Just about doubles your chance of being shot.

Really? Once again you use a link that is tainted. John Hopkins, come on. I didn't use stats from the NRA, I used stats from the BJS a none bias govenment agency. John Hopkins has been a center for gun control for a long time now and has used stats that don't stack up. They sponsor the one gun a month program in an attempt to regulate guns. Another stupid idea. To show how idiotical this is, if a person were to buy one gun a month for 20 years they would have 240 guns. I don't know many gun collectors that have more then 20 much less 240. They also advocate the personalized handgun plan. Even the spokesperson for the Violence Center ( ardent gun foes ) are against it. The are in bed with Ted Kennedy and cite most of their stats based on suicide. You don't need a gun to commit suicide. Both Japan and France have a higher suicide rate then the U.S. and have much stronger gun laws then us. BTW the U.S. ranks 30 on the list. Most of the countries that rank higher then us have strong gun laws and commit most of their suicides without guns. Once again it is more important to find out why then what was used.

Just because you wave a gun at someone doesn't mean that they were attacking you. And that covers 62% of the self-reported cases.

Let's go back to the link you provided ( 62% of the self-reported cases ). It states:

On an average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims ( 62,000 ) who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime, a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motoer vehicle theft.

Doesn't sound like gun waving to me. But once again you can't read, as it also states:

A fifth of the victims defending themselfs with a firearm suffer an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselfs with weapons other then a firearm or who had no weapon. So it seems more of a fetish not to use a fiream then to use one. Your stats don't mix. Nothen magical about that.

Again a silly question, but no it's not a fetish. Why? Because incontrovertibly it takes a functional activity and makes it safer.

This is how you answer my question if a seatbelt were a fetish. Number one, were is your proof that it is safer? Number two, more then 40% of traffic-related deaths are caused by high speed and alcohol. Number 3, most drunks don't wear seatbelts and are the cause of high speed trafic violations. Number 4, 60% of traffic fatalities were not wearing seatbelts. Of these the majority were alcohol related and high speed. The other 40% were wearing seatbelts. Of these 40% most were traveling of speeds less the 55 MPH. BTW a good percentage of the 60% were also fatatities that would not of been able to wear seatbelts ( pedestrians, motorcycles, school buses and such ) So when you add up the stats ( not that they are easy to get ( they must have something to hide )) there is no proof that a seatbelt is any safer then not wearing one. Number 4, by law I must wear a seatbelt you one the other hand don't have to buy a gun if you don't wish too.

Depends on your definition of " respect ".

Who do you think you are, " Bill Clinton "?

I agree that some people with evangelical beliefs have the same respect that you have. But most the ones I've met in my life respects my opion of god ( even tho they don't agree with it ) as much as I respect theirs. Also my evangelical friends know that they must protect my rights just as much as I know I must protect their rights.

If I believe the civil contract of marriage is seperate from the religious one, why would I conflate the two?

So there is nothing magical to this ( BTW is magical your new word? ), no you wouldn't fight for there right not marry same-sex couples.

Because I wanted to demonstrate how illogical and disjointed your reasoning is.

Sorry you failed.

Your claim was that people were justifed being afraid of blacks because they were 3X more likely to be victims.

Apparently you are still unable to read. In fact I called it a myth. Go back and read if you can.

And what gun owners believe isn't particutarly revevant to the discussion since on the issue of firearms, they are engaging in magical ( fetishized ) thinking.

Once again it is your unproven opinion, nothen magical about that. Just because the almighty Degs calls it a fetish doesn't mean that it is. The fact is Degs, you are just another opinonated Lib with no true facts to back you up.