If people bred less, fewer idiots would be born & fewer idiots would give idiots the opportunity to ruin peoples' lives !

A gun has no purpose other to wound, kill or threaten. The car's main function is to take people and goods from place to place. the analogy between a car and a gun is faulty. Adequate training of operators of both machines is desirable. Replacing cars with safer and less environmentally damaging means of transport is desirable.

DAVID F...

Describes a gun's main purpose; is to wound, kill or threaten. And in principle I'd agree with the learned gentleman.

My only dilemma - If he, or any of his extended family are threatened with serious injury or death, with what would he use to neutralise that threat? If the Chinese were to attack our nation; what should our military employ, to resist that attack? A negotiated takeover?

It's all fine and highly moralistic, and virtuous of our theoreticians, academics, and others to condemn guns. But every society has a need for them, if for no other reason, as a deterrent. Would you permit police to be armed? The Military? or the Prison Authorities? Etc. Believe me, there will always come a time when you'll need one. And it's very reassuring even comforting to know you're armed when going into darkened premises at night to confront armed intruders?

And for your edification DAVID F. The single greatest threat to society today, is the burgeoning knife culture. Kids as young as ten are carrying knives on their person, even taking them to school? Those handy with tools are now converting standard lock back-knives into switch blades. Making a nice Dollar on the side.

I hope DAVID F this counter view, may give you a better understanding of F/As and their lawful uses in this country. There's a very definite place for them in this country. The military, police prison officials, CIT operatives, and many other lawful reasons in this country.

David F- "A gun has no purpose other to wound, kill or threaten. The car's main function is to take people and goods from place to place. the analogy between a car and a gun is faulty."

Answer- Guns aren't only used for criminal acts- there are other functions- one function or purpose is to protect "the government of the people" from tyranny. Is David F an agent unintended or otherwise of tyranny? Is he like Freud projecting his minority fears on society at large? David F's dangerous crowd.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom!

I have no argument with the idea that sometimes a gun is desirable and necessary for protection. I have no argument with the use of arms by people who are trained in the accuracy, safety and effect of such weapons and are mentably. I maintained that the analogy with guns and cars is faulty and still maintain that. Availability of guns without adequate checks is an invitation to their misuse.

Although it is possible and has happened the incidence of suicide by car is less of a problem than the incidence of suicide by gun. Someone contemplating suicide might not do it if the means were not handy. The incidence of a child wounding or killing someone by an inadequately secured gun has happened.

I maintain that the analogy of banning guns and banning cars is faulty. No one who has replied to my post has defended that analogy.

The analogy between banning guns and banning cars is faulty and remains faulty. I would rely on a gun for protection more than a car.

Hi (again) DAVID F.

I'm pleased to see you accept the rightful place for a gun in our community, analogy or otherwise. Which counters the argument of another. That if he were able, he'd destroy all guns as there's no place in society for a gun. An emotional argument I would suggest, from an equally emotional individual.

You assert the incidence of suicide by car is low, whereas the suicide by gun, is relatively higher. Therefore you would also accept the same criterion for the misuse of a car, causing injury or death, is significently higher than that of the gun?

You also assert guns should only be available to those individuals who're properly trained in the accuracy, safety and effect of such weapons, and who're psychologically fit to possess such a weapon. Of course I agree. By and large that's precisely what happens today during the licensing protocol.

Whereas, for a Drivers licence you must do a certain number of hours instruction at the wheel of a car. Pass a theory test, and then a driving test and thats it. And we've all heard, almost daily, of some of the really awful road trauma, that occurs, until our senses are almost inoculated, against hearing anymore details of the terrible road carnage.

FYI DAVID F. There's a thing called the 'reactionary gap' that allows a potential victim, a second or two, to defeat the accuracy of a projectile. An (FBI protocol) it refers only to handguns and handgun calibres. The procedure is generally known only to a few in the military and policing industry.