Hey Dan:

As I pointed out, when the comparison is apples and oranges, the numbers mean nothing. You're comparing civil disorder of the anarachy kind to wild west drunken foolishness. Which in the latter case, if harsh penalties had been in place, and enforced!, would have created the same result sooner without disarming the citizenry: BTW, while disarmament is not a guarantee of tyranny, it is a certain invitation, which always accompanies enslavement.

I'm wondering if we can agree that one of the lessons of history is that tyrants invariably disarm their people? So why risk it? Do you really trust your government that implicitly? I'm here to tell you that your government(yours too Al), means to enslave you. They are your most feared enemy. Don't be fooled because they are smiling and giving you handouts(tax breaks) while patting you on the head and allowing you their idea of individual liberty. Your government doesn't trust you to be compliant, that's why they don't want you to have guns even though they have bigger and better ones.

I would think it makes sense too that the numbers mean even less when they are coming from the people who want you disarmed.

By the reasoning you and Al suggest, cars should be outlawed before guns gentlemen. I mean, if you're going to use the reasoning that guns are the killer, then cars are the killer, not the human operating them right? And aren't many more people killed by cars than guns(at least in the US)? Wouldn't it be cool if we could have half the auto deaths, half the smoking deaths, half the cancer deaths? All of which are larger than gun related deaths. And the answer is, will of course it would cool if less people die. But that's what we do, we die. Everybody gets a turn. And frankly, I'd rather have a government that treated us as responsible sensible adults. I'm sick of the blanket party mentality of governance.

If we can't be honest enough to admit that to have a loaded gun, at the ready(not locked in a cabinet until the moment of being menaced), in time of calamity is safer than not having one then we'll just have to disagree.

"Hey fellas, could you hold off a sec while I unlock the gun cabinet, trigger lock and load my gun, so you don't kill me, steal our food and rape my family, would ya mind?!" Or better yet, "Could ya hold off while I call the coppers, and they get here?"

Well, then, I'd have to say every one in the other camp -those who'd prefer NOT to have a loaded weapon handy- are delusional, and somebody else is going to be eating their lunch; because they simply don't acknowledge the tendencies of human nature, let alone in times of crisis. Perhaps having lived a sheltered life explains the insanity of that position, I don't know, and mean no offense.

In addition, I posted a few statwistics too. Also, didn't you live in Florida Dan? Were you there before and after the carry concealed laws went on the books? As I recall there was an immediate drop in gun related crime. 30% or so, wasn't it? I'm asking(if you know).

And finally, again, do criminals register their guns where anyone lives?! The criminals have a much more realistic world view where gun laws are concerned: don't register 'em and be prepared to shoot or be shot. Or put another way: it's better to bring a gun to a knife fight. I mean, the world has just been watching the lawless shooting and/or menacing of the defenseless and there are still those among you who think the answer is to make everyone but the criminal just as defenseless as those poor slobs. Too, this specific situation further illustrates that when times get tough, where the cops are concerned, you're even more on your own than in relative civil times when law enforcement(sic) virtually always show up only for the telling of what happened. And how could it be any other way, they aren't mind readers and can't instantaneously teleport to the scene of the crime. I saw one officer caught on camera during the crisis, in NO I believe, tell citizens coming to them for help that they were on there own. Betcha that message was sent more than once to fearful citizens. Not much comfort in that answer.

Screw the numbers, I am dialed in to the reality of human nature. If you can't be trusted to have a weapon during civil times, if your government thinks you too irresponsible, and you go along, you're screwed come the bad times. That's how it will be.

If it went bad here today, my first objective would be obtaining a weapon and the appropriate lead, and I advise you folks to think long and hard about arming yourself.

If my family had been caught in NO, we would have had drinking water. Fishing was probably pretty good too. :o) Preparedness folks. If anarchy set in tomorrow, do you have a list of who, of the people of your acquaintance, would die on sight? Meaning, who could you not trust if the circumstances suddenly changed to chaos instead of this marginal civility we practice. Which SOB wouldn't you turn your back on; leave your lady or children alone with?

Lastly, I am reminded of the Swiss. Do a little research. See what their response to Hilter was when he told the Swiss his army was coming to occupy their little land! Magnificient!!!

BTW Dan, are you raising fowl? Saw a picture a while back. I ask because I am for the first time. Guinea, Cornish and RIRed. Sadly, the ducks got et early on. Just curious and wouldn't mind comparing notes.

Be well prepared All!-)