I'm right there with you. I made the same mistake. :cool:

the wider the ownership of guns, the more people are killed by guns, this is a pretty clear correlation.

Any law allowing citizens to arm themselves will cause more deaths, whoever puts in place such a law will have blood on their hands.

And of course, the point isnt really that every citizen of Wisconsin is too irresponsible to own a gun, the point is that you can only tell the people who will kill after the fact most of the time. A gun is a tool, created only with one intention, to deal death to another living creature. Every move to limit the ownership of such a tool is positive and humane, every move to increase the ownership of weapons of destruction is negative, and an act of human destruction.

and in terms of the common argument, that law abiding people need guns so that they can "protect themselves" from someone breaking into their house (ie - that they have the ability to slay the person breaking into their house)

In a situation where gun ownership is widespread, both housebreaker and homeowner are likely to be armed, and the situation is probably going to end in SOMEONE getting shot and poissibly killed.

In a situation where gun onwership is strictly prohibited, and illicit guns are expensive, illegal and rare - neither party will be armed, and the likely result of a robbery is simply a robbery.

For myself, and IMO the decent opinion of mankind, it is by 1000 times preferable to allow yourself to be robbed, than to have to kill someone to defend yourself. I would allow a burgular to take every possession rather than have to shoot him. Or risk myself or someone I cared about being shot.

better them than me comes to mind.

and stopping crime isn't the agenda, is it. why do anti gun people support letting the criminal do what they want?

thats a fallacy. banning guns in a city isn't going to make guns more expensive and as far as neither party being armed....I laugh in your general direction. In the absence of a gun, a criminal will use a knife or a club of some sort. But i guess the homeowner getting his head bashed in is much better than the criminal getting shot, right?

so when is the 'come in, i'm open' sign going up on your front lawn?

Americans never cease to amaze me how they love their guns and ammo.

I take this to mean you don't have a lot of self respect.

:confused:

that's an odd interpretation. I took it to mean that mere possessions are not worth the taking of a life. Regardless of the circumstances. Smacks of hubris.

Self respect: due respect for oneself, one's character, and one's conduct.
Strange would not respect himself if he were to kill someone. I am the same way.

Is your self worth and respect built on your posessions, or is it on the way you live?

I didnt assume anything, I was just curious, thats why i asked
:icare:

And the UK has 200 gun deaths a year and the US has 10,000

And do I take it you have material things you value higher than taking someone life?

I own nothing that I would not lose 100 times before I killed someone for it. Please God it will always be this way

with respect to material possessions. I am with you 100%. If it comes to self preservation of myself ormy family... I will be like a wolverine...