The thing that always puzzles me in debates such as this and for the typical arguments such as Bill D has voiced is, why are the "anti-s" so against the law abiding citizen? It always seems to be the focus of he debate. They never decry the criminal or the terrorist. Those folks who are intent upon harming others doesn't seem to phase them at all. They are excited about someone who would never harm anyone intentionally, with out just cause, owning a weapon. Why is that? Are they really saying something about themselves? That they don't trust themselves in possession of such power?

I know some people who are not suited by nature or by upbringing for the degree of freedom which is afforded to US citizens. The daughter of Joseph Stalin couldn't hack it here. Some folks feel the real need for others around them to keep them from??? they know not what. Is that what is going on? And by extension, or projection they cannot conceive of other ordinary folk not needing such structure or support to keep them in line? It's a real mystery to me.

Big Mick and pdq covered quite nicely the fallacy of the comparison of DDT usages with the RIGHT to be armed. I would only note for information that the main objection to DDT in North America is its entry into the wildlife, particularly in the thinning of the eggshells of preditory birds and their potential extinction. Rightly so, it was banned. Here it was (at least in the end) a question of economics. In Africa it is a question of the life or death of human beings.