[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.

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.

Well, anyone got statistics? That is, in how many cases have people pulled a gun on a criminal in legal self-defense and survived (without bystanders dying or getting seriously injured) vs. in how many cases have they (or a bystander) gotten killed or seriously injured after pulling a gun on a criminal?

[BengalTiger]

The reason they want to be armed, is to be able to succesfully resist and overthrow illegal or unconstitutional governments. It's a safeguard for if a tyranny managed to take control of the country's government.

Of course that's the rationale, but considering today's difference in civilian and military weaponry and other resources, the civilians wouldn't be able to overthrow such a government anyway. The best you'd get would be a big bunch of insurgents with lots of guns, and I guess we know how well such a situation tends to turn out for everyone involved.

Safeguards are good, but that one isn't really an effective one anymore.

Remember that there will be lots of soldiers who joined the military to protect people's rights and freedoms, not to take them away. An army of 100 million guerrillas with hunting rifles and revolvers supported by 100 000 regulars who defected will be far more a threat to any regime than just the group of 100 000 defectors.

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

Tasers and pepper spray don't always work.

When electrocuted, guy asks cops: "That's all you got?"
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/man_hit_by_police_taser_thats.html

Tasered, guy stands up and continues to fight:
http://www.wehodaily.com/2011/04/16/man-tazered-fighting-deputies/

There's probably a lot more of these situations. If anyone has any statistics, feel free to post 'em.

Gun Homicides in 2005 (USA): 10,624

Here's another little something:

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

(...)

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Sure there are statistics against owning crimes such as 2/3 murders being committed with guns, but I think the stuff quoted is enough an argument to prove 'an armed society is a polite society'.

if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back

Tell that to rape victims.
They did the right thing because they didn't kill the offender. Their ego might be broken, but it's better to be weak than to kill someone.

P.S.:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/petit_family/index.html

[Mustang19]

Well, anyone got statistics? That is, in how many cases have people pulled a gun on a criminal in legal self-defense and survived (without bystanders dying or getting seriously injured) vs. in how many cases have they (or a bystander) gotten killed or seriously injured after pulling a gun on a criminal?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354

There's not much conclusive evidence either way in the debate but here's a CDC study showing that quite a few people pull guns in self-defense. Not quite what you are asking for but guns are useful as a deterrent if nothing else.

To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews). Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed: (1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder, (2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and (3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun. Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms, 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder. National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. Estimates of the protective use of firearms are sensitive to the definitions used. Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used.

[zookeeper]

if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back

Tell that to rape victims.

Uh, what? Why? That's a pretty bizarre suggestion.

[General Battuta]

Wow, BengalTiger, way to drag an intelligent discussion down.

How about backing up and trying again.

[jr2]

Personally, I'm in favor of concealed-carry laws for handguns, but I think there should be more regulations/training in order to get a permit.  I believe a person has a right to defend themself from a mugger, burglar, etc., and a handgun and the training to use it is one of the best defenses in those situations.  However, there are also a lot of idiots out there who I wouldn't trust with a gun.  That's why I think there should be a fairly rigorous training program for getting a permit to make sure they know how to handle a gun w/out hurting themself or a bystander.

+1

That used to be the responsibility of the family... sort of how you didn't used to have to get a driver's licence (long before our time) because your parents would teach you and when they thought you were ready they would let you drive.

[Mustang19]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Hey guys check out this table at the bottom of the page and all the "insufficient evidence" entries.

There's really no proof that gun control accomplishes anything, either to reduce or encourage crime. So have fun arguing over pinheads on angels or whatever.

[jr2]

if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back

Tell that to rape victims.

Uh, what? Why? That's a pretty bizarre suggestion.

OK, let me break it down barney-style for you.  If you give them what you want... you might end up holding your ankles while staring at your drawers.  No likee?  Maybe shoulda grabbed your gun, called the cops if you had time, and told the scary man you were going to paint the wall with his head if he didn't beat it.

[zookeeper]

if you really want maximal safety then you'll just give them whatever they want instead of fighting back

Tell that to rape victims.

Uh, what? Why? That's a pretty bizarre suggestion.

OK, let me break it down barney-style for you.  If you give them what you want... you might end up holding your ankles while staring at your drawers.  No likee?  Maybe shoulda grabbed your gun, called the cops if you had time, and told the scary man you were going to paint the wall with his head if he didn't beat it.

Well I'm still very confused as to why should anyone give a rapist what they want? I mean, did someone somewhere say one should, or something?

[jr2]

Yeah cause a rapist comes in and with a big sign that says "I'm not after your money, I want your ass."... No, they say nobody's gonna hurt you, just do what I say... you know the rest.  They aren't stupid.  They will get you under their complete control and then do what they want.  Unless they are overconfident.  Because they know if you think they are going to rape you, you might get desperate.  If you think they just want your money, you might just give it to them.

[General Battuta]

This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.

