this entire post shows a complete disconnect from reality based, undoubtedly, on the anti-gun hysteria promoted by authoritarian modern liberalism and its lap-dogs in the media. there is no rash of mass shootings. in fact, firearms aren't even the number one means of committing homicide. we are treated to constant replays of whatever shooting happens to have happened within recent memory and told it's all because we have so many guns, but the homicide rate continues to fall and gun ownership continues to rise. where is this correlation we are told exists between the number of guns and gun violence? as for my willingness to kill instead of being harmed, i can't help but think there is something wrong with the fool who would let his family be slaughtered instead of defending them or would just allow someone to invade their home if there was an alternative. we've been shown time and again that the alternative of waiting patiently for law enforcement to save you often has fatal consequences, the cavalry is NOT waiting just over the hill to come and save your ass. the very notion that my willingness to defend myself would be reason enough for me to be "assessed for mental instabilities" is certainly grounds for being leery of the statists' demands for stricter control of the sale of guns.
the reality is that of the millions of legally acquired firearms in this country, only the tiniest handful have ever been used to harm anyone. of those, the vast majority were used by law enforcement and more than a few were used in legitimate self-defense. the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes were obtained by means outside of the laws already existing. despite the authoritarian fear-mongering and childish hysteria, most americans understand this and, if asked, would gladly retain their right to own the means of their fleeting security.
