In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

We don't need to be armed. Being armed is something one does for protection
against the most extreme and remote possibilities. Statistically it makes
little sense, unless one spends a lot of time in the most absurdly dangerous
pestholes, like Gunner seems to do. You might have seen the discussion here
a month or so ago about Dallas; people who continue to live or work in the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities have a choice, and they've
chosen to stay where the danger is.

Outside of those areas, you're unlikely ever to encounter gun violence in
the US.

Have you been paying *no* attention to the news? Or do you really believe that
places like Columbine CO, Pearl MS, or Grundy VA are included in "the
dangerous parts of our most dangerous cities"??

What you're hearing is mostly fantasies born of frustration and
wishful thinking. Even in the most heavily-armed states the density of
citizens who are carrying concealed firearms is so low that there's only a
slight chance that one of them could make a difference in a situation like
this. That's why you almost never hear of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.