There is never a shortage of news stories about "gunman shoots down such and such number in mall" or resteraunt or school, or whatever. Now a big argument for being able to carry fire arms with you for protection in any public place is "well if a killer shows up a' killin' somebody can stop him". So...eh...where are these heroes stopping the crazed gunmen, The gunslinging member of the NRA that is always packing? If more guns makes us safer, why is it that crazed gunmen only ever seem to get shot by themselves (or occasionally the police)? In the US you can take a gun almost anywhere except government buildings, and yet it still only seems to be the crazy people doing the killin'.

I'm not really pro- or against, haven't made up my mind. But from a strictly empirical standpoint, that seems to be a dumbass argument. A rationalist argument perhaps, but not a particularly emprical one.

in how many of these gun crazy stories have you ever heard of a single person who actually had a gun on them at the time? I can't really say I've ever heard a witness say "I had my gun, but didn't bother to return fire"

Hey, I did hear a story just the other day though about a woman who shot a home invader. She got cleared of all charges (so she was in the right for shooting the person).

here ya go. december 09

Hey, can I do that even though the dudes not in my house? Like, let's say he's on the street corner walking his dog with a mario hat and black socks on, and his name is Norlead and he's that guy who beat me up alot in middle school... is it okay then?

I take it you are anti-guns?

I will respond to this thread later with a few of the thousands of stories about armed citizens saving others due to firearms.

No, I'm a guy trying to make a joke

I failed to see any humor in the post honestly.

I'll just take myself out.