Welcome Jack thompson of the anti-gun lobby...
Thank you for the well reasoned statement which is filled with lies...

I have also enjoyed other Brady statements in the past:

"We must get rid of all the guns."
-- Sarah Brady
"It [the Brady Bill] is not a panacea. It's not going to stop crimes of passion or drug-related crime."
-- Sarah Brady
"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
-- Sarah Brady

Now please go away and don't bother us here...

To those saying that guns are not to blame, I have to disagree. Games are not a weapon so blaming them when there is no evidence of psychological effects is ludicrous, but guns have very limited uses - to kill, to threaten, to deter or for sport.

Often when you hear gun advocates speak you hear such lines like the above poster "Gun control laws only makes the law-abiding citizens not have guns. It does nothing for criminals". Well what is a criminal exactly? Are they not law-abiding citizens up to the point they pull the trigger? If a child has murderous intentions and their only weapon is a close range one like a knife, do you think they could go from classroom to classroom killing students? If a couple are having a fight and there isn't a gun close at hand to grab and pull the trigger, would there be so many fatal 'domestics'?

The other argument is about the constitution, but this is usually from ignorance of the circumstances in their own history. The right to bear arms was at a time when it was thought necessery for the citizens to retain the ability to overthrow the government should it be needed. Thats a far cry from how guns are used today.

In all seriousness, can anyone here think of a valid reason for a citizen to be able to own an automatic rifle? The sport angle is removed at that point and it is really only there for violence and war. I'd argue that semi-automatic weapons and shotguns largely have no place in the hands of your average joe, though might agree that hunters or farmers could benefit.

Could there not be some half way house here? This isn't about removing rights, it is about a problem in the US of epidemic proportions. If you remove the worst and most unworthy of weapons from the hands of people and criminalize anyone who retains them, you can quickly improve matters. I don't think it will be realistic to get rid of hand guns at this stage in the US as there would be too much backlash, but I would make people responsible for owning them - full background checks on mental health for all licensees, proper lock boxes that are checked once a year by an independant governing body for shotguns and semi-automatic rifles and removal of all automatic weapons.

Thoughts?

"Well what is a criminal exactly? Are they not law-abiding citizens up to the point they pull the trigger?"

Mostly, no. They're already criminals. Most shootings occur during another crime: rape, robbery, breaking and entering, or between members of rival street gangs (read: organized criminals.)

"If a couple are having a fight and there isn’t a gun close at hand to grab and pull the trigger, would there be so many fatal ‘domestics’?"

While my evidence is anecdotal, I could find very few instances via google where a domestic dispute fatality was caused by a gun. There's some big news about cops gunning down a husband in Meeker/Joliet, but it seems to me that most domestic dispute manslaughters are of the blunt object/stabbing variety.

"Thats a far cry from how guns are used today."

Today guns are used for hunting, other sport, and property defense, even from one's own country, should it turn against it's populous. Exactly as they were in the colonial years.

"can anyone here think of a valid reason for a citizen to be able to own an automatic rifle?"

Moot point. Automatic rifles aren't used in crimes. Most guns used in crimes were perfectly legal under the assault weapons ban which was later allowed to lapse because it HAD NO IMPACT ON CRIME. Why? Because men who pay the high prices to own automatic weapons are collectors. Some are also gun nuts, but they're not shooting anyone who isn't on their property without permission.

"This isn’t about removing rights, it is about a problem in the US of epidemic proportions."

The problem isn't guns, it's gun CRIME, and it's a statistically proven fact in many cases all over the country that enacting concealed carry laws cuts gun CRIME drastically with minimal impact on accidental shootings. Even so, to call gun crime an epidemic in the US is denying the last two decades where, as I mentioned before, youth crime and gun crime have fallen precipitously. Keep in mind, these are some of the same statistics used to defend games, as the drop has a casual (not causal) corrolary relationship with the popularization of modern gaming. Maybe video games kept some kids from falling in with violent gangs, who knows, but if you're really gung-ho about curtailing gun crime, allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

@IllegallyMindedJohn

Then I'm declaring myself a one-man militia. Where do you think a "well-regulated militia" comes from? Do they just pop out of thin air, fully formed and fully armed?

