Q1: Yes. I have been in that pickle with a peeping tom that was growing ever aggressive with my fiance. I brandished a gun at him, and he never returned. This pervert was at the point of breaking into the house and stealing underwear, leaving doors and windows unlocked for midnight entry. The dog didn’t scare him, but the gun did.

Q2: Impossible to answer. It is entirely hypothetical. I believe when people know others are armed or even have access to a gun, they are less inclined to take advantage of you. They know the ramifications and back off.

But you are missing a bigger point here. Gun ownership is not for mere hunting or even to deter crime (though it helps). It is there as a check against tyrannical government which deprives us of clear, constitutional liberties and inalienable rights. This was the whole reason we originally had state militias. Over the last 70 years the state militia has been federalized and no longer exists. Thus, you have one less protection regarding your protection from both exploitation and oppression. And without inalienable rights you are little better than a slave.

About twenty years ago, while living in Niles my
dog became aware of someone or something outside
in the middle of the night. After about five minutes
of barking I saw someone starting to open my side
door. All I saw was their arm as they started it.
I kicked the door closed on his arm, and shouted
I have a gun, Get the hell out of here.

All I know is I was sure glad that I was armed
and able to protect myself.

Conversely, have you ever been in a situation, that due to the people involved and the heated nature of the disagreement, the presence of a handgun would have/could have exacerbated the confrontation?

I’ll supply my response to those scenarios; no and no.

More Guns = Less Crime!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

There is no turning back the clock, but there remains timeless principles. Whether man or his culture is true begs the question. Gun ownership– the right to self-defense for the preservation of life and liberty–combined with armed defense against tyranny were once upon a time considered fundamental, inalienable, and immortal principles/truths.

Today, everything this is not the case. Everything is in flux, and you have no guarantee of liberties or rights when faced with more-or-less utilitarian, pragmatic rationale.

The foreclosure and usary dilemma created an illusion of ownership. But this ownership did not last long. Unfortunately, we are not allowing a market correction to run the irresponsible owners out of the propertied class. They may have been ‘owners’, but obviously their ‘ownership’ would have expired fairly quickly.

But you are right. I ought to qualify my comments with the criteria that a man be able to retain newly gained property. That propety and ‘possession’ have some correlation.

I know this is an informal medium, but people can get a sense of your priorities based on what you say before an election. I see a similarity in your tact to the SF supes who chime in on every issue they have no jurisdiction over, while the city suffers. I’m not saying that you’d waste your time on the Fremont city council soap-boxing, but please keep it local.

There are many extremely responsible individuals that are renters simply because they can’t afford the cost of Bay Area houses.

Keep in mind when the Second Amendment was written folks weren’t sporting machine pistols with body armor piercing ammo.

I believe your intentions are good, but just a bit out of keeping with the unfortunate realities of the early 21st century and there’s no turning back the clock (other than the first weekend in November when we switch to Standard Time).