I wholeheartedly agree Vic ... pistols like that in lawful citizen's hands are an example of the practical truth of owning weapons to keep the land free for the citizens who live there and who are entitled to this fundamental right of freedom ....

No greater truth is there in saying that the "sin is in the user" where any weapon is concerned ....

And should the unfortunate situation arise where the bad guys are using them with their own armour vests .... it could be critical that these sort of pistols are also in the hands of the lawful potential victims ....

However, sometimes it just appears that the concept of "peace" and "freedom" being assured by "parity" with arms of all types being available to all sides of any potential conflict .... simply benefits the people who make "the arms" ... and not those who step forward and try to protect those rights to freedom for the benfit of all ...

Your difficulty is when the "Mutually Assured Destruction" theory starts to filter through and then you worry about who has an ability to kill everyone .... and who has not ....

If we all went around strapped with semtex "party jackets" on which could take out the whole neighbourhood .... would we have a "polite society" or a "worried society" and what would be the quality of our freedom ?

Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand as to what is "out there" and say that if we want our freedom then those who are in the firing line are entitled to ask the arms companies to curb what they sell and to whom the sell it ....