@chuma

You are blessedly removed from reality

"Any realistic scenario in which a gun would do the trick for you but a good taser would not?"

I'm sure there might be some scenarios, but I don't have the luxury of choosing my battles.

Plus Tasering an armed person wouldn't be that great of an idea, IMO. They might fire out of desperation, or because of the involuntary muscle spasms.

Side-note: Even if Tasers have a less-than-lethal or non-lethal designation, it doesn't make them (in effect) non-lethal. I'd rather the police pull a gun on me than a Taser, the pistol is far less likely to be abused.

To point out the taser thing....in Michigan only cops can carry tasers or stun-guns.

@Rhade

A couple cops fired some 20 shots at a kid that had a plastic cafeteria knife, cops abuse their gun power wayy too much

"Alright, AK-47’s apparently are $200-$400 dollars. So the rumor was wrong."

Semis are $200-$400, fully automatic push $800-$1000.

"nor do they have contacts in the black market... Your garden variety “thug” on the other hand just gets them from the shady guy selling from his car."

shady guy = black market, dipshit. And the shady guy probably buys guns from thugs as well, if not actual importers of firearms. No one is saying guns shouldn't be regulated in the same way cars are. Cars are titled, require a license to operate, and are useful and deadly much in the same way guns are. However, banning certain types of weapons, especially handguns, is over the line. I absolutely want background checks on firearm purchases and required licenses for concealed carry. But I don't want "No handguns in Chicago." I mean, look how well that's turned out.

@ chuma

Seriously? You quote me and then follow up with an example of what I was condemning you for to begin with...

"Better still, give me a scenario where having the gun in self defense is a good idea and DOESN’T put your life in danger."

My life was always in danger, it always will be. This is universal. It applies to everyone. The variable is the amount of danger, which we can only estimate very roughly. Assuming this danger can be met with defense via the use of a firearm, one must then decide if it SHOULD.

I can give you a senario whereby my gun ownership solves world hunger and cures cancer. Possible? Sure. Probable? Not even in the slightest.

I think you're trolling, if only by accident.

Wow! This is a debate and a half :)

My opinion basically boils down to this:

Less guns in circulation = less chance of people getting shot

The UK has very heavy gun control and i like it this way.
I have only seen guns 'in real life' in very few locations: Museums and on police officers (rarely) and soldiers.
I'd feel significantly less safe if the general public had easy access to them, as a lot of the general public are morons.

There seems to be a fair few people theorising over the situation: "imagine if a criminal comes at you with a gun" style arguments
In response to that i'd say firstly, how often does that really happen?
and if it does happen, how more likely is it for the criminal to shoot you if he thinks you may have a gun on you?
And while heavy gun control does not stop all criminals having a gun, it does make it a lot more difficult to get a gun, which is a definite improvement.

Whilst i know guns are not the actual cause of gun crime, i do feel quite strongly that heavy gun control can help reduce the problem somewhat with no real drawbacks.

"It’s estimated that between 250,000 and two million times a year a gun STOPS a violent crime without being fired. Depends on who you ask, and what numbers they are cherry picking. The fact is it happens, every day, and your theory simply *doesn’t* happen every day. If we’re making up rules based on hypotheticals, mine wins."

Theres making up hypotheticals as an example and there is making up statistics which is a falsehood. If what you are saying is true, and it "depends on who you ask" then please provide figures from anyone who estimates in that range. I can provide you with figures of gun crime from home office and police reports. Can you provide such proof?

Correction: I reread some of his posts and realize I actually don't feel that way about Dark Sovereign. The others I still do though.

Hmm.. I read somewhere the other day there were just 7 school shooting rampages between 1776 and 1990. Since 1990, there have been 78.

