Brad, you have no idea what I buy my guns for!  I am an avid hunter/outdoorsman so stop implying that you know anything about me because you don't.

All I ever said was that I feel that I have the right to defend myself and my home if need be.  Never have I stated that I buy my firearms with the "expressed purpose" of using then on another human being!  You're almost as good as Al when it comes to putting words in other people's mouths.  You two should become politicians, you both would be great at it!

I own two handguns.  A 9mm Glock and a .22 cal Browning Buckmark.  Either one will do nicely.  I also have a .35 cal Remington lever action rifle which could also work in a pinch.  I also own a 12 guage pump shotgun,  a 16 guage shotgun and a 22 cal. semi-auto rifle.

I would prefer to use the Glock for home defense.

The US Supreme Court has effectivly ruled that there is an absolute right to own guns; that some restrictions are acceptable but that they must be strictly limited. Which seems, to my mind at least, to address the first type. It is legal to own firearms.

The next question, and I think, if I may read Al's mind (which funnily enough is filled with hockey stats, Tim Horton's coffee and a repetitive drone of "I have a hot girlfriend, hee hee hee") is what Al has been trying to articulate is whether ownership is sensible. Unfortunately we do not have a body of august legal minds to answer this question -- its something we each need to address ourselves. To that end I think that we must recall that having a right to do something does not mean it necessarily should be done.

These are facts: handguns kill more family members than home invaders. A firearm is designed for one purpose: to kill. A gun's purpose is not to protect, its not a forcefield; its not to freighten, its not a halloween mask; its to kill. As Homer Simpson proved it makes a terrible remote control and a terrible can opener.

The argument supporting the choice to own a handgun is generally, as I have heard it, based on keeping one's family safe. The studies conducted have proven that argument holds no water. In fact is one wants to keep their family safe NOT owning a firearm is the more statistically supported decision.

And this is basis of Al's point. That owning a gun, and I suspect he's thinking specifically of a handgun, is a greater risk to you and yours than any potential home invader. As for his passion, well see, Al is a caring human being who actually cares for other people. I, on the other hand, am a heartless bastard who couldn't give a fuck and thinks if someone wants to risk their lives and their families on some fictious basis for security I am quite content to let it thin out the genepool of the insipid and stupid that makes up our collective cowboy culture. In short I think if you want to own a gun you have the absolute right to do so. But I'll feel no sympathy for you should you or yours be a victim of it. You made your choice.

I do lead by example, Scott.

I own guns in a country whose laws about guns and gun ownership have contributed to a demonstrably safer environment (in terms of gun crime and run-related accidents), not in a country whose antiquated laws and gun-loving culture have contributed to a demonstrably far more dangerous environment in the same areas.

I own two hunting weapons, a rifle and a shotgun, and store them in a manner that virtually eliminates the chance of them falling into "the wrong hands" and makes it impossible for a child to have a gun-related accident.

Perhaps you'd like to go back and re-read the details of how I keep my guns.  Go on.  It's okay.  We'll wait.

Done?  Good.

The thing that most intelligent people who can read and reason will find obvious from that is that I do not live under the dangerous paranoid illusion that the world is full of people who will come into my home to hurt me or my family.

More importantly, I do not live under the far more dangerous delusion that my guns will protect me should such a situation arise.

Since those gun-centric notions are not at all part of my own gun ownership, and since they are in fact the very notions that I've spoken out against repeatedly in this thread and others - along with the position that there are certain weapons that no individual should be allowed to own - I don't see in any way how I can be considered a hypocrite.

Again, this smacks of something akin to a feeling of betrayal - Al owns guns but he's anit-gun!  Let's ignore sense and reason and his very words and try to make the argument about him being a hypocrite!

It's not working, obviously.

Care to try something else?

I would agree with you Brad, handguns are made and designed for killing people.  No doubt about it, can't deny it.  However, not everyone who is shot dies from their wounds.  It can stop an intruder/mugger without killing them.  It's not some kind of death ray where everyone shot dies instantly.  It's all up to the skill of the person using it.

Plus, the gun alone is a deterrent.  Give a perp a warning that you are armed and in most cases, that enough to scare them off.

Care to try something else?

*******************************

Nah, ya made your point.

Plus, the gun alone is a deterrent. Give a perp a warning that you are armed and in most cases, that enough to scare them off.

Statitistically, there is greater chance of a self inflicted wound or a wound to a family member than any intruder. And while it may or may not be a deterrent it also looks a lot like a fun toy.

Bang, bang, baby.