Reply #25: Your post was informative, lacked hyperbole, was mostly free of condescension,

[darkstar3]

and most of all was contributory to the discussion at hand. You've done this before, haven't you?

I'd like to answer point-by-point, and out of order, if I may.

2: I was unaware until reading this very thread about these SC cases. As you can see from my post count I'm pretty new here too, and VERY new to the gun debate. Apparently I have some reading to do, but I must say that these decisions sicken me, and we should most definitely be working to overturn them somehow.

3: Your point here is somewhat general, but again it gives me a chance to do some more reading on the subject. I will say though, that if the bar for "lying" is set down to "being dishonest," there are a whole lot of people on both sides of this debate that have some apologies to make.

1: I am not convinced at this point that a firearm is the best tool for self-defense, regardless of training, competence, or vigilance. Firearms were originally designed for target elimination at distance and speed, and I'm not planning on shooting anyone while they're running away. As far as I am concerned at this moment, the most effective method of self defense is training in hand-to-hand combat. Muggers, armed robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and many other violent criminals can't do a thing to you if they can't get close enough to touch you, and if they're far enough away you can certainly run like hell.

The bottom line for me is that the number of people in the US, hell in my hometown, who have been shot while carrying a gun is too high. If this were an effective form of protection, that number would be much lower. CCW, open-carry, banning guns...none of these will make that number lower. What we need is truly effective gun control, meaning a way to keep guns out of the hands of lowlifes and psychopaths. I'm sure there's a way, we just need a populace willing to try.