Quote:
|
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Okay...so you knew that thats how it would be taken, but meant something else. So...becuase i "fell" for that...you're upset? Now i'm really confused. Frankly, i still think that your remarks contained an endorsement of broader gun ownership, though not universal gun ownership. do you not want people to reconsider the social training that makes them unwilling to trade another's life for their own safety?
|
I'm not upset, I'm just observing reactions and commenting out loud. By this point, we all know how I feel about the subject and to discuss it further is arguing semantics. If I hadn't wanted to see a few reactions, I would have inlcuded my second and third posts in the first. I wanted to see how people interpreted it, and I seem to have been quite unclear in explaining all of this. You didn't "fall" for anything, you answered from the point of someone who has seen what I've said in the past. I also got to see responses from people who haven't read my posts extensively. I hope that clears up what I was thinking. The reason I responded directly to your post is that it was the one that most directly made a statement that I wanted to address with the other half of what I was thinking.
Yes, my response does condone broader responsible gun ownership, and yes, I do want people to reconsider the social training that has led some to feel that a criminal's life is more important than that of an armed would-be victim.