Can we pick a less asinine example please

[Mustang19]

Yeah I hear if we take particular cases and then build entire arguments on them it makes for really good discussion

How about we, like, cite studies and broad statistics instead.

Like the frequency of gun use in self defense like I mentioned earlier.

Well, anyone got statistics? That is, in how many cases have people pulled a gun on a criminal in legal self-defense and survived (without bystanders dying or getting seriously injured) vs. in how many cases have they (or a bystander) gotten killed or seriously injured after pulling a gun on a criminal?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354

There's not much conclusive evidence either way in the debate but here's a CDC study showing that quite a few people pull guns in self-defense. Not quite what you are asking for but guns are useful as a deterrent if nothing else.

To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews). Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed: (1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder, (2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and (3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun. Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms, 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder. National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] = 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen; 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. Estimates of the protective use of firearms are sensitive to the definitions used. Researchers should carefully consider both how these events are defined and the study methods used.

[Drogoth]

Just sayin...

When most if the countries ahead of the USA are developing countries, and every other western countries are lower then the USA based on every 100,000 people that tells you something. Gun control saves lives, no contest. Yes, I agree, guns are useful to defend yourself. But by making guns highly difficult to acquire, you make it harder and far more dangerous for criminals to have guns.

Cop in most other western countries sees  guy with a gun, arrested. Cop in some states sees a guy with gun, does nothing until that gun is pulled and shot at someone.

If anything, there should be tighter regulation on guns then currently exists in the states.

Maybe I've lived a sheltered life, but a cop came into our class the other day, and all of us were floored by the fact that she carried a gun. I have seen a gun, maybe twice in my life. I've never met anyone who has been involved as a victim or a relative of a victim, with the SINGLE exception of an American who moved here. He had a relative in the states who was a victim of gun crime.  Gun control saves lives its that simple

[SpardaSon21]

Drogoth, sure, guns are rare in France and Britain, so gang members have fewer of them.  That just means those gang members will use other weapons besides guns when they commit violent acts.  What we need to check is to see if banning guns reduces total violence rather than just gun violence.

[Mustang19]

The question is whether or not gun control would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals in any substantial way. As stated in the CDC study there's no conclusive proof that gun control reduces crime. This makes concealed carry and private gun ownership a really sensible idea if the number of people who deter a crime by drawing a weapon is 20-40 times greater than the total number of gun homicides in the US.

Want an example of a country with tight gun control and even higher homicide rates than the US? No problem. Taiwan or Estonia, although it's hard to make comparisons because even non-gun homicides in the US are very high. Note that prior to implementing gun control the UK for example already had a much lower murder rate than the US, so that's a confound.

So you can't simply say, "A lot of people die in Country X because it doesn't have gun control". Large scale studies show that gun control has little effect either way on homicide.

[Drogoth]

The question is whether or not gun control would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals in any substantial way. As stated in the CDC study there's no conclusive proof that gun control reduces crime. This makes concealed carry and private gun ownership a really sensible idea if the number of people who deter a crime by drawing a weapon is 20-40 times greater than the total number of gun homicides in the US.

Want an example of a country with tight gun control and even higher homicide rates than the US? No problem. Taiwan or Estonia, although it's hard to make comparisons because even non-gun homicides in the US are very high. Note that prior to implementing gun control the UK for example already had a much lower murder rate than the US, so that's a confound.

So you can't simply say, "A lot of people die in Country X because it doesn't have gun control". Large scale studies show that gun control has little effect either way on homicide.

You posted a chart on Gun Related Homicide. I wont deny that some countries with tighter gun control have a higher murder rate, but let's get serious. Those countries you mentioned REEK of corruption and their borders leak like colanders. When it comes to gun related crime in the western world, America is number one. And pulling in overall homicide rates doesn't take away from the base argument of "Guns cause death". What you're basically saying is that there is  serious problem, and until we can solve the entire problem, we shouldn't deal with a symptom that we HAVE identified and can prevent.

Arguing that people are generally violent doesn't take away from the fact that free flowing firearms make generally violent people MORE effective at being violent.

[headdie]

The difference gun controls like banning firearms in public hands makes is that when a report is made to the police they have the powers to decisively act to remove the gun, which in the uk means response by a trained firearms team and a no nonsense you surrender the weapon or you will get shot manner of dealing with the situation, one less illegal firearm in circulation

[Mustang19]

Arguing that people are generally violent doesn't take away from the fact that free flowing firearms make generally violent people MORE effective at being violent.

Again, available empirical evidence does not back up this claim. Sure, it might be a little harder to get a gun but most likely there will be more murders as there will be fewer crimes deterred in the 20-40 times greater number of cases where guns are used in self defense.

[Topgun]

This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.

Can we pick a less asinine example please

Really? does that include child molestation?

[headdie]

This entire discussion is ****ing retarded. Most rapists are people you know and trust, not random people on the street or home intruders.

Can we pick a less asinine example please

Really? does that include child molestation?

as disgusting as they are, the problem is like any other criminal they live in the same society as the rest of us