Apologies for this long post, but there are points to be made which can't be said briefly.... in fact, even what I have typed at length doesn't cover all the points, exceptions and examples. It is only an outline...


I am glad to see that Bobert agrees with my basic ideas.... and I see in the news that various well-known folks are cautiously saying something somewhat similar- though this is obviously a hot-button item.

I also find it interesting that many in the UK can't comprehend why we HAVE so many guns and such a permissive attitude about them.

We can even ask what it is in the mind that make one person say "get rid of most guns" while another says "I'm gonna arm MYSELF and be as ready as I can ready for any event/." It is obviously 'culture', but that doesn't say much, as those tow folks who disagree may have lived in the same neighborhood for 40 years.
My own opinion is that it is similar to being fascinated with cars, rockets, chemistry, spelunking....or a dozen other things which may be sometimes dangerous, but interesting enough that folks rationalize about their own competence to explore and pursue them. We don't 'seriously' limit the rights to explore caves or climb mountains, but we DO try to limit access to various chemicals and make rules about who can drive what kind of car...and where.

What is the difference? Some activities are more inherently dangerous to others... as in driving fast cars in the wrong places. In the case of guns, however, the **basic concept** is to have a way to be able to kill or injure 'something' at a distance and/or with less danger to one's self. Even though many assertions are made about 'self-defense', it is pretty clear that guns were developed largely to combat 'enemies'... just as most other weapons were. The obvious uses for hunting and self-defense are a side benefit.

Now....in this day and age, hunting is a necessity to a far smaller % of the population than it used to be, and is often only a supplement or 'hobby'.... but let's assume that it still falls into a 'reasonable' set of uses for guns. Military and police uses are another matter... they involve sort of a circular argument.

BECAUSE there have been and still are individuals, groups and countries which seek to control and harass others, we must allow those who protect the... ummm... 'good guys'... to have access to at least the same weapons as the 'bad guys'. Thus, the very existence of guns means that someone 'trained & sane & competent' needs to have them also.

In the UK, somehow, while the police and military do have access, weapons are not usually carried as a regular thing. Somehow, this seems like a fairly sensible situation. Suppose that in the UK there DOES occur a situation where criminal, terrorists etc. acquire many more weapons? Is the solution to allow the general populace to arm themselves? Or to have the police routinely be armed? Note...*IF* the police go armed, there WILL be cases where criminals are able to disarm them and acquire MORE guns. *IF* the general populace acquires guns,.....well, there you are. I will bet there are many, many folks in the UK who you would not want having guns! Idiots are not restricted to the U.S.!

   So... my final point. Dan (olddude) asserts the he is well-trained and licensed in NY state and 'other places' to carry various weapons. I have no reason to doubt him... nor the training & abilities of several others here who defend THEIR ownership of guns......but my question earlier still stands - what is the relationship between well-trained and licensed and competent and NEED? Dan has never quite said WHY is is licensed and trained.... and perhaps there are good reasons which is none of my business. He may be involved in issues which make being legally armed relevant. I do not require an explanation if this is the case..... but... he says he intends to arm his family! And I seriously doubt that this is anything more than 'concern for their self-protection'. THIS is the attitude which worried me. I am quite aware the 'something' might happen to any one of us in which we 'might' be in danger, but in my adult lifetime, it hasn't... and I know almost no one who tells of NEEDING a gun for some emergency.

I maintain that IF there had been 67 people in that theater in Colorado who were armed, there is a good chance that in the dark confusion, some of them would likely have shot the wrong person(s)...even if it was just 'bad aim'. The more guns, the more likely someone will do something inappropriate with them!!!!!
When I say "we need to do something or the problem will gradually get worse.", I mean just that... and MORE people deciding, like olddude, to arm themselves and family and friends... and with bigger guns... will just make **potential** killers ,who are as intelligent as this one, see more opportunities to surprise us in 'interesting' ways.