buy Guns for the ideals of justice and the rule of law over the rule of evil doers.
open your eyes and look at Mexico city who own our so called political leaders. BUY GUNS FOR LIFE.

You’d been crap outt’a luck in Katrina without at least a 10/22. But if your not willing to shoot, guess yA’ choose VICT’M HOOD > DEBATE

Katrina: PROOF the cops and government can’t save your a##, all that government cheese for naught

Four per household sounds like a good number, minimum, if the owner is not drugged or wacked out of his mind.

Defense or hunting, I’m keeping mine WITHOUT DEBATE!

Tools have power and a gun has the power to persuade more than any other weapon.

So I did a little reading, and the conclusion i’ve reached is that this is one of the rare situations in which moderation is a bad thing. that is, either you should have lots of guns, so that both criminal and citizen are likely to have them, or very few, so that neither do. cases in point: england and switzerland.

in england, handguns are basically illegal, and thhe police carry only batons (except in special situations). the british homocide rate, especially firearms-related, is much lower than our own.

on the other extreme is switzerland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

there, just about every adult male carries as part of a sortr of national militia/army. switzerland is also famously peaceable, much more so than here.

so judging from these case studies, the way to make ourselves safest is either to have lots of guns or as few as possible (this means cracking down on illegal arms especially, which england does much better than america). both of these serve to “level the playing field”

the real question is “which would be easiest to do?” In a country like america, where guns are pretty abudant, the answers seem to be: arm everyone.

but there is a problem with this analysis. for every switzerland, there are many examples to the contrary - the DRC, Sierra Leone, Iraq, the list goes on. all of these places have lots of guns, and horrific violence. so does one thing lead to another? do more guns = more violence. i don’t have enough information to say conclusively that they do, but you can’t definitely say that they don’t. In many of these places, the violence would occur by (for example) machete, if not by gun, so you say “what’s the difference? guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.

but guns grant people physical power that they would otherwise lack, and whether that extra power is good or bad, depends on the person and on the situation they are in. a concientuous citizen in one scenario can easily become a murderer in another.

the US government’s history of backing some rather dubious allies with weapons to bad effect is evidence of the dangers…

If you don’t “see what we’re saying” from the previous post… then you won’t be seeing anything…