What changed in 1990? The Federal Gun-Free School Zone Act made them into attractive, soft targets.

Thank you Brady Campaign!

So, so desperate to argue your indoctrinated position that you feel you have to goad people with name calling, huh? Suddenly the real reasons behind your gun advocacy become clear.

Try googling 'causality' while you're at it, and good night.

@Leahelm. I prefer to avoid this this argument. However, I can't let this statement pass without comment:

"Did you know that in England where gun laws are stricter, that every single crime aside from homicide by gun has drastically higher rates than the US?"

The Overall UK crime rate is bad, we seem to have a serious problem in that regard. However, "drastically higher" is hardly a justifiable characterisation of the situation (85.5517 per 1,000 people vs the USA's 80.0645 per 1,000 people*). Moreover, it's simply incorrect for crimes like "plain old homicide" (the last figures I saw where 0.042802 per 1,000 people vs 0.0140633 per 1,000 in the UK*).

Anyway, got it off my chest now. Make what you will of the figures, but given the statistical misuse of data in arguments like this I'll include a caveat: Different countries use different methodologies when collecting data on different types of crime so the figures may not actually be comparable (with the probable exception murders which tend to be rather more "definite" stats). Furthermore, recorded crime says nothing about undetected crime rates.

*Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

the combination of lenient background requirements for purchasing firearms and mental health issues/anti-depressant usage is obviously a bad mix. Why the hell isn't there a background check on the buyers mental health? sure, it may be a violation of some privacy, but this cant be as bad as the PATRIOT Act. Its absolute fucking bullshit that a psycho is able to purchase a gun in this country just as easily as anyone else.

We've had a lenghty discussion about gun control here. Some are for it, others against it and that's fine, it's part of the U.S. culture. I have a question though, let"s just look at this quote first: "I’m not sure that psychological factors or violent movies and video games are any different here than in other countries - the difference is how easy it is to get a gun".

So besides gun availability (that debate has been covered already), what do you think is the reason that the U.S. seems to have a lot more school shootings than other countries? What is happening in the U.S. that does not seem to be happening elsewhere?

@niceaznguy721

People who are found insane by the courts are added to the prohibited persons database. At least they're supposed to be. But in the case of VT, for instance, lack of funding and/or bureaucratic screw-ups often let people fall through the cracks.

@jab49

So with no guns, nobody could kill more than four people? Explain the 45 people killed and the 58 injured at a school in Bath, Michigan with a bomb then. Or the 8 dead and 15 injured in a kitchen knife rampage at a school in Osaka, Japan.

As for not being useful, tell that to the Polish Jews who held off the SS for a month in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising with a handful of stolen rifles and pistols. Or to the million plus people every year who use a gun to defend themselves from violent criminals.

@Hackangel

To me, it seems obvious that the "gun-free zones" are a major factor. Placing a sign on a door or a line in a student handbook is not going to stop someone hell bent on murder from bringing a gun into a building. Doubly so when school administrators and politicians loudly advertise said buildings as being completely defenseless. This isn't much of a problem in the UK, being that the whole country is almost gun-free. But here, it's like setting up a chain-link fence in the ocean and declaring a water-free zone or something.

The fact that ~90% of known rampage shootings in the US happened after 1990 seems to be a strong correlation.

Shady8x

Chuma: “to kill, to threaten, to deter or for sport.”

"You just mentioned 4 things, how is that limited???"

Given those things are violence, defence from violence and sport, it isn't exactly diverse compared to say a knife.

"Guns are successfully used to threaten/deter in 85% of the 2.5 million self defense instances per year(by civilians)…"

Not true. In fact if you had read my response to this statistic further up in the thread you will see the links to scientific studies of Kleck and Gertz's research you will see that their methodology is fundementally flawed. Basic maths allows you to work out that if what they were saying is true, by the time you are 60, half the population would have been in a life threatening situation and could only save themselves if they had a gun on them. This is laughably false. Exact figures are hard to come by, even harder outside of law enforcement, but 2.5 Million is a gross exaggeration.

