Statistically, it's much more dangerous to own a gun. A gun owner is more likely to shoot himself or a family member than to shoot a bad guy. In fact,a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

reonhato:
study after study has found gun in home = higher risk of homicide, of course gun supporters simply say correlation does not equal causation.

Of course, none of those studies differentiated between legal and illegal guns, which makes any such finding nonsense.

Even though I value the right to live over the right to own a gun, I chose alternative 4, since it really depends from situation to situation and in what kind of community you reside in.

Really, here's the way I see it. Whenever you need a gun, your living standard will drop. Harmful activities like murder, rape, drug addiction, theft and assault are less likely to occur in a community populated by educated, employed, happy and healthy citizens.

As for the "gun ownership<>murder rate"-debate, it's really a case of whether it's the chicken or the egg that came first. Anyone's view on the subject, including mine, is going to be strongly coloured by his/her predetermined bias. So since I'm not an expert on this subject, I can't really say anything about it without me risking to claim an incorrect statement.

So yeah, I don't like real life guns, but I don't have anything to say about the Second Amendment either. That's a problem for other people to solve.

Cavan:
I am not arguing against you, but could you both provide the sources of your numbers, and if possible break it down into a less vague category if you have access to more numbers.

I have plenty of numbers. Here are the two sources I used-

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
http://www.gunpolicy.org/

I don't feel like direct murder is really a reliable way of judging anything anymore than you can judge bus drivers from the total number of car crashes every year. I do see the point you are trying to make with these numbers, but I feel like there is a potential for it to be misleading, not that I think you are the one trying to be misleading.

The problem is that one it would take a long time with a lot of research to do what you want (the sources I have are good but they are not complete). Second the parameters could be argued back and forth forever because nothing could be considered absolute proof if it does not include every factor and including every factor is impossible. Third I did not want to go through too much effort if you were like Reon (below). A few months ago I went through the effort of digging through the FBI Uniform Crime report and converting all the numbers for murder rates from the past 50 YEARS. His response was that I just ignored his post. Frankly if you do not care what I say I would rather not waste my time with large amounts of research. You care but I do need to know EXACT parameters.

As for my personal opinion, a gun is designed for only one thing.

I am afraid you are wrong about that. The rifle I used for small bore competitions was designed for small bore competitions and no more. My hunting rifle is designed to take down medium sized animals and no more. Guns are tools. They are meant to do certain tasks. You would never tell a carpenter to use a ball peen hammer would you?

reonhato:
study after study has found gun in home = higher risk of homicide, of course rational people and scientists simply say correlation does not equal causation.

There I fixed it for you.

people like farson are great at using misleading stats.

Don't you love how no matter what the statistic when it is used by my side it is misleading but whenever your side uses it is absolutely perfect and without any irregularities.

for example above he posted countries with higher gun counts against countries with lower gun counts with the murder rates to show that high gun countries can be safe. he completely ignores the fact that norway, sweden etc still have 1/3 the ownership rate of america

Your point? YOU stated that (literally) "guns cause suicide". If guns cause a problem then why wouldn't more guns cause more problems? You continue to contradict yourself.

as well as a very large majority of the guns are from the miltia service and are rifles, not handguns which are far more dangerous.

Militia service? Maybe you should read up a little on these countries. Scratch that, don't feel the need to expand your sphere of ignorance.

the countries he uses with low guns but high murder are jamaica and lithuania. the figures for jamaica are most likely very wrong, the problems come from illegal weapons shipped in from the US and drugs and gangs that makes the US drugs and gangs look like a school yard fight.

Do you know anything about Jamaican gun laws? There gun laws are some of the strictest on earth. As for the US providing firearms, prove it.

BTW-52 murders per 100,000 across their entire country makes our gangs look badass? You have no idea what you are talking about.

as for lithuania that stems more from a cultural thing. they have serious racism issues and have a very violent culture (2/3rds of women have apparently suffered from violent attacks). basically if you are not a lithuanian male you either hide really well or get the shit kicked out of you by one of the many violent racist groups.

Irrelevant (even if you were right, which you are not). YOU state that guns cause all of these things. Lithuania has an absurdly low gun ownership rate but a much higher crime and suicide rate than the US.

BTW I did notice that you talked about me but you were too cowardly to address me directly.

reonhato:
well you are more likely to be shot by police if you have a gun dont you think.

No, you are just as likely to be shot by the police if you have a knife and are within 21 feet of the officer. That is the Tueller Drill at work.

ignoring that a lot of "self defense" you hear about in america is plain and simple murder in the rest of the world (mainly due to the ignoring of duty to retreat in favour of castle doctrines, which is really only a great way to escalate a situation in a very large majority of cases) it is still extremely rare, even in america in 2007 there were only 254 cases of justified homicide for self defense by private citizens and only 391 justified killings by the police. thats a tiny percentage of the total amount of murders.

Got to love the fact that you gloss over the fact that few self defense scenarios end in a person dying. There were anywhere between 108,000 and 2.5 million DGU every year. That 254 is only a tiny percentage of that.

anyway while i was looking up those numbers i found some great stats that show why having handguns are stupid, and why places like switzerland can have a highish gun ownership without the problems. in california in 2007 there were 1605 firearm homicides, 1374 of those were handguns and only 51 were rifles. shotguns came in at 74 with 106 unknowns. so if you really must have a gun.... get a rifle.

