Reply #21: What does that have to do with the conversation at hand? [View All]

Your claimed need to defend is purposely exaggerated to justify a predisposition for deadly force.

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You said:

The problem is, Grandpa, if you can get a gun and ammo anyone can. And that means bullets in innocent bodies, including your old hide.

The implication here is that if good people can get guns, then bad people can also get guns.

This is absolutely true. As I said before, If good people can have firearms, so can bad people.

I also said that the fundamental difference in opinion is that you would disarm everyone in a futile attempt to disarm the bad people, leaving the weak at the mercy of the strong.

This is also true.

By putting the qualifier "claimed" in front of "need", you are making the case that there is no real need for people to defend themselves from violent crime.

In 2009, the violent crime rate in the United States was 429.4 per 100,000. The homicide rate was 5.4 per 100,000. The property crime rate was 3,036 per 100,000.

This translates to 1,422,552 violent crimes, 16,632 homicides, and 9,350,0880 property crimes in the United States. This is 10,790,064 people who had an need to defend themselves or their property in 2009. Even if you choose to ignore property, which I don't, that is still a million and a half people every year who need to defend themselves, and deserve the right to do so. These numbers are no exaggeration, they are fact, and you can look them up yourself.

The fact of the matter is, every year some 1.5 million people are victims of violent crime and murder. Without firearms, every single one of these people has no possibility to resist their assailant without resorting to a physical contest of strength.