Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
You are wrong. His point was those guns were not as "dangerous" in terms of what serious gun collectors handle as the media has made them appear. And gun can be deadly. I have handled far more "deadly" guns than those myself.

I know plenty of gun owners who still have plenty of love for their neighbors, and respect for them. And who would, if it came down to it, be as willing to defend their neighbor or a stranger as themselves if the situation called for it.

Gun ownership has nothing to do with one's love of his or her neighbor, or one's desire to make the world a better place for his or her children.
You are entitled to your opinion Karen. I am entitled to mine. I don't want to live next door or even down the street from someone who has guns. (Yes, I suppose I do. But not that I know of.)

Would those gun owners give up their guns if it could bring back those 20 children? Of course they will say..."it won't bring them back so what is the point?" I still ask - would they give up their guns if it would bring back those children?

And why does it take three guns - or 17 guns as I posted about earlier to make a house safe. What kind of attack are they repelling and how does someone shot three guns at a time?

But logic is never the point is it?