Cathy I think takes the attitude like Tom Selleck's attitude in 'Quigley Down Under' where he kills the bad guy with s handgun at the end:

"Just because I have no use for it ( a hand gun ) does not mean I do not know how to use one."

or something like that.

There is a difference between having the practical necessity of using one versus going wax poetic over the the specifications - stopping power, handling, etc.

Also, it is recommended for home invasions that a shot gun is recommended anyway.

I am not saying that people should not have guns but it should not be in the hands of folks who only has the nuts in gun nuts *rolls eyes*.

Kim

I live in The Big City®. I've lived here for most of my lifetime, and have lived in three of the city's 5 boroughs. I have some experience.

I've been the victim of crimes: unsolved break-and-enter burglaries committed when I wasn't home (one for each borough), and a clever pickpocketing discovered too late to confront the team of pickpocketers, who had already exited the subway at a prior station. Had I owned weapons at home, those may well have fallen into criminal hands. Had I been carrying a pistol, that might have just as easily been lifted as my wallet was on the subway. Benefit to me, zero, to the thieves, plenty, to society, not so good. As it was, weaponless, my losses were minimal. Insurance and a lawsuit against a landlord took care of most of it.

While I lived in Manhattan, I had an upstairs neighbor who was a writer, working on his "Great American Novel". A good friend, who played a mean game of chess, could carry on a brilliant conversation, and had an artistic, ethereal air about him that I greatly admired. We lived on the edge of a pretty rough neighborhood, and he knew not to go wandering around into the rough part. Still, trouble seemed to find him. He might as well have had a "Mug Me" sign painted on his back. Being tall, and very thin seemed to mark him as not being a very big risk to rob. Ten times he was mugged before giving up and moving back to Indiana to teach.

He described each mugging to me. The NRA-sponsored propaganda about the defensive use of guns is pure nonsense, at least as far as I can tell in cases like his from his described experience. In not one of these real, committed crimes, would a gun have been of any use whatsoever. I don't know how crime works in other places, but this was his typical, reported experience of getting robbed at gunpoint: He's walking along, unaware of any danger at all, along a populated sidewalk. Suddenly, one or two young men grab his arms from behind, and another points a gun in his face. That's his first clue that he's going to be robbed. It's not a solo crime. It doesn't come with a warning. You're not facing one person. Conversely, you probably won't be attacked if you seem aware of your surroundings and on the alert. It's typically a crime by a group that carefully selects their victims, and won't give you a chance to defend yourself. I'd wager to bet if any of the victims they selected had carry permits for weapons, the weapons would be the most valuable thing they would steal before they scampered off. They patted him down each time, even finding the money he kept in his shoe to try to avoid being robbed of that.

The NRA guns-is-defense scenario is based on a number of false assumptions. Not all criminals are completely stupid or rank amateurs. Not all crimes are unplanned. Not all consequences, such as the possibility of a victim being armed, are unanticipated by the baddies. And, you can't expect to be clairvoyant about knowing when or where the baddies might strike.

My defense, successful so far, is to walk tall, purposely, appear to be engaged in my surroundings, try not to look harmless, trust my instincts, and be suspicious. All things you should do if you're carrying a gun, btw, but they work just as well if you aren't. I've crossed a few streets to avoid walking past a person or group that was acting a bit suspicious. I've stopped a few times in front of a store to let people I thought might be following me walk past, as I casually turned to look them in the eye and mentally scan their faces. That's it, and I don't think it averages out to more than once for each year I've lived here. That's been my unarmed brushes with violent crime in The Big City®.

... I assume you did not have to be tested to get a driver's license, huh ?

And yes, I do know you have a permit to carry which is as it should be.

However, there should be a way to keep them out of the hands of unstable people. We are not a dictatorship so that is not likely that guns will be banned in this country.

There are situations where it IS possible that one gets killed due to the lack of a firearm. Then again, there are situations where you will get killed for not wearing a seatbelt, going to bed with the wrong person ( a transphobe for example ), not having a knife handy etc.

Point is there are always exceptions to the rule.

Where is the statistical basis for those people who say, whew, it is a good thing I had a gun in that situation versus not having had one in that same situation ?

People on both sides of this argument can arm wave with their personal accounts all they want but it does not constitute proof.

Finally, I am NOT against a sane person, LICENSED, which has a need for self defense for having a gun and who is competent at using it. However, there is no system right now in the US to guarantee those conditions right now and I as a bystander is at more risk from a person who does not properly know how to use one.

Extremist pro-gun people, especially, have not presented a reasonable compromise to preventing the Columbines of the world except 'personal responsibility'.

All I can say, a little balance please from the gun owners and the prospective gun owners of the world.

I apologize for the rambling.

Kim