Second Dark Knight Rises killing spree possibly stopped in Ohio

It's not an argument. It's amusement that what you consider an arsenal is what I consider a hobby.

Trying to show you that such judgments are relative.

The First link gives a combimed crime rate, the second link says "page not found".

Hardly conclusive on the seperation of crime types.

Are you expecting to encounter an especially aggressive species of cake?

Yet you play the straw man in pretending I used the word "arsenal" to refer to your "collection".

Answer the question, or do you not have the balls?

btw, going to bed.

The bottom links in the attached. I don't know why that's not working.

http://search.homeoffice.gov.uk/sea...heet=default_frontend&site=default_collection

I'm looking at document entitled "Crime in England and Wales"

Follow the links from this http://www.theforumsite.com/forum/t...e-than-three-times-higher-than-the-US-/437554

I presume it's a substandard UK browser issue you're having.

There are far better tools for self-defense than a kitchen knife that are less than a handgun.

Broaden your imaginative frontiers.

All the lawyers I know are too busy or tired to argue on the Internet until 430am.

You called 15-20 an arsenal.

Since my collection is far more than that, I can only imagine the word you'd use.

Or just do your own homework.

https://www.google.com/search?q=vio...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Seriously, you may not want to believe it, but the UK has far more violent crime than we have here. It's an ugly, brutish culture, and even more amazing considering you don't have the same "diversity" problem we have.

How big a paranoid pussy he is.

No, that would be you, Bergman.

Anyway, I'm always -- and I don't know why -- surprised at the lack of intellectual curiosity and the level of denial about plain facts that go against commonly held ignorance. Garamet thinking Bush 43 deregulated anything, El Chup thinking the UK has lower violent crime.

More, I'm really surprised -- and shouldn't be -- about how a grown man demands that people tell him what he should do for himself.

The left really does geld, dumb down and infantilize otherwise potentially capable adults.

Sad. Or it would be if I gave a good goddamn.

Ah, you'll accept Clinton, but not Bush. Interesting.

Then please point out exactly where anyone called you a coward or even implied it.

What part of "The implication that 'you don't carry 'cause you're scared to carry' has, however, to the best of my recollection only been leveled at the male of the species" eludes you?

No, I specified Bush 43 because of your pathological partisanship. Both added regulations; they did not deregulate anything.

Honestly, have you ever read a single business book? Do you ever read the business page in the newspaper?

An engineer is capable of writing the occasional poem, but no one trusts a bridge built by a poet.

Oh please. Quit with all the stupid old person shit and just admit nobody called you a coward.

So despite the fact that you're the only person who raised the issue of bravery or cowardice in this discussion, you're going to implicate everyone else based on your own faulty recollection of what other people may or may not have said to you in some past you may or may not be recalling correctly?

Such damning evidence. No wonder you couldn't say, "Oops, my bad."

Ah, I see. In addition to being Bandwagon Wednesday, it's also "since nobody used that exact word, it never happened and you're lying" day.

In this discussion, today, you're correct. It's not as if there isn't a "Guns Make Me " thread every few days.

Let's simplify it:

Is there any circumstance under which you'd walk out of your house and drive somewhere - anywhere; let's say the grocery store for the sake of argument - unarmed?

No. It's simply a matter of preference, habit and training. It's as reflexive as putting on socks and shoes. It's no more inconvenient than grabbing my wallet and cell phone.

I don't judge others by whether they keep my habits, nor do I worry whether they don't.

So why is it so much an issue for you or anyone else what I do?

Ah. So it's not that it makes you feel safer or more in control of your situation. It's just a habit. If you were in the habit of carrying a kumquat it would amount to the same thing.

Uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh! Huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh! She said 'kumquat'! Uhhhhhhhh huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh! That was pretty cool!

No, a kumquat would serve no useful purpose. A shoe, a wallet and a gun does.

I said "preference, habit and training" not just "habit." By preference I feel safer. By training I am more in control.

Okay, but the nexus of that preference and training is the weapon or weapons you're carrying, correct?

Just curious -- should your personal preferences -- choices that hurt no one else -- be subject to majority vote, discussion, politics, judgment and sanction?

I can only speculate that this is so in my case because the facts about gun ownership have already won the debate. People no longer cry for gun control just because some nut shoots up a theater. They know it is not the fault of us 100 million lawful owners, nor does that inanimate object possess us and make us violent.

So why is it an issue?

I'm not very smart. I don't understand the question. Please explain it.

If no one's crying for gun control, then why do you perceive that it's still an issue?

Look at it this way.

If there is trouble in the form of a violent or dangerous person, you are going to call for the police or a security guard who will be wielding a sidearm.

This doesn't mean you hope there's trouble or anything else.

I am eliminating the middle man and choosing someone more competent and well-trained with a sidearm -- me.

So what's the difference between us, other than the wait time and the hope that the officer won't simply lock you in with the shooter to "secure the perimeter" and "ensure officer safety"?