[TalonDJ]

The big difference is "the equalizer"

THis is huge and over looked. Even if guns made more violence (and they don't). It matters WHO is doing the violence. If brute force and blunt objects are the only weapon around then big thugs do most of the violence. Fighting back is out of the question for many people. Giving the helpless even a slight chance to fight back would be worth an increase of over all violence (if there was one and I don't think there is).

[logi_cal869]

Overlooked and horribly understated.

Many get sucked into statistics, such as happened after some yahoo org distributed a ‘study’ that showed no correlation between gun ownership and reduction in crime.

Getting sucked into the debate on maleable statistics is ‘taking the bait’. It really is a simple argument.

But emotions grab headlines and the stupid eat it up...hence the drama of the past week & ongoing.

But note how the media is carefully treading around Elliot Rogers mental state; that’s a BIG tell...

Strong vs. weak; Predator vs. prey.

The rest of it is really an argument of hyperbole & abject servitude to the State vs. freedom. While written sparsely & simply, there really is a good reason the 2nd Amendment didn’t come 3rd, 4th or otherwise...

And the nut of the argument...one I LOVE to broach: If the argument that a lack of guns (and other weapons, for that matter), coupled with State Control, creates a Utopian society free of violence, is not the ultimate expression of that concept a ‘state-run prison’?

Take it from there and have fun.