"You also forgot the use of “just for fun” at a shooting range…
and Police enforcement…"

Shooting range is sport, police enforcement is kill, threaten and deter.

"No, they are a criminal for hundreds of thousands of possible reasons only one of which is pulling a gun on an innocent person..."

Point is that a law-abiding civilian who owns a gun is just that until the moment they pull the trigger and kill someone. Criminals don't wear a uniform to identify them from others and come in all shapes and sizes.

"...and doing so is far more common for self defense than an attack on another…"

This is another exaggeration. Guns are more often drawn as a threat, even by police. Often they draw their guns first to approach a suspect, even if they don't have a weapon in a "cooperate or get shot" way. I imagine the number of times they draw weapons because the suspect has one is much less than forcing cooperation through intimidation (not critisizing the police you must understand, but there is a distinction here).

"The ‘child’(most school shooters are adults) could obtain a firearm just as easily in a state that banned them as they can in a state with no restrictions…(except that states with almost no restrictions on guns have never had school shootings and have the lowest crime rates…)"

This just isn't so. You only have to look at previous school shootings and see how they got hold of weapons from family members because they didn't lock the weapons away properly. My proposals for restrictions include maintaining a secure location that is checked by an official.

"as for domestics, I believe knives are more common in those… and those 2.5 million defensive uses do include ‘domestics’ and with guns banned there would be a hell of a lot more of them…"

Again with the 2.5M figure... Please scroll up and look for the links that discredit the figure entirely. Anyhow, yes you can argue that knives are more common, but it is easy to run from a knife than a projectile weapon like a gun.

"They are mostly used for self defense… and are seen as one of the main components of freedom…
Why is protecting against government more important then protecting against a home invader or back alley robber? they are equally important."

It's not the importance that you place upon either but the intention of the 2nd amendment that I was getting at.


"2% of crime have something to do with automatic weapons, and since most of those are with semis converted to full auto by the criminals and involves zero mass shootings I don’t see how banning or not would effect anything…(by the way they were banned for almost a decade and during that time were used more often then before the banning…)"

Great, then by banning automatic weapons, and by placing heavy restrictions of semi-auto weapons we decrease crime by organised criminals and can work on getting that 2% to 0%. Everything has to be done in stages and by removing the most damaging weapons that noone can argue in favour of keeping, we can start the ball rolling. And I appreciate you say there was a rise in crimes but I have to wonder how this law was implemented. Not every idea is a bad one just because its implementation is bad.

"also if you own a weapon in your home for self defense, then wouldn’t you be able to defend better if you had a better gun???"

Personally I would be on the phone to the police immediately and the last thing I would want to do is approach someone with a gun, regardless of whether or not I have one as well. My posessions are not as important as my life and are covered by insurance.

"Removing guns isn’t unrealistic do to a backlash(check Washington DC, handguns banned crimes go through the roof but no backlash) it is unrealistic because it wouldn’t help anyone as there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF GUNS ON THE BLACK MARKET…"

Where do you think all these come from exactly? Usually from people who can legitimately own guns having them stolen or selling them on. If you make people responsible for their weapons, you'll see a lot less of this sort of thing happening.

"You want a governing body to go into 80,000,000-100,000,000 homes on a yearly basis?!?!?!?!? but not into the homes of know criminals that but the guns illegally??? Now that would have a political backlash…"

You want to own a gun? You have to have a yearly visit. How many times do you get visited by the gas-man to take a meter reading in a year? It's not that inconvenient.

"There are already back ground checks but privacy laws keep insanity status out of the registries and including that info would keep crazies from seeking professional help which would likely increase crime since they can get weapons from illegal dealers very easily…"

You logic here is ludicrous. It would increase crime because they would have to go to an ILLEGAL dealer rather than a readily available gunshop? Don't be silly. Tell me something, how many illegal gun dealers do you know of? Now how many gun retailers do you know? Which would you rather deal with, crazy or not? You can't take a leap of logic on this and claim that something would be worse if you make it more difficult for someone.

Anyhow, thanks for the comments, please feel free to respond to any points in here you want to debate further. But please, read up on the 2.5M figure. It's clearly false.

@ Shady8x

''@NovaBlack
“um actually no.. its completely in context. where do u stop. Somebody has a gun, so i need a gun to defend myself, so they get a bigger gun, so i get a bigger gun etc etc its completely analogous. ”

So everyone has a big gun and no one actually uses them on each other, so where is the harm?

''


um so nobody uses them on each other.. then WHY DO YOU NEED A GUN.

geez thanks for winning that point for me!

@Chuma

"Ofcourse the one time one of them then reaches behind for their own gun and shoots you, it isn’t so fun…"

Except thats when you shoot them.

"Criminals are thugs, but if the shaken cashier had produced a gun it would have provoked a response from him and maybe meant that instead of being hit, she would have been shot dead, or maybe others as well. It is unfortunate he was not caught, but that’s no reason to give upon the police."

Except a good number of criminals make there intentions obvious from the moment they enter the door. This one had most of his face covered, before he actually pulled the gun. The problem with your argument is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A CRIMINAL IS GOING TO DO, even when you do everything he says. You never know how they will respond to any thing adverse to them, you never know what they will perceive as a threat.

"Statistically it is also not rational to assume you will be. If you live your life ruled by fear of the unlikely then you add to the whole problem of being governed by it. There are sensible precautions you can take. I don’t walk down narrow dark alleyways in the middle of the night or cut through rough parts of town on my own when no one else is about. You don’t need to carry a weapon all the time."

Four homes in my mother neighborhood have been burglarized in the last year. There have been several car jacking, 2 of which were violent within 2 miles of my house in the Last month. I live in a firmly suburban area above Atlanta. There are no dark alleys and the rough parts of town are the 2 or 3 bits of section 8 housing.

@Austin Lewis
"If you have to be admitted to any psychiatric institution, you are required to have this put on the record that NICS can access. Now, for the longest time, this was not done or barely ever done (in 2006 I believe it was, Arizona reported only 3 people admitted to such institutions, wherein common sense will tell you that it is more than that)"

Does this mean that everyone that is admitted have to be reported including those who voluntarily check in, and those who's parents put them in there to fix them from being not-straight(yes people do that) and those who's parents just think they're kids are unruly and want to 'fix' them...

Do you know in which circumstances they are reported, because there are certainly many types of crazy and a tiny fraction of them is dangerous to the public at large...

Anyways, if there is a law, then those institutions must report it.

@Ebonheart
"I love historical inacuracies. 2 Nazi generals in Hitlers inner circle where exactued by Hitlers orders for an attempted and failed assassination. Was quiet funny a table saved his life. Hitler political career started off in the Nazi party (It use to be a labor union) He reorganized it. He forceabily seized control, not this “vote” you silly people speak of."

Wasn't there like 18 known assassination attempts by his own people?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/assassination_attempts.html

@NovaBlack

No one is arguing the causal link between massive trauma from a bullet wound and death.

There actually is an inverse correlative between legal guns and crime. The fewer legal guns, the higher the crime. [See: Washington D.C. circa 1980]

I can argue the opposite side of the inverse, but I don't think I really have to.

There is no causal relationship between guns and crime. Guns do not, cannot cause their trigger to be pulled.

Using firearms to defend a country that was, in it's infancy carved out and defended by the latest technology: Men on Horses with Swords™ is completely different than using guns to free yourself and your countrymen from an oppressive imperial force. Without guns, we'd all be English. Do you see how there might be a problem with perspective? And your wars were fought by soldiers, our revolution was fought by the people. There are some huge fundamental differences in our countries' cultures, and you're simply failing to recognize them because you've already decided that what works for the UK should obviously have to work for this offshoot country that violently opposed our government and culture.

" What about the UN or the G8? That’s a bunch of nations all commenting on one another…"

The UN or the G8 hasn't demonstrated a lack of understanding of American culture and politic in the face of an appeal from someone who has first-hand experience being an American.

"So you are happy with the violent society you have? Wouldn’t you like to try and have a something, I dunno… BETTER?"

No, I'm not at all happy with the violent society we have. That's why I'd like to allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I'm going to spell it out for you all one more time.


THE CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS. IN PLACES WHERE PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP IS BANNED, CRIMINALS PROSPER AND VIOLENT CRIME RISES. IN PLACES WHERE SUCH BANS ARE NOT ISSUED, DRAMATIC INCREASES IN VIOLENT CRIME DO NOT OCCUR.

How can it get any clearer than that?

It is easier to ignore a volume of comments with a sweeping generalization that may or may not make sense according to the facts, than trying to actually argue a point that's a lost cause.

In fact, heres my argument boiled down to the gristle:

Because banning guns in the united states has resulted in each and every case a dramatic increase in violent crimes, we should not ban guns.

Argue that. Keep in mind that WHY this statistical correlation occurs is irrelevant, just that it does occur every time. I've even attempted multiple times to explain why, even though that's not necessary for the integrity of my argument. When you can explain why we should ban guns (or regulate them, if you're mincing words) even though it makes our violent crime rise, I'll yeild to your awesome logical prowress.

Actually Stripe, this discussion has degenerated so I'm fed up of continuing it.

I think however in closing that this exchange between me and you sums up nicely your opinions:-

Chuma said: “You clearly seem to think that all criminals have guns and are out to kill people and your only line of defense is to have a gun. ”

TheStripe said: “This is true.”

And hopefully anyone reading will feel the same way I do about that sentiment.

"Good job bowing out before the dance is over."

It's no fun dancing with someone with 2 left feet. Consider me out too.

@chuma
"Some of you really don’t understand what Correlation and Causation means. This is something I had hoped EVERYONE woudl have learned from Jack Thompson’s own ignorance of the two, but apparently not.
Correlation is merely that two events increase and decrease with one another. They can be completely independant events but happen to do this.
Causation is where one event CAUSES the other event to occur and thus the increase in one CAUSES the increase in another."

Yes, I know, and if you actually read my posts, then you will notice that I have never claimed otherwise, in fact I said exactly this...

Though correlations should still be stated because they do have some scientific value, but they certainly aren't proof...

@chuma
"Let’s take Novablacks very fine example of Correlation. Shark attacks go up as Icecream sales go up. Does that mean the presence of icecream causes sharks to go mad? NO. What happens is that the SUN comes out in the summer, people go to the beach, swim lots and eat icecream. More swimmers and warmer seas brings in sharks. Warmer weather also means that people enjoy cooling down with an icecream."

The reason I got a bit mad at that statement wasn't because it was incorrect, but because I was saying exactly that, and the one time I admitted that correlations have scientific value he tried to make me look like an ignorant person by stating that which I have said through most of my posts...

Which is why my first response to this was, Thank you for explaining MY point to me...

@chuma
"What Novablack is saying with regards to guns and shootings is true. It is a causal link. If noone in the US had guns at all, even criminals, there would be no shootings because there is nothing to shoot bullets with. The presense of guns means there is more shootings. That is causal. Period."

I have agreed through this whole discussion that guns have a causal relationship with shooting guns... which I have argued is neither here nor there in terms of whether or not to control them or not, cause 99.9999% of the time they aren't fired to kill people(if the statistic above by illspirit is accurate...)

However Novablack(see my last response to him) argued about guns having a causal relationship with violence(even when not related to guns). That is simply not true and an insane assumption if the facts are reviewed....

@chuma
"Please try and understand and learn the difference. This doesn’t have to change your viewpoint if you feel you want guns so badly for other reasons, but don’t argue from ignorance."

Please read my posts carefully as you seem to have misunderstood them...


@chuma
"Some of you would like to argue that if EVERYONE had guns, they would cancel each other out."

They wouldn't cancel each other out, but if it is only criminals vs everyone, then the everyone option is by far the better one.


@chuma
"I’ll throw out my argument here in all it’s glory. You can disagree with it if you want, but I’m not about to change my position for the reasons given below:-
1.Criminals are seldom out to kill people for killing sake.
2.These are usually psychopaths or gang members."

1. I have agreed with this the whole time, I have merely stated that there are still many that do kill, and if there are witnesses, they prefer to not have them around any more...
2. Which still number in at least hundreds of thousands...

@chuma
"If we set these people aside because they are going to try and get hold of weapons anyhow, and concentrate on other crimes that can lead to murder like theft, muggings and burglery.
1.If they encounter the person who owns the property with no weapons, then they can try to intimidate or attack the civilian in order to get the posessions, but runs the risk of being outmuscled."

1. In such a fighting match, the civilians has the risk of being seriously injured and would have had far better chance with some sort of a weapon against the unarmed criminal. In fact like in 85% of the times when a gun is used for self defense, it is likely that merely seeing a gun in the hands of a civilian would make this criminal escape...

@chuma
"2.If they take a knife they can usually intimidate people into submission that way. It is a close-range weapon however, but most right-minded people wont want to risk being stabbed for the sake of an item or money. "

2. Many burglaries occur in poor neighborhoods, so the money that a criminal steals may mean that you and your children will not eat for a while... Which means defending yourself is often(please don't start saying that I said always because often means many times it doesn't even mean most times) a better option, but you are correct, most unarmed civilians will simply let the criminal take what he wants. Then there is a chance that the criminal doesn't like witnesses, which is not very high but higher then you seem to believe it to be. Also if the civilians had a weapon like a gun, the criminal would likely make a quick escape... or be one of the 15% of successful defenses were a civilian does shoot the criminal.

@chuma
"3.If the civilian has a knife too to make another stand off, the criminal has either a choice to attack them and stab them to get the goods or leave."

I agree, but if the civilian had a gun, then don't you think he would be better off in this scenario?

All of the last 3 options would have a better ending for a civilian with a gun... because these civilians could be killed without it, since as you point out in 2 of these, they do struggle with a criminal and in number 2 there is still some chance of them getting killed... and will mostly not be killed if they have a firearm...

@chuma
"4.Which leaves the criminal having a gun. Guns are distance weapons so pointing it at someone from across the room has the same threat as under their chin. Usually the sight of a gun will mean the civilian will give up their posessions. "

4. Ok, I also agree, but if the criminal was stupid enough to not wear a mask, he will not be very happy in letting a witness go free when he is done... also there is the chance that the civilian is frozen in fear of the burglar and doesn't respond to his commands to hand over his things(how does that usually end?) and there is a chance that the civilian goes after the gunman anyway, but without a weapon his chances aren't very good(unless he is in close range).

@chuma
"5.If the civilian has a gun however, what does it come down to? Ultimately it comes down to the will of the two people. If the criminal wants the posessions badly enough, their ONLY choice is to pull the trigger. The presence of the other gun has removed any other option. Of course there will also be times where if a civilian has a gun the criminal will decide not to chance it and run off."

5. I also agree, but why do you think this to be a far far worse option then 4? Most criminals are less trained in the use of guns then many civilians... also the chance of the criminal running off is much higher then you think...
The criminal has two problems, if he wins, then the cops will have been alerted and he will likely go to prison for a long time, maybe even get the death penalty... if the civilian wins, then he also doesn't do to well... Escape would be the best option for the criminal in this situation...
Also some criminals use fake guns which would make this a very short gun fight...

@chuma
"As I take it, the argument that others here are using is that if the criminal has a gun and the civilian doesn’t have one, they are likely to shoot them. I disagree with this position entirely. I believe having a gun puts any motivated criminal in a position to HAVE to kill to take posessions and thus increases the likelihood of murders taking place."

I have never argued this. NEVER.

and I agree about the increased chance of a struggle, though the chance of them succeeding in the murder is far far lower than it otherwise would be...

I have argued that there is a chance that the criminal doesn't like witnesses... also many home invasions are for the purpose of rape... so it may not be a deadly encounter but it may be one you want to be protected against...

@chuma
"Yes, my way will mean there might be more people who have stuff successfully stolen from them that police have to follow up. I personally think that is preferable to having more people shot and killed."

Where is the time when a civilian has a bat or a knife against a gun???
I would think this to have the highest casualty rate...

Also if fewer criminals die in robbery attempts then the number of robbers rises drastically, which would increase the number of deaths as well...

and if we don't count the gangbangers and drug lords, then the stats are on my side, since without them home invasions are ten times less likely here in the states then UK. Why its like criminals don't like getting shot at or something...
IF what you suggest is true and it is mostly civilians getting killed and submitting than we would have a far greater amount of home invasion wouldn't we?

I think that you are simply wrong on this point, the number of civilians that go uninjured and/or survive robberies and home invasions increases with guns even though there maybe a shoot out...

@chuma
"So there we go, thats my thoughts - have at them. I won’t bother to respond any more as I have said this as concisely as I can possibly say it and someone asserting “I will just shoot the criminal first” isn’t going to make me believe that you can’t be taken by surprise or beaten to the quick. But if you guys carry guns and are ever faced with a criminal with a gun, I wish you good luck. Personally, I will be handing over my wallet and trusting in the police. My life isn’t worth X amount of money."

I have already mentioned knowing a guy who went to the shooting range several times and then single handedly fought off 5 hardcore criminals two of which were convicted of murder before and while he was fine, only 3 criminals got out of the house, and one of them died from injuries later on... all the criminals were armed, not sure if they all had guns but several did... I admit that something like this is rare(only 5% of the 1 million successful defenses with a gun result with a dead criminal and not many of those have five criminals involved), but since only a local paper that no one reads reported that he had a gun, we wouldn't know even if this happened every day...

I would also like to mention that my friends and I were attacked once on the street by two guys with knifes, my friend had a concealed gun and he used it... We were ALL fine... a warning shot was more than enough... The criminals were arrested for attempted armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon when the cops came... No one at all reported on that one...

That isn't how it will always happen but it happens far more than enough to justify owning a gun...

Good luck too you too, I hope you don't see the criminals face and that he isn't on drugs or something...

@chuma
"2) You assume that the criminal is willing to shoot another human being.

That assumption is made for the benefit of TheStripe and Shady8x who believe this to be the case for all criminals. Want proof? Scroll up!"

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THIS. EVER.

@chuma
""5) You make the faulty assumption that we’re only defending ourselves from murder."
If you aren’t defending yourself from just murder then you are at fault for using your weapon in the eyes of the law. So yes, I made the assumption you weren’t a criminal yourself…"

What if it's a few guys with bats that promise that they will only break a few bones???

By law you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force from any serious physical injury also you can defend your property and other people. Well the threat has to be imminent.

Wait it's illegal in GREAT Britain to protect yourself from being raped with a gun even if you passed the ridiculous checks for gun ownership and do own a gun!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? is the same true for a knife?????
WOW, that explains a lot actually...

Change the constitution, then we'll talk.

@ Rhade

Thompson? This is GAMING!

Screw this guy. It's not games, but it's not guns either. It's PEOPLE!

And I have no intention of arguing with non-americans over the merits of the constitution. If you feel that guns should be controlled, that's no better than saying speech should be controlled. 1st and 2nd amendment ftw!

Make it easier for everyone to have a gun and Mutually Assured Destruction will eventually set in.