I've never thrown anything at another person, and I've only once made to physically attack someone. I was 12 or 13, it was in school, and friends restrained me. I've never felt that urge before or since, and I can't remember what it was that made that time different.

My lack of aversion to firearms is well-established, though I don't (yet) own one. When we were going through some of my dad's stuff after the funeral, the line dividing the firearms-averse from those clustered around the guns wasn't male vs. female, but born an S. vs. married one. However, I was the only S.-born female in the room, and it's just possible that I'm not typical.

My mom's a good shot. When my stepfather took a gun to the medical plaza one of my first thoughts was thank god it wasn't her. Because she would've killed somebody.

you can duck a bullet, but cold steel has to go somewhere

What does that mean?

As an adult, I've never been around anyone I was hotly angry at. Coldly angry, yes, and that accounts for me picking him up by his lapels and shaking him until he agreed with my point (I didn't remember this happening until it was pointed out to me later).

I don't even krav angry.

My hatred for guns and everything they symbolise to me about this country is well-documented elsewhere. It also aint open to debate, since the only point of debate is to hope to reach an accord, and I'm well beyond gun control and into "you want a gun, no problem, but you have to shoot yourself in both kneecaps first and I get to watch" land. That particular headspace has been there all my life, and probably isn't going anywhere. (edit: which isn't a diss - it just means that there's no meeting ground on the pro-gun issue for me, so why should we argue about it?)

So I don't debate it, because it isn't fair to either party in the debate. I just move on to the next topic. Unless someone points one at me. That happens, there's surgery to remove their .9 mil from their lower intestine in their immediate future.

What does that mean?

The context was a duel. He opted for swords instead of pistols; his point to harriet was that at twenty paces, you might be able to duck a bullet, but a sword from six inches away was going to draw blood, period.

a sword from six inches away was going to draw blood, period

If you're unarmed, probably. But if it's a duel...

I guess it's not important.

If you're unarmed, probably. But if it's a duel...

No, no - the point was the guy who'd challenged him immediately dropped the challenge when the weapons choice was swords. I think the implication was that the guy was a good shot, but had never handled a sword in his life.

Not so much unarmed as incompetent.

Speaking of firearms, where would a wealthy (non-hunter) firearms afficionado with a family store his guns in his house? I mean, I realize the actual storage device would likely be a gun safe, I'm just wondering what room would be appropriate if he had a fairly large (10-plus rooms) home.

When I wrote the most recent chapter I said his study, for lack of a better term. The room itself really doesn't matter to the story, I just don't want a reader to think "that's wierd" when that's where one of the characters goes to retrieve a gun.

I think having the "master's" guns in his private study is one of the great traditions of literature. If they're his alone and the family knows that that's Dad's place and not to mess with it, then it seems the best place, unless another room is designated as a strong/safe room of some sort.

Kalshane, where and when is the house? I mean, if you're talking a country house in the UK, there's always the basic gunroom: dedicated storage with lock-up capability (although the two places I stayed with gun rooms, the lock-up had glass doors.....)