Uhuh, and a new rifle in 1780 would have cost more than 2 English Pounds. (Dollars were not current yet.)
That was way more than most people made in a month back then.
I can buy a new rifle today for less than a 2 day's wages

By 1870 mass production had lowered the prices, but repeating rifles were still extremely expensive compared to how much the would cost in labor now.

Arguing prices based on commodities like gold is not very good. Metals fluctuate a lot in value.
Gold was cheap enough at one point that they actually used it as currency.

OK, I know I'm about to get a mouthful of something nasty, but I'll bite....

Based on your statement, you make the assumption that anyone who carries is (a) paranoid, (b) not in control of themselves, and (c) heavily armed. I'll take exception to all of the above. This isn't about politics. This is about mindset. One path leads ultimately to becoming a serf or a refugee. The other... is my path.

Paranoia is a specific psychological condition, and while I know it is not your intent to slander with this term, it is insulting. To the average person who can't be bothered to have 72 hours of supplies on hand, those of us who have 120 hours, or 240 hours, or just a month's worth of supplies are "paranoid". If believing that someone other than your self is ultimately responsible for your safety is paranoid, then I'm not sure why you are here. I'm not being nasty, but I have to ask that. It doesn't matter if we are talking getting lost in the woods, deciding to leave before a hurricane, or getting taken out by a meth head who wants the five bucks in cash you are carrying- all of those are real situations, and if not avoidable, failing to prepare for how to counter them is at best shortsighted, and more likely just ingorance in action.

By saying people who chose to be armed are not in control of their actions is very insulting, and shows you don't know much about people who practice any form of martial art, be it armed or unarmed hand to hand, bows, or firearms. To use any of them effectively, you need to be in control of yourself. The only way to beat discipline is luck.

Or perhaps you are thinking not so much of a random beserker, but of someone who flaunts laws. I have no respect for that type of person. My employer has a no weapons policy. Our parking area is not the most secure location. As a result, I choose not to carry anything heavier than a Swiss Army knife at or to work. It is not desirably, but it is the way things are. When my vehicle was down, I added a small can of pepper spray which stayed in my pack during the day, and that was it. When I used to carry regularly, I would not carry in a bar; when I used to drink regularly, I didn't carry period. I ask you if that is the action of a random beserker who is not in control of his actions?

As for heavily armed, I'm sorry, but that is a silly term. To a person with bare hands, someone with a rock is armed. Two rocks (one for throwing, one for smashing) in heavily armed when all you have is ten fingers.

Now, you do talk about avoidance. So we don't go out at night. We let the park become a dealing ground and crack house, and keep the kids out of it. Those of us who's socioeconomic situation gives them the luxury of avoiding bad parts of town do so, and if you can't, sucks to be you. Avoidance and situational awareness prevent walking into ambushes. But they can also make you a target. A "crazy" can see it two ways- as a threat to his status, or a sign telling the world you are prey. The really crazy, you can't avoid them if they want to play with you.

Sorry, I'd rather accept responsibility for myself, and be able to assist those around me. If that makes me paranoid in your eyes, then allow me to counter with this. It makes me a free man in my eyes, and the master of my own destiny. I have options other than running away or begging on my knees, just like I have options other than freezing to death or waiting on my roof for the helos to come. Sure, those options are open to me if they are the best ones, but I can now chose. Only small children, subjects and slaves have to rely on someone else to take care of them, and all are at the mercy of that "protector".

I am sorry Red, but I have to burst that bubble.
The "Good Old Days" are just another escapist fantasy.

Having a pistol handy certainly would not have helped anybody hit by the Texas Tower Sniper.
He was able to keep selecting targets and firing at them with a high powered telescopic sighted rifle for over an hour and a half from the top of that tower.
(he was the first of the real mass murder shooters by the way)

"Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who confronted Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit."

http://www.morganprinting.org/PortRangerRay.html

Civilian 22 rifles--

4 pages of predictable posts and an escalation from knives to firearms. So, I must ask? How many people are aware of Doug's other effort for knife rights? it's on the homepage.

To be fair, he never meant it to be about knives at all, he ended up changing the question to crazy people after the point.