SkyDekker

Same here... Noblesse oblige, but that part has been largely forgotten.

Why are you so obsessed about the tool? Can't you understand that it is just an inanimate object and doesn't do anything by itself? It is all about the DEFENDER! Just have her carry a paperclip, it is just as effective!

Fiction is more bailiwick marc.

And yet when people say you have an irrational fear of guns you claim that it is not true. Fact is that I am more worried about the ATTACKER than the weapon. Because a gun by itself does absolutely nothing.*** Right, another captain obvious.... Except when the attacker drops his paperclip he was trying to stab you with and picks up an ak47, the threat level just went up a little bit. Unless off course you are Chuck Norris, or DaVinci because you won't be worried at all, cause the attacker is the only thing that matters. The tool used is completely irrelevant....

Why is that people read, a gun is more effective at killing than a bat, but understand: "all gun owners do something wrong"? Is it just a general stupidity?

Sigh, dude if you can't see the difference between the two scenarios, I can't help you.

Now there is a statement I can agree with.

His version has the "jacker" outside the vehicle, your has the "jacker" inside the vehicle,

Cool, where did you live? I have spent a lot of time in the Interlaken area, including Wengen and Lauterbrunnen. Have family there too. Grandmother lived in a beautiful house in Beatenberg. Still have two uncles and three aunts in the area. They have shown me the beautiful bolt action rifle provided by the military. Not sure the Swiss are overly polite, but they can be kind enough. Probably much politer than Americans though. They aren't overly known for their level of politeness around the world. Quite the opposite. Makes me believe that politeness isn't dictated by level of gun ownership. Of course, most logical thinking people would then understand that my statement was meant to be untrue, to indicate the statement I was replying to was untrue. Seems many here aren't smart enough to pick up on that though....

Don't tell me, tell Gravitymaster, he made the claim that those 5 people would not have been victims had they been armed. But he is actively pro-gun, couldn't disgree with him directly

It may be helpful for the US to remember how it was fundamentally changed by a couple of guys with box cutters.

For sure!!!! When Qtips get outlawed, only outlaws will have Qtips!!

Easy to write insensitive stuff. People have connections to artist because they have ellicited feelings. People specially like to see tragedy and tend to hate generally good people. Just look at how a guy like Tim Tebow gets treated.

Not too often do you get to see the future. The question is what is done now that we have?

It is just as true as that bit about armed societies being polite societies.

Much easier to just change the term to "gun play" and you wouldn't have any "gun violence" at all.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Uhm no. Are you still sure that if a victim is armed they would not become a victim? And since an armed society is a polite society. How come Americans aren't know for being polite around the world?

If only there would have been people with the right to carry concealed trains. None of this would have happened.

Of course I am worried about the object. The object determines my defence options and strategies. Different concept thenw e were discussing, since I wasn't advocating bans or legislation. However, you agree with invading a country because they supposedly had weapons they were not allowed to have. Quite the double standard you've got going on.

These guys were carrying guns, trained in how to use them and were victims. But then I know that would never happen to a fine internet commando like yourself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/washington-police-officers-shot-dead

Aside from the question which is a more effective killing tool (maybe homicide numbers would yield a better comparison). We need to go back to the original question: My answer was yes. I would rather somebody come after me with a bat than with a gun. Why you ask? Well because my encounter with the gun is more likely to end in death than the encounter with the bat. Why? Well, the gun is a much better tool for killing people than a bat is. I like my chances of defending myself against a bat much better than defending myself against a gun. In that sense, rushmc is somewhat right, in the above scenario I am indeed more scared of a gun than a bat. I think most rational people would be. The pro-gun crowd has a hard time agreeing with the above. In their miinds that is tantamount to agreeing that guns should be banned, restricted, regulated etc. When people cannot even agree to simple facts, there is no sense in having a larger discussion. Now, if people want to explain to me why they would prefer to be attacked by a lunatic with a gun over a lunatic with a bat. I am all ears.

In other words, you don't have an asnwer. Not very surprising.

Here is a simple question for you: Why is your army outfitted with firearms and not bats?

Right. Both are tools. The gun is the more effective tool at killing. Agreeing to that statement is not the same as wanting to ban them. Hope that is Barney style enough for you, cause I don't think I can dumb it down much more for the collective.