Lyzko: Nott, I'm simply saying that your argument cuts both ways. Should people be allowed to protect and defend their home? Obviously.
Lyzko: The question is whether arming all citizens, as with arming all passengers on planes, necessarily the panacea we've been looking for.
Been discussed over and over, sometimes I just don;t see the point to punch the keyboard.... First, it's not about arming all citizens. It'a about allowing 'all' citizens to carry guns. 'All', because there are obvious exceptions.
As for panacea, there's enough evidence that concealed weapons do diminish the crime rate dramatically. This will not solve all problems, but no other solution even faces this challenge ever, to be a panaceum. Seems unfair, like.
Lyzko: A hunting rifle, used for that purpose only, should be a stop-gap measure, not merely an excuse for some yahoo in the middle of Nowheresville, USA to go off their nut at the slightest provocation!
Not sure I am following you here... You mean when people owned guns just as a matter of fact, they shot at anybody who happened to look not quite happy, and this possibly due to the presence of the gun owner? Or that they readily excused those who reacted that way?
Barney: Hey look the councillor just shot the postman!
etc. Barney, freely armed society is neither a gun-nuts utopia, nor a phenomenon unique to few states of the notorious USA. All countries used to be like that. No historical evidence whatsoever of any actual specifically gun related problems in them.