And in addition to that: You can't go for a walk with your gun (in fact you can, but it is not that funny), your gun will not welcome you when you come home from work and it would look rather strange when you cuddle with your gun.
Oh, and a dog will guard your family even if you are not at home. Try that with a gun.

Heart diseases, obviously.

It is not *my* story. The author is Jerome k Jerome, and it was written in 1893.

Then it is a matter of taste. I prefer to rely on myself, dog is less predictable than a machine, IMO.

The big problem with pets is that eventually they all die from old age. Pet loss is hard to deal with for some people.

True, I dread the day my dog leaves me. I do believe pets give parents a chance to teach children two great lessons, responsibility to other life and that mortality is inevitable.

I think arguing about this is useless.

Well, the same could be said for gun owners. Which is more dangerous, an old, infirm dog or an old, infirm gun owner? What a lot of people don't appreciate is that firing a gun actually takes a bit of strength. Guns are generally pretty heavy and it takes a surprising amount of strength to control the recoil. It looks much easier on TV than it actually is.

Besides, I've always found that the best cure for the loss of a good dog is to get another good dog.

It's always been very simple, it's just that the Daily Heil confuse it and make it sound like its more complicated than it is. Whilst they've discussed changing wording and thing I don't think the legal interpretation is supposed to change in any way. The confusion is from the press, not the court.

I don't worry about people who understand weapons and who know how to use them proficiently as a tool.

I do worry about being anywhere near the folks who worship firearms. Especially those who, I fear, also know very little about them.

Or the folks who treat firearms as a political pawn. F'instance, guns in bars? Wrong bar!!

I very much agree that dogs are a necessity for homeowners. Unlike you, I believe they complement (responsible) firearm ownership. Dog alerts/awakes you. Gun inflicts serious damage, if absolutely necessary.

If we're going down that path, I'll throw in my two cents on major risks to health and life in the US: obesity (leads to all sorts of debilitating and deadly conditions), cigarette smoking (similar problem as obesity), and operating motor vehicles (sober or otherwise).

I have long ago accepted that the "Second Amendment debate" is about as divisive as the abortion debate. I respect everyone's informed opinions on the topic. If you do not wish to own a firearm, then by all means - do not.

But let's be real here. This country has some more serious issues to tackle, even WRT public health and safety.

Questions: Is it really so in the US that you are in the constant threat of being robbed, so that you actually need firearms or dogs? In Germany burglars are very seldom armed with guns (and they seldom break into a house where someone is at home), AFAIK, may be because of somewhat strict gun laws. Is this different in the US? Do you really feel threatened if you don't have a gun (or any other weapon) or dog at home?

Certainly do! You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with this whole "ownership" dominant/submissive deal. You certainly seem all too ready to cast allegations around about people you've never met. Got some unexpressed yearnings there have we? Let it out mate, it'll do you good.

Spoken like a good Tennessean. If you're going to own a firearm, you'd better take the time to learn to use it safely. If you play around with it irresponsibly, I am afraid you deserve what is coming - serious injury, death, or the privilege of sitting in a cage for the better part of your life.

(The very same commentary on safety could of course be said about vehicles. Cars/trucks are something that scare the sh*t out of me, incidentally. People die out here on central Texas highways just about every single weekend..)

I've got to say that I'm being persuaded. If I moved to the states I think I would have to have a gun. Not to protect myself against burglers, but to protect myself against the gun-obsessives.

For people who are all fired up to go walking around toting instant death they seem exceptionally short tempered and ready to lash out at people simply because they disagree with them.

Seems to me that the more someone desires to have a gun the less fit they are to own it.

This could also be said about any kind of power.....

It almost sounds like you're trying to convince me that dogs are better no matter what.

An alternative that lacks all of those disadvantages would be a crowbar. Doesn't require maintenance, cheap, doesn't age/die, deadlier than a bat. Disadvantages: close range, requires some space/strength to swing, might not work well against firearm. On other hand even a simple wooden stick can be very painful if used properly...

Some people like dogs, some people like guns. The problem with dog is that it doesn't have ranged attack, though, so I'd agree with anomie - having both dog and gun will be better. Or dog, gun, crowbar, and a decent security system in your house.

Totally subjective. I have rented in sketchy neighborhoods where a minor breakin attempts occurred two - three times throughout the course of a one year lease. (By that I mean someone tried the door and/or window, then left.) My loving pooch woke me up on all occasions. Only once did I have my pistol out and trained on the door. Law enforcement showed up and arrested that character before things got unpleasant. (Thank goodness.)

Now that I am a white collar guy (read: not a student) I live way out the middle class 'burbs. Homes are still targeted here by professional burglars. But the homeless population is almost non-existent in this area, so my perception is the brute-force smash and grab amateur operation (which is the type where people often get hurt) is less of an issue.

Germany sounds nice.