[deathspeed]

Well, I should be able to buy explosives, because my hobby is blowing up household items in the desert.

You can, at least in most of the US - it's called Tannerite.  And as a bonus, you have to use a high velocity bullet to set it off! 

[FrikgFeek]

And I think it would be far more risky to attempt to rush past an armed assailant and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back, than it would be to defend yourself at home.  But regardless, the point remains that I shouldn't have to.  My home is my property.  It is my refuge, and I should not be forced to leave it for anyone.  That's the very definition of the "castle doctrine," which is derived straight from English common law.

I believe a law founded in 1628 is a bit outdated by now. And what kind of psycho would kill an unarmed person in a house he's trying to rob? I'm pretty sure confronting him with a gun is much more dangerous than trying to run away or just letting him rob you. By what logic is it better to risk your life and the lives of those around you(in case you actually do kill the guy but his assistants get mad and decide to murder your family in revenge) than just lose a few thousand dollars? And if you really do believe that a few thousand dollars are worth risking your life over, why not just play Russian roulette? 83.3% are good chances in comparison.

I can find a bank or a police station that's open 24-7. And I'd have to run a kilometre at worst. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for a healthy person. Don't tell me you can't think of a safe place in a 0.62 mile radius from your house.

[achtung]

What it's designed to do doesn't matter.  What it can be used to do does.

But if a car doesn't pass safety inspections and is deemed too dangerous it can't get sold. And that includes pedestrian safety. A gun only needs to pass inspection to ensure that it's user is safe, they don't test it for the safety of whoever you're shooting at(for obvious reasons). And I'm sure that even the most dangerous car is much worse at murder than a well-made firearm.

Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.

Sure sure, cars are terrible at killing innocent unarmed civilians, but we can't ignore the scourge of the evil assault tractor.

Also, you can't know the intention of someone trying to rob you. Some think they'll just put you down on the spot to avoid having you go rat to the cops. Home invasions are especially concerning, because they've already shown blatant disregard for your personal property, safety, and well-being. Why go hide in the corner hoping they don't decide you'd be a fine human punching bag for all of their mommy issues, or a good rape toy for their feelings of insecurity? In the case of a home invasion, they've already shown that they have clear disregard for the law, and your human rights, so why even assume they don't intend to harm you?

EDIT: Also, your assumption that running out of your home is an option is kind've silly. Either you "shelter in place" and hope for the best, or you fight back. Lots of folks can't just hop out a second story window and then go running through the woods. Hell, being robbed in public doesn't even give the option to retreat sometimes.

[FrikgFeek]

Sure sure, cars are terrible at killing innocent unarmed civilians, but we can't ignore the scourge of the evil assault tractor.

I'm not going to lie, that's actually pretty damn hilarious.

In the case of a home invasion, they've already shown that they have clear disregard for the law, and your human rights, so why even assume they don't intend to harm you?

Oh come on, what kind of violent fantasies are you guys indulging in? Someone who's entered your house with intent to kill most likely isn't doing it alone, in which case your wimpy pistol won't do crap. A thief will almost always try to break in when he thinks nobody's there. If he knows you're there he's probably got enough firepower to feel safe about it.

And being able to run to the door is unreasonable, but being able to retrieve your safely stored gun and ammo is perfectly legit. I don't think this is the case unless you sleep right next to your gun.

[MP-Ryan]

More fun facts:

-More people in virtually every first-world democracy are murdered annually by means other than a firearm than with.
-Even in the US, with the highest firearms-related death rate in the first world, more people die as a result of motor vehicles (all causes) than die as a result of firearms (all causes).  By the way, both general poisoning and drug poisoning are higher than vehicles too.
-In Canada, where there are licensing requirements for all firearms owners and specific usage restrictions on both restricted and prohibited firearms classes, the penalties for firearms offences are all federal, criminal legislation (including improper storage, etc).  The penalties for most motor vehicle offences are provincial offences, which are non-criminal (though some motor vehicle offences are also criminal too; namely, things like drunk driving).  This despite the fact that in 2004, ~2800 people in Canada died from motor-vehicle related causes; 743 died from all types of firearms causes (76% of which were suicides).  In other words, vehicles account for 4 times the number of deaths in Canada in 2004 than firearms, yet have lesser requirements to own them, operate them, and face lesser penalties when their use is improper.
-To compare guns to another potentially-lethal tool, in Canada in 2008, firearms (with all their related legal requirements) were used in 34% of homicides.  Knives, which anyone can make, nevermind buy and carry with no restrictions whatsoever, also accounted for 34% of all homicides.  Knife used has doubled since 1974; firearm use has halved since 1974.  Interestingly though, the number of times a knife was used in a violent incident has not changed for a decade.  The overall homicide rate has dropped since 1974.
-In the UK, with some of the mos restrictive gun laws in first world democracies, knives are used in crimes four times more frequently than firearms.  While the UK has a marginally lower homicide rate than Canada (1.0 vs 1.5 in 2011 according to UNODC), it also has a considerably higher violent crime rate (for which there is no single stat, so I'm not linking to a dozen sources).

