Not really our perspective is that "The perversity of the universe tends to a maximum" or in other words "Whatever can go wrong will, at the worst possible time" which means that when you need a gun it will be out of reach, borrowed by friend etc. So, you BEST defence is to work out what you would do without a gun and work up from there
Unless it works in your favor -- at which point you.re more that happy to throw the great gassbag under the bus.
Dogs are a good option but not always a viable one. Me, I believe in keeping a live Taipan somewhere in the house. Nice quiet pet, only sheds a couple of times a year, but does have the disadvantage that any intruders that meet up with it are going to leave a stain on the carpet!! I loved the Irish comedian who said that any burglar in Ireland can be stopped by one sentence " I know your mother"
Hmmm yes There are exceptions as in where the correlation is not only logical but obvious I.e. Reduced gun availability is associated with reduced firearm mortality. It makes sense that fewer guns means that fewer people are killed with guns What I object to is this form of logic
Great. I have no problem with you having a cannon. Many people do. If I had a lot more disposable income, I'd have one myself. In the meantime, I'll settle for a couple of AKs, shotguns and a lot of handguns.
Heh. Actually, in keeping with the theme around here, I would have to make it a ballista, catapult or trebuchet
Government and its bureacracies "always" have, you the individual's, best interest at heart! That non-sense is all you've got. If you want to believe it I would suggest a one-way trip to Venezuela.
We elect our government. We have strong democratic institutions. Venezuela? Try looking at a country more analogous to our own. Like Australia.
I don't think people understand what gun ownership is like in much of rural American. Where I live most *everyone* keeps a loaded handgun in the car right next to them (or on them). Carjackings or attacking someone in their vehicle would be suicide in most cases and is virtually unheard of due to the risks. At home it is the same, and most don't just have *one* firearm and it isn't locked up in a safe in the bedroom. Unless they have small kids, a lot of people will have more than one around the house locked and loaded and placed strategically for easy access. So the risk of a criminal getting shot during a home invasion is pretty darn high and better still the law is on our side. If they break in they can immediately be shot, and in my state curtiledge laws are in effect which means the heavily used areas around the house also qualify as part of the "home" when it comes to defense.
It's always good to not only keep the bad guys guessing, but to have them reconsider their life's choices.
Australia is NOT the same as the US. Our demographics are considerably different and that has a HUGE impact on our crime/murder rates. A full 50% of our murders and most of our "gun crime" is committed by a small very specific minority. Countries with a different demographic makeup naturally have much lower rates. If you want more info on that look it up, I won't explain it here. In addition different countries compile their homicide rates using different criteria. I believe in the UK only murder *convictions* are counted in the stats, so unsolved murders, or those that don't lead to an actual murder conviction (vs manslaughter) aren't counted at all. In the US every homicide victim is counted regardless of charges or convictions.
Australia is about the same size as the Continental US but with a population less than Texas and less than a 12th the US as a whole. During the Civil War, the US had more people then than Australia has now. Do the math.
