Thank you John for a very astute and well thought-out analysis. I posted a semi-analysis/semi-rant about this in another thread and I think part of it bears repeating here. I've chosen to mitigate the risk of violent attack to myself and my loved ones as much as possible by arming myself with the most effective weapons available to me. I find the "if it saves one life" argument particularly offensive because it implies, albeit in a very subtle way, that my right and ability to defend myself and family is less important than the safety, or more accurately the feeling of safety, of someone who has chosen not to take the same precautions that I have. I fail to understand why my right and ability to defend myself and my family should be limited so someone else can feel better. I'm sorry if this seems callous of me, but such people and their feelings are not, nor should they be, my concern.
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar