The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Jocabia]

ah actually a bumper sticker is something you see on the bumper of a car my freind ^^

My child is an honor student.

I told you how to make an argument. Make one or don't but spamming up the threads with nonsense phrases that are barely related isn't help anyone.

Heart disease kills more people than drinking and driving. Stop regulating drinking and driving unless you're going to outlaw hearts.

[New Amerik]

THREAD PLOW! GET BACK ON TOPIC!

So, gun control?

[Jocabia]

I'll once again provide this just for some fun. Nothing about this thread suggests that anyone will ever try to actually address the facts, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, I found the data that you are using, WISQARS, right? Only it's not what you present. I'm looking at accidental deaths by firearm for 2006.
Ages 1-4 -- 1.7 percent -- 13 deaths.
Ages 5-9 -- 1.7 percent -- 18 deaths.
Ages 10-14 -- 1.9 percent -- 23 deaths.
Ages 15-24 -- 1.2 percent -- 193 deaths.

This is the page I'm using for the reports.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
I just can't make the data come out the way you present. Even when I expand the range from 1999 to 2006, I can't match percentages or numbers.

I used the exact same source, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what happened. I can't match my numbers either. Jesus, I was meticulous. It's been days so I really can't explain it. Eh, I'm willing to let your numbers stand. They appear to be right.

I went back and reran my analysis using your numbers and you still have an approximately equal chance of being killed by a familiar with a firearm or an accidental discharge of a fiream as you do of preventing a murder in your home by a non-familiar. The point being that all things considered, unless guns make you always magically prepared to stop a murder, guns are more likely to kill your family than protecting them. And that's, again, discounting the number of times your gun will be used in a suicide.

[Demented Tigers]

How about my post on the British system?

People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. There are also restrictions on the type of gun you can use. The police inspect where your gun is going to be kept, you have to have an interview before you get your licence, each gun has to be registered and the police informed when you buy a new one, sell or decommission an old one, or trade guns. Also the licence has a expiry date so the police check upon reapplication that everything is in order.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

[Risottia]

How about my post on the British system?
People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. ...

Same here in Italy, plus self-defence is considered valid if one's job makes him a likely target of armed assault (like a jewellier, or the owner of a weapon shop).
The problem (as usual with Italy) is that the controls are a bit too lax - so there have been cases of nutters and cocaine-addictees who legally owned guns for recreational uses (collection, hunting, sports marksmanship) who started shooting at passers-by in the streets.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

Yes.

[Gun Manufacturers]

How about my post on the British system?

People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. There are also restrictions on the type of gun you can use. The police inspect where your gun is going to be kept, you have to have an interview before you get your licence, each gun has to be registered and the police informed when you buy a new one, sell or decommission an old one, or trade guns. Also the licence has a expiry date so the police check upon reapplication that everything is in order.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

Maybe for the British. In the US, we'd have to hire a lot of extra police officers, whose sole job would be to handle interviews, inspections, registrations, etc, simply because there's so many firearms over here.

And the only thing I see that potentially helping with, is accidents.

[Bottle]

This picture was taken by a friend of mine in Atlanta, Georgia. I know it looks shooped, but it's legit. It's a small picture from a crappy camera.

Discuss?

I'm sure it's been said before, but that picture is a great argument in favor of gun control in my eyes...why would anybody want to arm the kind of petty, bitter, cowardly jerkwad who'd put up a sign like that?

[Bottle]

ah actually a bumper sticker is something you see on the bumper of a car my freind ^^

My child is an honor student.

I told you how to make an argument. Make one or don't but spamming up the threads with nonsense phrases that are barely related isn't help anyone.

Heart disease kills more people than drinking and driving. Stop regulating drinking and driving unless you're going to outlaw hearts.

I'm sure all the people who chose to get heart disease will be on board with that idea.

[Nobel Hobos]

I take on the risk of riding a bicycle. It seems worth it for the benefits to me, and the risk applies only to me ... so nobody should try and stop me.
The risks to others of a gun I might own, means that others (collectively) do have a right to limit or ban my use of one.

Is this your standard for if others should have control over what you choose to do with your life?

It is one of the standards.
1. Limit the ability of a malicious person to do harm in one act: ban assault weapons, weapons of mass destruction, bomb precursor chemicals etc.
2. Limit the ability of an incompetent person to do harm by accident: car licensing, competency tests for weapons license, enforced safe storage of weapons.

If you like baseball and choose to carry a baseball bat around,

Then you're a manifest idiot ? The bat has a purpose, and if you're carrying it to the park to hit a ball with you're fine. If you're carrying around all the time without any intention of hitting a ball, yeah I'd like the cops to have a little talk with you.

or you like carrying tree branches, since it could be a threat to others, do they have a right to ban your behavior? Knives are dangerous weapons that pose a risk to others, should you be banned from using a knife?

Again, it's a question of the purpose of each tool.

The tree branch is both a potential weapon, and an accident risk to others. If your only reason for carrying it around is "I like it" then yes, I'd restrict you from doing that. If you're taking it somewhere to do something with it (build a fire perhaps) then you are employing it for a positive use.

Knives are tools, versatile ones. "To cut stuff with" covers a wide range of useful and unharmful purposes for the tool ... but it also a very effective weapon. If you're carrying it ONLY "for self-defense" then you are carrying it to use as a weapon, and that should be prevented.

(This situation has actually come up for me, since I carry carpentry tools which, having a sharpened edge, are banned to personally carry where I live. If I had them in a car they'd be quite legal, but because I ride a bicycle instead I have to carry them on me. The cops accepted my explanation, the one time they searched my bag and found a nice sharp chisel among the other tools, and it being a summary offence they opted not to charge me. I think they could have, though.)

If I'd been carry a double-bladed hunting knife in the city, I absolutely should have been charged. The positive use for the chisel (presence of other tools, plausible explanation of the work I intended to do with the chisel) outweigh the presumption that I'm carrying it to use as a weapon.

And as to hardcover books:

"Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Reading matter not good enough for you eh? ... All right, books.
We haven't done them, have we? Right. Books. How to defend yourself against a man armed with a book. Now you, come at me with this 'ardcover book. Catch! Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a book. First of all you force him to drop the book; then, second, you read the book, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him 'elpless."

---

Just to clarify: some cyclists really should not be allowed to do what they do on public roads, because it DOES pose a threat to others. I like being an anonymous dude on a bicycle, but I don't want the other dicks to spoil it for me. I support registration and licensing for cyclists on public roads or paths, and an essential part of that is license plates.

Just like cars. If a cyclist wants to fart around on private property, or on a deserted track in a park, it's their problem. If they're farting around where they can harm others (in traffic or near pedestrians) they don't deserve to ride. More rules apply on a road than apply generally, and they should apply to bikes too.

With the exception of licensing in most places, the same rules apply to bicycles that apply to other vehicles.

Yes. The licensing is a means of (a) verifying that the rider knows road rules before they use the road, (b) a method of identifying cyclists who are breaking rules (take their number), and (c) a method of banning cyclists who have driven dangerously before (being riding without a license would itself be an offense).

It's also being put forward as a way to raise revenue, though I have objections to that. The fee, in my opinion, should be just enough to cover the administration of the licenses.

Anyway, this is off-topic. I was just going off on that tangent to forstall the interpretation of this:

I take on the risk of riding a bicycle. It seems worth it for the benefits to me, and the risk applies only to me ... so nobody should try and stop me.
The risks to others of a gun I might own, means that others (collectively) do have a right to limit or ban my use of one.

to mean that I want unrestricted useage of all roads by any cyclist. I do in fact want cycling regulated (more than it is now) because of the risks cycling can pose to other road users.

[Nobel Hobos]

How about my post on the British system?

People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. There are also restrictions on the type of gun you can use. The police inspect where your gun is going to be kept, you have to have an interview before you get your licence, each gun has to be registered and the police informed when you buy a new one, sell or decommission an old one, or trade guns. Also the licence has a expiry date so the police check upon reapplication that everything is in order.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

I do. I don't understand why they go easy on shotguns but meh.

Are the bans on carrying knives just localized to buroughs, or are they nation-wide ?

[Rambhutan]

Are the bans on carrying knives just localized to buroughs, or are they nation-wide ?

It is perfectly legal to carry certain types of knife in the UK - any folding knife with a blade length of less than 3 inches. Other knives may be legal if you have a legitimate reason for carrying them for work purposes etc. (self defence is not a legitimate reason).

Some knives are totally illegal to carry such as balisongs/buttefly knives, and flick knives (unless you have only one hand) for example.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

I'll once again provide this just for some fun. Nothing about this thread suggests that anyone will ever try to actually address the facts, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, I found the data that you are using, WISQARS, right? Only it's not what you present. I'm looking at accidental deaths by firearm for 2006.
Ages 1-4 -- 1.7 percent -- 13 deaths.
Ages 5-9 -- 1.7 percent -- 18 deaths.
Ages 10-14 -- 1.9 percent -- 23 deaths.
Ages 15-24 -- 1.2 percent -- 193 deaths.

This is the page I'm using for the reports.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
I just can't make the data come out the way you present. Even when I expand the range from 1999 to 2006, I can't match percentages or numbers.

I used the exact same source, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what happened. I can't match my numbers either. Jesus, I was meticulous. It's been days so I really can't explain it. Eh, I'm willing to let your numbers stand. They appear to be right.

I went back and reran my analysis using your numbers and you still have an approximately equal chance of being killed by a familiar with a firearm or an accidental discharge of a fiream as you do of preventing a murder in your home by a non-familiar. The point being that all things considered, unless guns make you always magically prepared to stop a murder, guns are more likely to kill your family than protecting them. And that's, again, discounting the number of times your gun will be used in a suicide.

Let's look at that analysis and tell me where I'm going wrong.
You said, in your conclusion, "If gun ownership prevented all 16% of murders that occur in the home by non-intimates (about 3500), you’d still have a similar number of deaths, either accidental or violent, among family members. That’s not including suicide by firearm." But we decided that 247 "children" (scare quotes because 18-24 year olds in that last group aren't really children) died in unintentional firearm accidents. If we stick with your figure of 3500 murders, then we see that a "child" is more than ten times less likely to be killed in an accident than I am likely to stop a murder in my home.

That's good enough, but why stop at murder? Stopping any violent crime in the home should be considered as an adequate reason for keeping a gun. I can't find FBI stats on murder and rape in the home, but robbery at a residence, by itself, counts for 49,000 incidents in 2006. Estimate a third of the 72,000 forcible rapes happened at home and we're up to 73,000 violent crimes that could have been preventable with a firearm at home. Odds of a child being killed, compared to stopping a violent crime? 300:1?

But further, if you consider that any uninvited intrusion into your home is sufficient cause to wield a gun, then burglary can be included. That puts us at over 1.5 million incidents where a gun could help prevent the crime. So what are odds with 247 accidental deaths vs 1.5 million possible "saves"? Maybe 10,000 times less likely to be killed in an accident?

If all this is right, I'll take the chance, keep the gun, and make damned sure my family and I practice good gun safety. I'd really hate to be one of the 247 parents that lost a child because of negligence.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/ta ... l#overview

[EvilDarkMagicians]

It is perfectly legal to carry certain types of knife in the UK - any folding knife with a blade length of less than 3 inches.

I thought they were illegal to carry around too...

Maybe in London they are....*shrugs*.

[Jocabia]

ah actually a bumper sticker is something you see on the bumper of a car my freind ^^

My child is an honor student.

I told you how to make an argument. Make one or don't but spamming up the threads with nonsense phrases that are barely related isn't help anyone.

Heart disease kills more people than drinking and driving. Stop regulating drinking and driving unless you're going to outlaw hearts.

I'm sure all the people who chose to get heart disease will be on board with that idea.

Since we're talking about accidental deaths with sharp objects in his argument, I think it holds.

[Jocabia]

I'll once again provide this just for some fun. Nothing about this thread suggests that anyone will ever try to actually address the facts, but let's give people the benefit of the doubt.

Okay, I found the data that you are using, WISQARS, right? Only it's not what you present. I'm looking at accidental deaths by firearm for 2006.
Ages 1-4 -- 1.7 percent -- 13 deaths.
Ages 5-9 -- 1.7 percent -- 18 deaths.
Ages 10-14 -- 1.9 percent -- 23 deaths.
Ages 15-24 -- 1.2 percent -- 193 deaths.

This is the page I'm using for the reports.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html
I just can't make the data come out the way you present. Even when I expand the range from 1999 to 2006, I can't match percentages or numbers.

I used the exact same source, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what happened. I can't match my numbers either. Jesus, I was meticulous. It's been days so I really can't explain it. Eh, I'm willing to let your numbers stand. They appear to be right.

I went back and reran my analysis using your numbers and you still have an approximately equal chance of being killed by a familiar with a firearm or an accidental discharge of a fiream as you do of preventing a murder in your home by a non-familiar. The point being that all things considered, unless guns make you always magically prepared to stop a murder, guns are more likely to kill your family than protecting them. And that's, again, discounting the number of times your gun will be used in a suicide.

Let's look at that analysis and tell me where I'm going wrong.
You said, in your conclusion, "If gun ownership prevented all 16% of murders that occur in the home by non-intimates (about 3500), you’d still have a similar number of deaths, either accidental or violent, among family members. That’s not including suicide by firearm." But we decided that 247 "children" (scare quotes because 18-24 year olds in that last group aren't really children) died in unintentional firearm accidents. If we stick with your figure of 3500 murders, then we see that a "child" is more than ten times less likely to be killed in an accident than I am likely to stop a murder in my home.

That's good enough, but why stop at murder? Stopping any violent crime in the home should be considered as an adequate reason for keeping a gun. I can't find FBI stats on murder and rape in the home, but robbery at a residence, by itself, counts for 49,000 incidents in 2006. Estimate a third of the 72,000 forcible rapes happened at home and we're up to 73,000 violent crimes that could have been preventable with a firearm at home. Odds of a child being killed, compared to stopping a violent crime? 300:1?

But further, if you consider that any uninvited intrusion into your home is sufficient cause to wield a gun, then burglary can be included. That puts us at over 1.5 million incidents where a gun could help prevent the crime. So what are odds with 247 accidental deaths vs 1.5 million possible "saves"? Maybe 10,000 times less likely to be killed in an accident?

If all this is right, I'll take the chance, keep the gun, and make damned sure my family and I practice good gun safety. I'd really hate to be one of the 247 parents that lost a child because of negligence.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/ta ... l#overview

Letting the populace arm themselves to prevent robberies and other property crimes is barbaric. I get the whole "their criminals and they forfeit their rights" thing, but then why not address the fact that many gun owners have openly stated that regardless of the laws their not giving up their guns, i.e. criminals. Time for a shootout, eh?

[Nobel Hobos]

That's good enough, but why stop at murder? Stopping any violent crime in the home should be considered as an adequate reason for keeping a gun. I can't find FBI stats on murder and rape in the home, but robbery at a residence, by itself, counts for 49,000 incidents in 2006. Estimate a third of the 72,000 forcible rapes happened at home and we're up to 73,000 violent crimes that could have been preventable with a firearm at home. Odds of a child being killed, compared to stopping a violent crime? 300:1?

Domestic violence is usually perpetrated by men though. And aren't most gun-owners male ?

I'm too tired to get you figures, but I think you see my point.

[Bottle]

That's good enough, but why stop at murder? Stopping any violent crime in the home should be considered as an adequate reason for keeping a gun. I can't find FBI stats on murder and rape in the home, but robbery at a residence, by itself, counts for 49,000 incidents in 2006. Estimate a third of the 72,000 forcible rapes happened at home and we're up to 73,000 violent crimes that could have been preventable with a firearm at home. Odds of a child being killed, compared to stopping a violent crime? 300:1?

Domestic violence is usually perpetrated by men though. And aren't most gun-owners male ?

I'm too tired to get you figures, but I think you see my point.

Well there's a solution: just ban men from owning guns, and allow women to own guns without restrictions. It's a compromise that leaves everyone equally unhappy!

[Demented Tigers]

How about my post on the British system?

People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. There are also restrictions on the type of gun you can use. The police inspect where your gun is going to be kept, you have to have an interview before you get your licence, each gun has to be registered and the police informed when you buy a new one, sell or decommission an old one, or trade guns. Also the licence has a expiry date so the police check upon reapplication that everything is in order.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

Maybe for the British. In the US, we'd have to hire a lot of extra police officers, whose sole job would be to handle interviews, inspections, registrations, etc, simply because there's so many firearms over here.

And the only thing I see that potentially helping with, is accidents.

But using those restrictions the number of people with legitimate reasons to own guns would be far less, so there would be fewer applications for a licence, and fewer guns circulating than there are now.

[Demented Tigers]

How about my post on the British system?

People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. There are also restrictions on the type of gun you can use. The police inspect where your gun is going to be kept, you have to have an interview before you get your licence, each gun has to be registered and the police informed when you buy a new one, sell or decommission an old one, or trade guns. Also the licence has a expiry date so the police check upon reapplication that everything is in order.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

I do. I don't understand why they go easy on shotguns but meh.

Because shotguns are safer in the context they are used, and the restrictions on type are sufficiently strict (minimum barrel length and no magazine).

[Jocabia]

That's good enough, but why stop at murder? Stopping any violent crime in the home should be considered as an adequate reason for keeping a gun. I can't find FBI stats on murder and rape in the home, but robbery at a residence, by itself, counts for 49,000 incidents in 2006. Estimate a third of the 72,000 forcible rapes happened at home and we're up to 73,000 violent crimes that could have been preventable with a firearm at home. Odds of a child being killed, compared to stopping a violent crime? 300:1?

Domestic violence is usually perpetrated by men though. And aren't most gun-owners male ?

I'm too tired to get you figures, but I think you see my point.

I also think if you start down this path where do you stop.

"Hey, that guy is jaywalking. Citizen's arrest. Bang, bang."

I also didn't include attempted murders which could be considered an issue, but since I didn't included gun injuries on the other side, I think that's a pretty fair trade off.

The more important bit was that I was addressing the "guns save lives" stuff that gets stomped around. The fact is that guns take more lives than they save even if you're only talking about the lives of people you care about.

[Nobel Hobos]

How about my post on the British system?

People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. There are also restrictions on the type of gun you can use. The police inspect where your gun is going to be kept, you have to have an interview before you get your licence, each gun has to be registered and the police informed when you buy a new one, sell or decommission an old one, or trade guns. Also the licence has a expiry date so the police check upon reapplication that everything is in order.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

I do. I don't understand why they go easy on shotguns but meh.

Because shotguns are safer in the context they are used, and the restrictions on type are sufficiently strict (minimum barrel length and no magazine).

So you can only shoot two people before you have to reload ? And they don't even take long to reload.

And the context in which they have a "good" use would be ... hunting I'm guessing.

[Jocabia]

How about my post on the British system?

People have to provide a valid reason for having a gun, and self-defence isn't considered valid. There are also restrictions on the type of gun you can use. The police inspect where your gun is going to be kept, you have to have an interview before you get your licence, each gun has to be registered and the police informed when you buy a new one, sell or decommission an old one, or trade guns. Also the licence has a expiry date so the police check upon reapplication that everything is in order.

Don't you think this is sensible gun-control?

I do. I don't understand why they go easy on shotguns but meh.

Because shotguns are safer in the context they are used, and the restrictions on type are sufficiently strict (minimum barrel length and no magazine).

So you can only shoot two people before you have to reload ? And they don't even take long to reload.

And the context in which they have a "good" use would be ... hunting I'm guessing.

Shotguns have a short range and aren't as likely to go through walls and other obstacles. The effective range of a shotgun is about 50 yards or less depending on the shotgun. Granted pistols are somewhat limited in that respect but they're still a hell of lot more dangerous than a Shotgun. Their range varies, as does their penetration, but it's generally much further and can pass through more.

[Nobel Hobos]

That's good enough, but why stop at murder? Stopping any violent crime in the home should be considered as an adequate reason for keeping a gun. I can't find FBI stats on murder and rape in the home, but robbery at a residence, by itself, counts for 49,000 incidents in 2006. Estimate a third of the 72,000 forcible rapes happened at home and we're up to 73,000 violent crimes that could have been preventable with a firearm at home. Odds of a child being killed, compared to stopping a violent crime? 300:1?

Domestic violence is usually perpetrated by men though. And aren't most gun-owners male ?

I'm too tired to get you figures, but I think you see my point.

I also think if you start down this path where do you stop.

"Hey, that guy is jaywalking. Citizen's arrest. Bang, bang."

I also didn't include attempted murders which could be considered an issue, but since I didn't included gun injuries on the other side, I think that's a pretty fair trade off.

The more important bit was that I was addressing the "guns save lives" stuff that gets stomped around. The fact is that guns take more lives than they save even if you're only talking about the lives of people you care about.

What was the fault in Les Drapeaux Brulants' calculation, though ?

The stereotype of the stop-at-nothing criminal is the one that bothers me. Of all the criminals I've ever met (mostly just drug crime, but prohibition pretty much forces those 'criminals' into the company of thugs and thieves) I don't think there was ONE who would do just any crime any time. Each crime carries its share of fear (fear of being caught or punished) and unless you're demented in some way, you don't just do more crimes because you're a criminal now.

If there was any way you could get the money from a liquor shop, without using a gun in the crime, even violent criminals would do it that way instead. It bumps up the penalty enormously if you're caught, you get on camera and the staff get a look at you, the crime is 'discovered' immediately (burglary is not necessarily) and the only reason people do any crime involving threat with a weapon is because it is just so easy. Get your gun, walk into the shop, point the gun. Getting away again is where it usually fails....

Of course I don't say that all criminals are rational. Some are crazy, and many are not too bright. But the stereotype of a Criminal as a total badass with a rap sheet a block long is just ridiculously wrong. It's stupid, and it will lead to wrong conclusions for anyone to assume that all Crimanalz commit the same crime, and that every one of them is capable of murder.

[Demented Tigers]

So you can only shoot two people before you have to reload ? And they don't even take long to reload.

And the context in which they have a "good" use would be ... hunting I'm guessing.

England the majority of hunting is for wild fowl, pheasants and woodcock etc. This is done usually on large estates and is managed by the game keeper. they allow people to shoot or not, and you pay per bird you shoot. Also the hunt is structured so that there are particular ranges one shoots on, and particular stations to shoot from at each range. So you cycle for the best positions and wait for the beaters to flush the birds out. You do not shoot or have a loaded gun between ranges. Also you have a gun hand with you at the shoot. They handle your cartridges and hand them to you for reloading, so the gun and ammo are separate most of the time. Any unused cartridges are ejected between shoots and the gun hands take those back.

Im saying this to show how hunting is organised and structured, which makes it safer (obviously there is room for misuse, but on a shoot, the likelihood of an accident is lower than other situations. Hunting rifles are used for deer hunting (and small calibre ones for rabbits), but that mostly takes place in Scotland, and they want stricter gun laws.

The shotgun used for this kind of hunting is restricted by law to certain bores (mainly 12 and 20). The 2 barrels produce different spreads of shot. One is a more accurate broom shot, and the second is a wider spread. its actually quite hard to hit moving targets. Shotguns also must have a minimum barrel length (so no sawing off), and can not have a magazine (so the largest number of shots without reloading is 3. Apparently its 2+1 although im not sure how since the only ones i've ever seen and used used 2). Hunting rifles are used for deer hunting (and small calibre ones for rabbits), but that mostly takes place in Scotland, and they want stricter gun laws.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Letting the populace arm themselves to prevent robberies and other property crimes is barbaric. I get the whole "their criminals and they forfeit their rights" thing, but then why not address the fact that many gun owners have openly stated that regardless of the laws their not giving up their guns, i.e. criminals. Time for a shootout, eh?

Robberies are armed intrusions. Could be a homicide very easily. Forcible rapes are another violent crime that could very easily turn into a rape-murder. Burglary? Who knows? Why should we tolerate any uninvited intrusion into our home?

But now that we've abandoned a statistical argument and decided on an heuristic one, guns do prevent crime. Police don't. Remember, the USSC has decided that the police force is not responsible to protect individual citizens. I like having a means to protect myself and my family that doesn't rely on a 911 call and 5-10 minutes of waiting, assuming that the police actually do respond.