[Nuke]

making guns illegal doesn't stop criminals from using them.  it does, however, prevent a law-abiding citizen from using one to defend him/herself.  it is ABSOLUTELY my right to defend myself.  i don't see what is so damn hard to understand about this, or why people like to just ignore this argument. 

let me know how that taser works out when someone has a gun and intends to use it.  maybe i still don't make it, but at least it's not because the government took away my chance.


sidenote, shotguns are a pretty common and effective home defense weapon.  not completely pointless in an urban setting.

second sidenote, why did this even come up?  little too boring around here lately?

a taser could also cause the gun in the other guys hand to go off, which is most likely pointing at you at the time. electricity has a way to cause muscles to contract involuntarily.

as for shotguns there are exceptions to any rule. i merely make the point that in close quarters engagements in an urban setting usually the preference is for shorter barreled weapons, though that does not prevent a shotgun from being used, its just not the preferable weapon.

[redsniper]

Check out how many crimes are committed by licensed handgun owners in Texas

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Kopachris]

Two more things:

First, that the people who commit murders with guns are a minority of the gun-owning population of any nation that allows civilian gun ownership.  Like anything else, it's a few whackos giving the rest a bad name.

Second, that no one today really knows how to set up a "well-regulated" militia for the purpose of overthrowing an oppressive government in today's age of modern warfare.  Here's how I think it might work:

1. [Prerequisite] Own a large corporation with the power (money) to build/buy aircraft, heavy weaponry, private fortresses/airstrips, and all the other trappings of modern warfare.
2. Start building/buying all that stuff.
3a. Require compulsory "security training" for all able employees, but offer incentives such as free housing or tax-free income (we're overthrowing the government, so there's no need to pay taxes).
3b. Use propaganda to brainwash all employees and their families.
4. If government tries to stop you, fight back (i.e. let them strike first).
5. Surprise attack Washington, bombing capitol building, White House (or wherever the Prez is), and Pentagon (taking out NORAD (if possible) might also be a good idea)
6. Now that the federal government has been attacked from within the nation, chaos will ensue and the states will eventually try to form their own governments to deal with the chaos of revolution.  Therefore...
7. [Optional] Unify the states under a new government.

A few anti-government zealots aren't going to overthrow anything.  In order to overthrow an oppressive government, a group must (temporarily) have near total control over a lot of money and a lot of people, but must then be willing to give up that control once the oppressive government is overthrown in order to prevent becoming just another oppressive government.  Unfortunately, human nature doesn't work that way; people in power will always try to stay in power.  No corporation is ever going to gain control over a lot of people, overthrow one government, set up a new government, and then just release control over those people.

[Delta_V]

I don't specifically know about how Arizona's laws affected the crime rates, but for most states, the violent crime rates dropped following introduction of concealed carry.  I will admit though, that their laws on guns, or lack thereof, are kinda ridiculous.  Pretty much anyone without a criminal record, no matter how incompetent and potentially dangerous to themselves or others, can buy a handgun and carry it around in their coat pocket.  Like I said before, I think there needs to be some sort of training program before you can carry a concealed handgun around in public.

As for Texas, what percentage of the population have concealed carry permits?  Comparing the conviction rates for concealed carry permit holders to those of the general population is the only way to give those stats much meaning.  If permit holders represent only .5% of the convictions, but only make up 1% of the population (just pulling that out of my ass, since I don't have any numbers in front of me on the # of permit holders), that's not saying much.  Though for Texas, I'd imagine that permit holders make up a larger percentage than in other states.

[Nuclear1]

Eh, just regulate guns like you regulate cars.

1) Attend required gun safety courses
2) Pass written gun safety/operating tests
3) Pass classroom gun safety/operating test
4) Register every single weapon
5) Own only guns that you're licensed to own (i.e. you have to get separate licenses for handguns, shotguns, rifles)
6) Renew your gun license every few years
7) If you commit a crime using your gun, you're ineligible to ever own one again

You can arm an entire population and watch crime drop, but that's still not a good thing.  It's like saying the period between 1945 and 1991 was a golden age of peace between the US and USSR just because they never directly went to war. 

[Grizzly]

I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.

For personal defense, get a TASER.  They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.

but only work once in an engagement. You're screwed if you are being pursued by more than one person.

Bring Pepper Spray. There are so many self defence methods which are more effective then shooting someone.

[Mars]

I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.

For personal defense, get a TASER.  They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.

but only work once in an engagement. You're screwed if you are being pursued by more than one person.

Bring Pepper Spray. There are so many self defence methods which are more effective then shooting someone.

Um . . . I can see arguing that they're almost as effective. . .  but honestly, I don't see spraying someone in the face with pepper spray preventing them from shooting me.

IDK about statistics, but tactically speaking, you can't get a lot better than rapid hemmhoraging.

[Grizzly]

I rather like Dominican Republic's take on assault rifles. You can own them with a special license thats very hard to get but they are illegal to take off private property and the police reserve the right to confiscate them at anytime. It limits their use to security and collecting. It can still be exploited but its better than making them illegal outright or letting anyone walk around with one.

For personal defense, get a TASER.  They hurt like hell, but they're nonlethal in most cases.

but only work once in an engagement. You're screwed if you are being pursued by more than one person.

Bring Pepper Spray. There are so many self defence methods which are more effective then shooting someone.

Um . . . I can see arguing that they're almost as effective. . .  but honestly, I don't see spraying someone in the face with pepper spray preventing them from shooting me.

IDK about statistics, but tactically speaking, you can't get a lot better than rapid hemmhoraging.

Pepper spray turns people blind, thus preventing people from shooting you. . The problem with rapid hemmhoraging is that there have been several issues where the hemmorhaging simply was not fast enough. People do not instantly die when hit by bullets. Some of them don't even notice, and stay able for 5 minutes untill colapsing from the blood loss. 5 minutes is long enough to riddle you with bullets.

[Mongoose]

Last time I checked, though, being blind doesn't prevent one from shooting fairly straight ahead.

[Mars]

Last time I checked, though, being blind doesn't prevent one from shooting fairly straight ahead.

Exactly. Although a bullet won't kill instantly, if you really need someone to NOT be able to pull their trigger, I'd trust a couple .45 rounds (hollowpoint if you please) over a taser, beanbag, pepperspray or laserblinder.

I'm not getting involved in the discussion of whether or not US gun laws makes sense. Only that non-lethal alternatives are NOT more effective at ending an attack.

EDIT:

As far as sourcing; nearly every military, police force, and private security firm in the world use guns as a final line of defense (when their attackers are using guns) non-lethal alternatives are used when their attackers are in a weaker position.

[Nuke]

if your life is on the line, you go for your best weapon. taser might be useful if a guy comes at you with a knife or a club. guy comes at you with a gun, the last thing you want to do is cause involuntary muscle contractions with an electric shock, the gun could go off. also you do not put the fear of being killed in the guy with the gun. the cop does not have that luxury. simple rule of thumb, dont bring a taser to a gun fight.

[zookeeper]

And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.

[Mars]

And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.

How about like the time a guy yelled out of a car at me, than pulled alongside and pulled a gun? Although I'm clearly still alive, that's really only because he didn't feel like pulling the trigger that day.

[zookeeper]

And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.

How about like the time a guy yelled out of a car at me, than pulled alongside and pulled a gun? Although I'm clearly still alive, that's really only because he didn't feel like pulling the trigger that day.

So you're saying that you'd have been more likely to survive if you had pulled a gun back at him? Yeah, I bet.

[Klaustrophobia]

And what exactly are these "my life is on the line" situations like? Someone signals you that they're gonna try to kill you yet gives you enough time to pull out your gun and shoot them first? Unlikely. Most likely the bad guy is a robber or burglar, and if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back. If someone breaks into your house then trying to kill or subdue them will just put you in much bigger personal danger than you'd be in otherwise.

sometimes that may be the case, and it's on the victim to use his own judgement on how to react.  but as a general rule, that is just NOT true.  it doesn't always have to be an attacker with a gun either.  maybe a group of thugs feel like jumping you and beating on you.  someone tries to mug you with a knife. etc.

[Nuke]

putting a bullet through the head of a criminal > getting your **** horked your ass killed or your ego crushed.

i know which i would pick.

[newman]

Always expecting and preparing for someone to rob/hurt/kill you sounds just a wee bit paranoid to me. I pretty much managed to get over 30 without ever having a weapon pulled on me, being mugged, or generally being in that type of a life threatening situation. I got there unarmed, and never once felt like I needed to get a weapon to feel safer. But that's just little ol' me.. I suppose it depends on where you live. The topic is about gun ownership in the US so my experiences on the subject probably aren't applicable.

[Nuke]

im just not a big fan of this idea that you should just submit to the bad guy.

it makes you a target
it empowers the criminal to do it again
it does not remove the criminal from society
and it does not guarantee your survival

[newman]

That's definitely one side of an argument, and valid. Of course another side of the argument is me also not liking the idea of the general population being armed and expecting them to exercise proper judgment on when is it justified the use a lethal weapon. Yes, that guy in your backyard could be here to kill you, set your dog on fire, rape your wife and daughter, then flip them over and go for seconds. Or he could just be here to ask for directions or simply has the wrong house because he's coming to visit someone he's never been at before. Someone who spent their whole life expecting the worst and has the arsenal to prove it is less likely to try and make that determination before putting a bullet in that person's head.
Hell I don't feel too comfortable around armed policemen, but at least they have some training and oversight on the justified use of lethal force.
In general, if you don't have very good training on the use of weapons and self-defense (and most people don't) it's probably safer to submit to a robber, as trying to fight back will probably end up in you being hurt, not the robber. We could discuss how ideally everyone would have proper training, but then we could just skip that step and say ideally nobody would ever rob anyone and guns wouldn't be needed. Neither is unfortunately the case.

[bobbtmann]

putting a bullet through the head of a criminal > getting your **** horked your ass killed or your ego crushed.

i know which i would pick.

I would say

 putting a bullet through the head of a criminal < ego crushed

It's better than being so proud that you'd rather kill someone than look weak.