that if you are attacked, or if someone tries to steal something, or if...

So should we just give up on making drugs and rape illegal, for the same reason?

No. Voluntarily give up your HANDGUNS, and keep them legal - it won't matter. If "law abiding" citizens did not have handguns, then criminals will be easily identified and dealt with. Make punishments for misusing a handgun - whether in a crime, an accident, or treating them irresponsibly - a life sentence with no parole, and the use of handguns will dwindle, and hopefully die.

Probably about the same likelihood that you'll need a gun to protect yourself from harm, huh?

Is this really Saddam Hussein?

Shhh, only you know it...

Nope, it'll be a HAARP machine

Bingo! you're catching on. If I am attacked or if I were to be robbed again, I would have the ability to defend myself. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not a raving bloodthirsty flesh eating gun rights fanatic, merely another human being looking out for myself and my property.

I believe I answered this ludicrous statement before. :dedhorse:

You say that the criminal would be easily identifiable. How? How would the criminal be easily identifiable before he pulls his weapon? They don't all run about in black masks and waving Tommy guns in the air. You can't be sure that a person is a criminal and out to do you harm until they voice their threat.

Seeing as how I've already been in a situation where a firearm came in handy against 3-1 odds, I'm already 100% ahead of your game on this topic.

Question: Because the majority of rapists are male, should all men have to give up their penises?

Question: Because all D.U.I.s only when you mix alcohol and vehicles, should we ban cars or alcohol?

Responsibility lies with the owner and operator, not with an inanimate object.

I wasn't arguing that. The point that you missed was that your needing a gun to defend yourself is as likely as the police being able to "round up every last one out of the hands of every citizen".

They'll be the ones with the handguns.

How can you tell anyone is a criminal before he commits a crime? A rapist doesn't wear a mask, nor does an embezzler, yet those activities are illegal, aren't they. The handgun-using criminal will be easily identified as a criminal when they draw their handgun, and maybe can be dealt with before they use the handgun. Why will it be easier to identify a criminal? Because there'll be no question that the guy with the handgun in his hand might be a law abiding citizen just drawing his handgun for perfectly legal reasons - if he has a handgun, he's a criminal. No brainer.

How old are you? How many times? Do the math: once every "X" years you'll need some sort of protection, and it doesn't have to be a handgun. And remember, the next time you shoot into the ground, one of the generator-stealing-gun-in-the-truck guys might have his handgun with him, and turn and fire, killing you before you get anything but the warning shot off. And then there's your family and loved ones, without you, because you had to reserve the right to have a handgun, which makes it easier for the generator stealers to have a handgun. All this over a generator that you use once every 2-3 years. Hmmmmm. Is it worth it?

No. Penises have other uses, handguns don't. And even misused penises don't kill people. Have you ever heard of someone being "dicked to death"?

Just the combination of the two. They each have other uses, handguns don't.

And consider yourself partially responsible for allowing handguns to be owned and operated by irresponsible people.