2nd - Your original point indicated NOTHING to do with "false sense of security". Your random personal anecdotes or your predictions also don't edit your point. Your original post I respond to was this:
That exact same logic could be used to say that without her 2 year old there (the [x] in this case) she would be alive today (the [y]).
My statement regarding your "logic" in that post was dead on, and nothing you posted argues against that. The ONLY argument you actually made in that original post was that if ONE particular thing was different (not having the gun) than she'd be alive, and THEREFORE she as less safe.
My statement about her two year old used that exact same logic; and you've yet to show how that's not the case.
Now, if you want to admit that you were overly simplistic and hyperbolic in your initial comment and reasoning...and then add additional caveats and reasoning as to why she's "less safe" then be my guest. But if you want to ignore the fact that your original logic was amazingly broad and questionable, while trying to add a bunch of additional caveats and notions that you didn't actually claim onto it, then don't be surprised when you're called on such bull****.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
What makes this worse is that she was a gun advocate, not some willy nilly who happen to buy a gun. Her husband gave her a gift for Christmas that supposedly made the gun more safe.
I don't believe carrying a gun make you more safe. I don't think most people who carry them should as they're quite often used against them. Of course if the person had threats against their life, I would drop that.
I feel bad for her son, who probably will grow up knowing he killed his mother. Hopefully he'll growup well adjusted, but somehow I doubt he will.
...relief organizations supplied the Khmer Rouge resistance movement with food and medicines.... In the Fall of 1979 the Khmer Rouge were the most desperate of all the refugees who came to the Thai-Kampuchean border. Throughout l900, however, their health rapidly improved, and relief organizations began questioning the legitimacy of feeding them. The Khmer Rouge. . . having regained strength...had begun actively fighting the Vietnamese. The relief organizations considered supporting the Khmer Rouge inconsistent with their humanitarian goals.... Yet Thailand, the country that hosted the relief operation, and the U.S. government, which funded the bulk of the relief operations, insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed.
Last edited by michijo; 01-05-15 at 10:12 PM.
Ummm, who are the "normal people" in El Salvador? And have you ever been there?
I don't know about anyone else, but I always feel less safe being armed than not. I mean, why would anyone want to be able to defend himself against an armed attack, when he could just stand there like a good victim?