I understand how backfires can help contain fires. I can understand police of many types needing guns.

But how you think you can stop violence with unrestrained, uncontrolled threats of violence is beyond me. With every redneck threatening to blow the head off everyone who pissed off his boozed mind.

(Can you imagine some of the people on this board, as drunk as they get, as emotional as they get, arguing with others on this board in a bar. With guns, there would be violence. I wouldn't turn my back on a few of them, don't trust their judgment, don't trust their courage. Never corner a coward.)

I've already described how the threat of violence will lead inevitably to violence. (And much of this board thought I was cruel and it was unfair of me to want to protect myself from civilians with guns.)

I know you believe it, I just don't see the logic. Like stopping anthrax by giving everyone a pound of weaponized spores. Same with smallpox. Or stopping airplane hijackings by giving everyone on the plane a gun.

On the surface it seems silly, and scratch the surface and the silliness seems to ooze out.

And these same people think it's fine for the gov't (DoD of all people) to have a database with all the movies you rent, your bank accounts, your health information (from insurance companies), the phone calls you make. Amazing.

And violence doesn't seem to stop violence except in very, very limited instances. Violence seems to breed violence, as EVERYTHING becomes "retribution".

I wonder what Jesus said about all that. Heh, heh.

Arf (what's that "well-regulated militia" nonsense all about, anyway?)