I would have figured by the time you got to about the middle of your tirade it would have hit you that your sarcastic rant was not coming out like you wanted, but I applaud your nerve in finishing it off and posting it.

For safety's sake, what the US needs is more guns, not less. Every adult should be mandated to carry a gun in public in a program like TIPS2. To Insure Personal Safety, if everyone carried a gun, for instance, during the attack on El Al, that gunman could have been caught in a crossfire which would have taken him out in a hurry.

If everyone carried guns, the El Al gunman probably wouldn't have set foot in the airport. Most criminal gunmen operate on the basis that very few people routinely have weapons available. If routine carrying of weapons constantly resulted in blazing gunbattles, the Old West would have died out in months. In point of fact, the "Wild West" had a murder rate slightly lower then than it is now (6 per 100,000 as opposed to 9 per 100,000).

Do you ever wonder why so many people drive cars yet so few of them drive up onto populated sidewalks to run people over? Or bash them into other cars when they get mad? Maybe most people aren't the psychos you think they are.

During the takeovers of the planes on 9-11 those people could and would have been shot to death 100 times over, and there would have been no WTC.

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

Did you notice that when you were typing that sentence?

The pool guy could simply shoot anyone in the midst of suspected terrorist activity, thereby saving the government the time and expense of an investigation, trial and imprisonment. If anyone even looks as if they might be pulling a gun, shoot first. As with governments, "terrorism" could be the justification for proactive action, a form of self-defense without the defense problem.



You could shoot people because they might have a gun, and then could shoot you. And, since everyone will have guns, well, you get the idea.



People who tend to pull guns on the slightest provocation in an armed society tend to be weeded out of the population quite early. Again, many liberals assume that the average person (not them of course) would act like a lunatic if armed. This is part and parcel of their assumption that the average person (not them of course) is basically a moron who shouldn't be allowed near anything remotely dangerous without government protection, and needs to be taken care of and instructed through nearly every aspect of their existence. Although Bowser certainly did not have this in mind in his example, it's amusing that the "pool guy" is the perfect archetype of the lower-class person who is one of the few such people who ever regularly interact with elitist upper class liberals.

More guns, not less, will make us safer. Fight fire with fire, crime with crime, and violence with violence.



An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, until the world is safe for all us blind, toothless folks.

When will you Europeans figure it out? Two world wars, and innumerable strife between you, and all you learned is that violence doesn't seem to pay?



Violence, blood, and one hell of a lot of guns saved Europe from the ovens. Often there is no workable response to aggression than to meet it with defensive violence. Violence in the right cause does pay, and big time. T. H. White's King Arthur's response to the motto "Might Makes Right" was not "Run Away,*" but "Might For Right."

Tell those Europeans to get with it, Raoul.

After a few more years of rising crime rates, they probably will.

*Monty Python notwithstanding