BBob,
I have only casually followed your anti-gun stance as a matter of practical defense. As I don't wish to scroll through countless archived posts, I wish to move this back to square-1 a bit and ask you some basic questions.
I construe that you feel that handguns are less effective than impromptu weapons such as a rock, antenna, etc.
Allow me to create 2 scenarios with the only variable being the good guy's weapon of defense, and I'll even use you as the good guy, much to the chagrin of the typical Drudgie. :-)
A would-be bad guy approaches you on the street armed with a knife.
Scenario A: You are armed with a radio antenna. In this scenario you and your opponent are comparably armed. It's essentially a matter of hand-to-hand combat. Now, you may be spry, but you are an old codger nonetheless. Do you really want to tangle with a 25 year old dude wielding a knife when all you have is an antenna? If you whip out your antenna, is it really going to serve as a deterrent?
Scenario B: You are armed with a Glock. Now, as a military vet I tend to believe you are proficient at wielding a sidearm. You are approached and as a precautionary measure you draw your weapon - a weapon this is easily capable of delivering a fatal wound with a simple squeeze of the trigger. In this scenario, your chances of success if the situation becomes kill or be killed improve dramatically AND you would seem to be more likely to subdue your attacker without violence as a pistol pointed at him is considerably more lethal and much more difficult to dodge than a dude wielding an antenna.
No doubt you've explained yourself on this before, and I apologize for a request of redundancy. Nevertheless, I can't fathom how you could view an antenna as more effective in any scenario other than a fringe scenario. Sure, you could probably create a hypothetical to support your position, but I feel that I could construe countless scenarios with the opposite outcome.
