On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:39:40 +0200, nestork
wrote:


[_2_ Wrote:
;3067436']
I see. So, while you think the Britts should arm every
cop, you also think a person needs a darn good reason
to have a pistol in their own house. Is wanting to be
able to protect yourself a good enough reason?

OK, let's say I hear someone late at night walking around in my house
(if I had a house). Yes, ideally, I would like to have a hand gun in my
hand when I go to confront them. However, I understand that a hunting
rifle would be nearly as effective in that situation, whereas no burglar
is going to be lurking around the neighborhood while carrying a hunting
rifle because that would draw attention to him and people would call the
police.

Your understanding is wrong. A sawed-off shotgun is arguably better
but also quite illegal. Burglars don't carry weapons at all. They
can't afford to be caught with them. They'd rather prey on the
defenseless but aren't too bright.

So, I still have the upper hand if I have a hunting rifle in my
house for protection, even if I never hunt.

Better than a feather duster but not nearly as good as a handgun.

And, I understand that
loosening the laws to make it easier for me to own a handgun will also
make it easier for any burglar that breaks into my house to own a
handgun.

Utter nonsense.

I prefer the status quo.

You prefer to be defenseless. Understood. I prefer otherwise. You
can stay where you are and STFU.

I'd prefer the situation where I
have a hunting rifle against an unarmed burglar to one where we both
have hand guns.

You're an idiot, too. You don't have that choice.