(T)here are certain weapons designed purely to kill and maim in the most efficient manner possible, mainly fully auto rifles or sub machine pistols which have no hunting or sport uses...
And yet, very few US deaths are due to this sort of gun. Most deaths are due to simple pistols, and yet you, like so many anti-gun people seem obsessed with the weapons least used. Why?
Way more are killed by drunk drivers. Most homicides in America involve the use of a cheap handgun picked up in a back alley for 20 bucks. As Unseen pointed out, the problem is not gun ownership but some punk wielding a cheap handgun he bought for little to nothing from another punk.
The 2nd amendment is very important, and personally i think it does cover individual citizens. It's not the individual with a gun I'm worried about it's the military, police, and militias. Those people have no morals, they only have orders. As long as we as a society are still digging up psychopaths to hold authority over others, and reviling in the inherent sickness of the mob mentality, then individual gun ownership will remain important.
In Syria the military are quickly growing tired of killing their fellow citizens to keep Asad in power. Defection is on the rise. Being in the military does not necessitate the total loss of one's conscious.
I agree, but if everyone defected to begin with, to the side of their own personal intrests and the intrests of those around them, and told both Asad and who evers benafiting from the oposition movement to go screw each other, then a lot of people wouldn't have been hurt or killed to begin with. The same aplies to all leaders, if they want something done they should do it them selves. No disrespect or anything, I agree, sodiers are people too, and they are forced to witness and participate in much that I do not envy.
"I always wonder about people who feel they need a gun to protect life and limb, in case of a home invasion, for example. If that is the real reason they need a gun, do they also have a home defibrillator? I ask because someone having a heart attack in the home is a far more likely event than a home invasion."
You wonder? Seriously?
The young woman in Oklahoma who blew the home intruder away when he broke the door in could explain it to you way better than me. She feared for her life and the life of her newborn. The police were on the way but the perp was insistent on breaking and entering despite her warnings. She had even put the couch against the door in an attempt to keep them out. There was two intruders. She was not charged BTW.
A home defib device is actually very wise to have around. Only recently have they become affordable for the average homeowner.
That, and a heart attack in many cases can be blamed on the individual (unhealthy diet, irregular check ups, etc). Sometimes they are just to be expected due to some preexisting condition. I can't think of any cases to where an intruder can be honestly blamed on the residents of a home, nor do I think we should live our lives expecting someone breaking into the place in which we should feel most safe. We can be prepared for it though...just in case. Owning a gun is not dangerous. People that misuse (or sometimes misplace) guns are dangerous. Guns are like drugs...you can't blame them as they kill no one....people kill, guns do not. People abuse drugs, drugs do not abuse people. Everyone shouldn't suffer due to a few bad apples.
Oh, yeah, and what about the lady who was hit by a meteorite. If it had been much bigger, she'd be sorry she wasn't going down the street in a tank! The fear of home invasion is overblown in relation to the actual statistics. A lot of people who have bought a gun to be prepared for a home invasion would be better off had they put that money toward flood insurance or a set of new tires on their car.
We have a habit of worrying about the wrong things.
Why does it seem to bother you that some citizens of our country, myself included, have opted to own firearms? A gun is a one time purchase, it doesn't go bad or spoil or wear out. AND I would rather have one and not need it than the other way around. I don't fear a home invasion anymore than being fearful of having a head on collision when I'm driving down the highway.
One time purchase, plus they can be relatively cheap. I agree that the likelihood of ever needing one is slim, but I'd prefer having one just in case.
Unseen, when someone breaks into your home and you survive, you'll change your mind.
I keep seeing people say that "well regulated milita" means either the National Guard or the regular army. Yet, I don't see it that way. Consider that our first document, the Declaration of Independence, said that when a government become abusive it was the right of the citizens to overthrow it. I think that right there makes it pretty clear the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
If the 2nd amendment is meant only for professional defensive forces, and nobody has guns, how are we to protect ourselves from an abusive government?