"Between grapes and cherries, which do you prefer?" "I choose bananas! There are more fruit than just those two, so I choose nether!"
That would be a rather imbecilic response to the question, don't you agree?
It's no more "paranoid" than wearing a set belt while driving/riding an automobile, or keeping a fire extinguisher in your kitchen. No one anticipates or expects to ever be in an accident or house fire, but they still take precautionary measures. But do you object to that? Nope. So let's be honest, your objection towards gun ownership isn't based merely on the presumption that gun owners are "paranoid", especially when you refer to someone defending themselves as "murder". Also, if I lived in a gang-ridden ghetto, I might just be a bit wary and on guard.
But if a woman shot a man who was attempting to beat and rape her, and he died from his injuries, would you fault the woman, calling what she did "murder" as you have other's who've used a firearm to defend themselves? Even if you oppose gun rights, surely you would consider that outcome preferable to her coming to harm instead?
The problem is that I've repeatedly stated that there are other means and methods and other possible outcomes. Of course there are, and if people wish to use alternative means of defense that's their right and prerogative. I've also repeatedly stated that it bears no relevance to the point of the statement at hand, yet you continue to prattle on about it for some strange reason.
Also, it's one thing to make the personal choice to rely on threats to call the cops and Tae Bo to defend yourself, but it's ridiculous to expect others to do the same when it would most likely put them at much greater risk. But it was never about the safety and well-being of innocent citizens, but rather about humoring some mawkish ideology, right?
