You guys are both making totally different points, and purposfully avoiding
the point that the other is making. It seems to me that both points
have merit if you'll stop to consider for a moment.

At the risk of stepping in between you for a moment, let me see if
I can summarize what both of you are saying.

Point 1: In a really bad situation with determined armed intruders,
waving a gun around is a bad strategy that will probably get you
shot. Therefore if you are going to carry a gun you'd better have
examined yourself before hand, and be ready to shoot/kill someone
if you have to pull out the gun. If you cannot do this you should
not carry a gun.

Point 2: There are some situations where the intruder is not determined
or a professional, and the sight of a weapon will deter them into leaving
the scene. In this case you may be able to avoid a potentially problematic
encounter with the local police where you have to explain why you killed
one of their citizens.

These points are not mutually exclusive.

Don W.


Len wrote:
Mike G wrote:


If someone is so uninformed about fire arms, their various potentials,
and the kinds of people who use them for criminal purposes in truly
lawless area's of the world, the really bad bad guys, one would probably
be better off without one.


Your premature and flawed conclusions are based on my picture of a
hypothetical situation you just don't want to address, cause it brings
up the need to think, to weigh your decisions and choose your conduct
with thought.

All you do in this discussion is avoid the nuances and refer to the
very easy situation in which really bad bad pirates should be shot
legitimetly by surprise.

Now let me put this in simple terms for you... Are you really too
simple to understand there are situations possible a) forcing you to
get your gun but b) do not legitimize blasting everyone around to
hell?

Well, if so good luck to us all then. Imo it's guys like you that are
better off without a gun.