What does all this mean?

I'd suggest it means firearms are not the inherent problem most of the time.  Rather, unreasonable firearms use and access can be mitigated, but its overall impact on deaths and crime doesn't tend to significantly change.  People are still going to die accidentally; people are still going to kill each other.  Ergo, it makes sense to craft laws that improve safety around firearms ownership and use, but with the objective of improving safety.  If your objective is to reduce overall crime rates, firearms regulation has a very limited benefit that makes an impact on the continuum of virtually no restrictions to reasonable restrictions, but pays diminishing returns for increased costs on the scale of reasonable restrictions to complete bans.

The statistics on this are outrageously complex.  Firearms have no causal effect that is easily discerned.

[Lorric]

Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.

And what kind of psycho would kill an unarmed person in a house he's trying to rob? I'm pretty sure confronting him with a gun is much more dangerous than trying to run away or just letting him rob you. By what logic is it better to risk your life and the lives of those around you(in case you actually do kill the guy but his assistants get mad and decide to murder your family in revenge) than just lose a few thousand dollars? And if you really do believe that a few thousand dollars are worth risking your life over, why not just play Russian roulette? 83.3% are good chances in comparison.

I can find a bank or a police station that's open 24-7. And I'd have to run a kilometre at worst. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for a healthy person. Don't tell me you can't think of a safe place in a 0.62 mile radius from your house.

I reckon we're getting off track here, the point was about not feeling we have to avoid a confrontation, not the merits of various courses of action. I don't want to fight if I can help it, but if someone brings the fight to me I don't want to have to worry about anything other than that fight.

And unfortunately people do get killed in home invasions, or brutalised.

On running, there's nothing but other houses in a kilometre radius of my house, and I'm sure that's very much not unusual. Also, if you run, you could very easily be chased down. There might well be another criminal outside in a vehicle, so you get yourself trapped between them and whoever's in your house, or maybe even run down by that vehicle.

The thing is there's a million ways a situation could go, and we need the freedom to be able to react and make choices as to how to deal with those situations without being restricted by the very laws which are supposed to protect us. As soon as someone steps into your home, they should forfeit all rights. I do however think that shooting a fleeing criminal in the back is wrong, but I wouldn't object to someone gunning a criminal down from behind in an ambush attack. If you get a chance to remove the threat you should be able to take it.

[FrikgFeek]

I can't really say that surprises me in the least. Unless you're living in an active warzone accidental deaths are always going to outnumber homicides. And I looked up some of the statistics: firearm related deaths by 10000 capita in the US in 2011 were 10.3 Motor vehicle related ones were 10.387, which rounds up to 10.4. The difference is actually very minor, at least for the US.
Then again the ratio of motor vehicle deaths:motor vehicle murders is much higher than firearm deaths:firearm murders. And cutting down on guns seems much more reasonable and practical than cutting down on cars or knives. You can't really live without a car or a bread cutter in the modern world.

Lorric, in a situation where you have multiple people in your home trying to kill you and a few more in a vehicle outside of your house to shoot down runners YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY BONED. Gun or not, there's absolutely nothing you can do. If you're such a badass that you can take on multiple armed men with a pistol you might as well impale them on your hypermasculine cock and be done with it.

[Aesaar]

I can find a bank or a police station that's open 24-7. And I'd have to run a kilometre at worst. Shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for a healthy person. Don't tell me you can't think of a safe place in a 0.62 mile radius from your house.

Congratulations.  Perhaps you should stop assuming everyone lives in the same kind of area you do.

I live in a rural area, and I'm really not afraid of someone breaking in.  However, I recognise that some people aren't as fortunate in that way as I am, and I can certainly see how someone who lives in a bad neighborhood might want a way to protect themselves if necessary, even if it's just to provide peace of mind.  Especially if they have a family to consider and can't just run to the nearest police station, which for all you know could be kilometers away (which also assumes the streets themselves are safe).

[MP-Ryan]

And I think it would be far more risky to attempt to rush past an armed assailant and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back, than it would be to defend yourself at home.  But regardless, the point remains that I shouldn't have to.  My home is my property.  It is my refuge, and I should not be forced to leave it for anyone.  That's the very definition of the "castle doctrine," which is derived straight from English common law.

I believe a law founded in 1628 is a bit outdated by now.

Common law is the bedrock legal principle of the legal structures of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.  Just because common law principles are old does not make them outdated.  Variations on the 'castle doctrine' are found in each and every one of those countries.

And what kind of psycho would kill an unarmed person in a house he's trying to rob? I'm pretty sure confronting him with a gun is much more dangerous than trying to run away or just letting him rob you.

A quick statistical search suggests that, in the US, occupants experienced violence during a burglary (FBI term) 7% of the time; 15% of that 7% were assaults, and 3% were rapes.  In 12% of all burglaries where violence occurred, the criminal had a firearm.  0.004% of all burglaries in the US end in homicide.  (Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)

[achtung]

Sure sure, cars are terrible at killing innocent unarmed civilians, but we can't ignore the scourge of the evil assault tractor.

I'm not going to lie, that's actually pretty damn hilarious.

In the case of a home invasion, they've already shown that they have clear disregard for the law, and your human rights, so why even assume they don't intend to harm you?

Oh come on, what kind of violent fantasies are you guys indulging in? Someone who's entered your house with intent to kill most likely isn't doing it alone, in which case your wimpy pistol won't do crap. A thief will almost always try to break in when he thinks nobody's there. If he knows you're there he's probably got enough firepower to feel safe about it.

The tractor massacre is not really funny. Not trying to high-horse you here, but I'm not sure how senseless mass murder can be funny.

Now on to the next bit.

A home invasion, by definition, is when someone is home.

Violent fantasies? This **** happens on the daily. Go have a look at local news and/or police reports in Detroit, Chicago, and Gary. Also who said anything about a pistol? HD options include handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Personally I feel a semi-automatic 5.56/.223 rifle of some sort is probably the best choice, because it will likely be light, easy to control, and won't overpenetrate. Also, multiple thieves/thieves with firepower just help bolster the argument for a standard-capacity magazine and a semi-automatic firearm (which I know you probably aren't arguing about, but it's worth mentioning). More rounds, more speed, better chances of putting them down. Finding examples of people fending off multiple attackers with capable rifles is not too hard. There's actually an entire subreddit on reddit dedicated to documenting defensive gun uses.

[MP-Ryan]

firearm related deaths by 10000 capita in the US in 2011 were 10.3 Motor vehicle related ones were 10.387, which rounds up to 10.4. The difference is actually very minor, at least for the US.
Then again the ratio of motor vehicle deaths:motor vehicle murders is much higher than firearm deaths:firearm murders. And cutting down on guns seems much more reasonable and practical than cutting down on cars or knives. You can't really live without a car or a bread cutter in the modern world.

There is a reason why I highlighted the Canadian stats.  They show that even when you increase firearms restrictions, your overall death rates are barely affected (in fact, what is a consistent trend is that regulation reduces accidental and unintentional deaths, but barely makes a dent in suicide and homicide).  In Canada's case, firearm use went down and knife use went up, and the homicide rate has been falling steadily completely unrelated to firearms laws anyway.

Yours is a solution in search of a problem.  The point we keep making:  firearms regulation is a policy of diminishing returns; some regulation works wonderfully, but as you increase your regulation, the benefit to the public versus the expenditure to make it possible dramatically drops.  US stats can't be used in this context as the US does not have a national firearms regulation scheme.

[Lorric]

You can't really live without a car

I don't want to go off on a tangent, but this is exactly what I intend to do until the day I die. However, I would give you this if you replace car with wheels. Wheels on buses, taxis and other people's cars in my case.

I am also confused how you can say we are having violent fantasies as if that is wrong, and then you find a mass murder rampage hilarious. I am not having any violent fantasies personally. Thinking about the prospect of having to fight intruders in my home leaves me cold. It's something I wish I didn't have to think about.

But anyway, we're all kind of wandering all over the place here now, and I'm not sure where we're going.

[Lorric]

Lorric, in a situation where you have multiple people in your home trying to kill you and a few more in a vehicle outside of your house to shoot down runners YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY BONED. Gun or not, there's absolutely nothing you can do. If you're such a badass that you can take on multiple armed men with a pistol you might as well impale them on your hypermasculine cock and be done with it.

Whoa whoa whoa, please calm down. You've got me all wrong. I think you've got us all wrong actually, but you've definitely got me wrong.

[MP-Ryan]

If we're at the point where someone is trying to argue that one doesn't need a firearm - for any reason - because one can simply run away to a bank or police station... well, I'm not going to continue in a debate where someone wants to set international law on the basis of their personal circumstances and limited understanding of the subject material.

[achtung]

If we're at the point where someone is trying to argue that one doesn't need a firearm - for any reason - because one can simply run away to a bank or police station... well, I'm not going to continue in a debate where someone wants to set international law on the basis of their personal circumstances and limited understanding of the subject material.

My wish for the world; stop having people who know nothing about a subject try to come up with regulations for it. (I'm looking at you, Dianne Feinstein).

[FrikgFeek]

Total death rates might not be, but they're still involved in 34% of all homicides. And it's not like governments aren't trying to cut down on motor vehicle death rates or food poisoning either. I don't think firearms should be exempt from this just because they alone don't cause a large amount of deaths. Home-defence just doesn't seem like a good enough justification to own a firearm to me, unless you're living in an area that requires it, which most people don't. I'm not arguing that there's no reason to own a gun, but "just wanting one" or feeling the need to defend your home from a 0.004% chance you'll get killed in a robbery seems stretched at best. It seems to create more problems than it solves.
I'm sure that for every story of someone defending himself against 4 armed guys there are 20 where they failed.
And civilian owned shotguns in general seems like a really bad idea, the misuse potential is simply too great. 1 guy with a shotgun in a crowded place can easily mow down 20-30 people.

And again, I'm not someone trying to come up with a solution, I wouldn't be presenting it on a public forum otherwise.

[MP-Ryan]

Total death rates might not be, but they're still involved in 34% of all homicides. And it's not like governments aren't trying to cut down on motor vehicle death rates or food poisoning either. I don't think firearms should be exempt from this just because they alone don't cause a large amount of deaths. Home-defence just doesn't seem like a good enough justification to own a firearm to me. It seems to create more problems than it solves.

As I keep saying, there is -zero- evidence that further restriction of firearms (or bans) in places where reasonable regulation already exists will affect the homicide rate completely on its own.  Homicide rates have a great deal more to do with social factors than the availability of weapons.  This is why both Canada and the USA have seen steady reductions in homicide rates for the last 30-40 years without steady adjustments to firearms laws.

You are massively oversimplifying this issue.  I am done teaching.  For every claim you make from this point on, I expect to see a legal or statistical citation or it will be ignored.  I refer you to the forum guidelines concerning debate in the off-topic areas.

And civilian owned shotguns in general seems like a really bad idea, the misuse potential is simply too great. 1 guy with a shotgun in a crowded place can easily mow down 20-30 people.

Just stop.  Please.  This is now to the point of farce.  Do you actually understand the differences between a shotgun and a rifle?  Magazine capacity?  Reload time?  Ever fired one?  Held one?  Hell, seen one?  Shotguns have their uses in hunting, predator control, and personal defense.  They are also virtually never used in mass homicides.  There is a reason for that.  Do some research; like I said, I'm done teaching.

[FrikgFeek]

Whoa whoa whoa, please calm down. You've got me all wrong. I think you've got us all wrong actually, but you've definitely got me wrong.

My bad. That cock-impaling joke sounded a lot less offensive in my head(and in Croatian). And afaik most comedy is based on human suffering and unexpected events. A mass murder using a tractor is both. It's dark comedy sure, but I still can't help but find the situation morbidly funny.

[FrikgFeek]

So, basically, you're saying that if you're in a country with reasonable-ish gun control it's better to focus on the motive rather than the means? Guess that makes sense, and I'm thankful that you've taught me as much as you have on a topic I'm ignorant on. I really wasn't trying to rustle anyone's jimmies, and I was posting my half-baked ideas on a public forum expecting criticism, not approval.

[GhylTarvoke]

Just wanted to say this is an excellent thread. Educational and thought-provoking.