Ban farts, especially at Peaches house...Bollocks he can rip em.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

And how about home invasions???? happening everyday in citys and towns all over the country. You think calling 911 will help you there? Now that the kids and grandkids are grown and gone grandpa has a handgun in his dresser drawer he can reach from the bed. Come to invade my house? Expect to be treated rudely.

One of the best comments ever made about shooting someone in your home who is threatening you is "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

The home invasion scenario is silly. An alarm system or a couple of guard dogs are more effective than grandpa's revolver in a dresser drawer. Here's why, a gun won't prevent an intruder if you are not there to use it. An alarm or dogs will. Wrong!

Guns are not the universally most effective way to prevent B&E's. The reason I choose not to have a gun in my house is because I don't trust the sheetrock vs. bullets and I don't need to start a gun fight and risk my family's life. I have a dog and a baseball bat. And always have a cell phone next to me at night at the ready.

Alarm system or dogs works well with the amateur criminal, but does little to slow the professional. If you have something a professional wants, they will get it.

I'm glad you choose to not have a gun. I know many that choose to, and they do so responsibly.

Yeah but if you're not home, you're gun is useless. Except it may get stolen while your away. I'm just saying a gun in a drawer is A LOT less effective than a home alarm or guard dogs if you're away. And hell if a professional criminal is after me, they're probably smart enough to stake out my home and wait for me to leave.

I know responsible gun owners as well. The risk vs reward is more risk than reward for me. Having a gun in the house, you are at a much higher risk of your kids finding it and having an accident. I would say that risk is a lot higher than a professional cat burglar armed to the teeth coming after your home.

Yeah but if you're not home, you're gun is useless. Except it may get stolen while your away. I'm just saying a gun in a drawer is A LOT less effective than a home alarm or guard dogs if you're away. And hell if a professional criminal is after me, they're probably smart enough to stake out my home and wait for me to leave.

I know responsible gun owners as well. The risk vs reward is more risk than reward for me. Having a gun in the house, you are at a much higher risk of your kids finding it and having an accident. I would say that risk is a lot higher than a professional cat burglar armed to the teeth coming after your home.

I'm a gun guy but not an NRA guy. They have become entirely to political for me.

Do I think hunters and home owners need high capacity mags, and automatic/semiautomatic weapons? nope

NRA thinks if you give one cartridge back you're giving up to much. I don't. The art of compormise is long gone. No one wants to work with others to find solutions that work for everyone. They are all to busy screaming...MY WAY OR NOTHING! including the NRA.

If an armed intruder has a gun, a dog and a baseball bat aren't going to help you. In the least, more than likely your dog will lose it's life. You would trade your fear or ignorance of guns for the life of your dog? I wouldn't. Not to get off-topic, but if your dog is trained as an attack dog, it's probably not the wisest choice to have it around your children.

Of course what I want would require way too much thought and cooperation from both citizens and both idiot parties, so it's not going to happen anytime soon [or ever].