Problem: 50% of the Czech Republic's firearms are pistols and their murder rate is 1.7 per 100,000.

TechNoFear:

Please stop spreading misinformation, Australia has no where near 1/3 of deaths by firearm.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh my god you guys are hilarious. You spent so much time shoving this study in my face saying "look look this proves you wrong" and now you have said this study is wrong. Have fun- http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Although I will admit I screwed up a little bit. Oh well.

But if you want to discredit your own study fine. You might notice that if your numbers are right they prove even further the point I was making in that previous post.

PS Remember how you said no one considered your grandfather's .22 target psitol was not a weapon?

TJ Lane used his grandfather's Ruger .22-caliber Mark III target pistol to kill 3 children in the latest US school shooting (something that has not happened in over a decade in Australia).

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2107942,00.html

Did you intentionally screw up or are you just ignorant.

This-

Is not the same thing as this-

Blablahb:
You also noticed that Switserland has a huge gun homicide rate, and their rate of family slayings with guns is the biggest in Europe, also counting Turkey with it's culture of 'honour killings'.

What? The murder rate is 0.9 per 100,000. Not is not large by any measure of the word.

In the meantime, the US firearm homicide rate is between 6 and 33 times that of EU countries. If you say you're ten times as likely to be shot when you're in the US because of legal guns, you'd actually be making an understatement.

HHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHA

The US murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000. The UKs murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000. You are wrong.

BTW- The gun ownership rate of Idaho is 64% of the population and their murder rate is 1.3.

And it didn't occur to you that those places are located in a country with more guns than people, with a big acceptance of violence in their culture and free travel between those and other places?

Big acceptance of violence? Why don't you try pulling your head out of your ass and stop being so damn biased.

Why not compare something which can be compared?

You mean why not compare something that is more convenient to you. You guys in the pro-violence lobby (see what I did there :) ) keep ignoring all the statistical information I have because it is inconvenient to your bias. Why do you even talk you me if you have nothing to bring to the table?

Leadfinger:
Statistically, it's much more dangerous to own a gun. A gun owner is more likely to shoot himself or a family member than to shoot a bad guy. In fact,a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

Add in the time factor and you find that most suicides and many homicides with guns in the home occur within the first few months of purchase. Also and in the why factor and you find that many people buy guns in response to a perceived threat and if that threat materializes the gun may not be enough. And on.

That study you quoted is a pain in the ass because it leaves out so many factors (I only mentioned two but there are several others) but is so widely circulated that people quote it and I have to keep telling them, no that is not how it works.

theSteamSupported:
Really, here's the way I see it. Whenever you need a gun, your living standard will drop. Harmful activities like murder, rape, drug addiction, theft and assault are less likely to occur in a community populated by educated, employed, happy and healthy citizens.

My family lives on a farm and we need guns to protect our crops and livestock. Is the necessity of having a gun lowering our standard of living?

farson135:

The problem is that one it would take a long time with a lot of research to do what you want (the sources I have are good but they are not complete).

Yeah that's the problem really, maybe I will be able to find some very in depth studies into the subject, i'm sure governments have done them to try to advocate one way or the other.

farson135:

As for my personal opinion, a gun is designed for only one thing.

I am afraid you are wrong about that. The rifle I used for small bore competitions was designed for small bore competitions and no more. My hunting rifle is designed to take down medium sized animals and no more. Guns are tools. They are meant to do certain tasks. You would never tell a carpenter to use a ball peen hammer would you?

I disagree (note the difference between disagreeing and outright stating somebody is wrong, you could quite easily start a few flame wars that way), a hammer is a tool used for a wide variety of different purposes, a gun only fires at things.
Just because it is a low powered killing tool that you use to fire at targets doesn't stop it being only useful for that purpose. A gun can be more or less efficient at shooting specific things, but at the end of the day that is all it does.

If you are interested in my general viewpoint(this being the internet, probably not), I am against people carrying knives as well. A knife has far more utility than a handgun or a rifle and I personally still do not agree with it. All these things seem to do is add the potential for abuse and misuse, something which a responsible owner has to repeatedly be wary of.

Cavan:

Yeah that's the problem really, maybe I will be able to find some very in depth studies into the subject, i'm sure governments have done them to try to advocate one way or the other.

There are plenty of studies out there but you will find that most of the ones of any value conform to my base statement. Specifically that it does not matter one way or the other. That is why I have the opinion in the first place. Unfortunately, as I said, there are always holes that people jump through.

Here are a few studies you can look at but always remember to not take anything at face value.

http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28253/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/612534--mcmaster-study-finds-gun-laws-don-t-affect-murder-rate

Overall though you should keep this in mind. Gun ownership is increasing in the US. More guns were bought last Christmas than any other recorded Christmas in history. Now 49 states allow concealed carry and more and more licenses are being issued. Violent crime rates and suicide rates are dropping in the US. In fact this came out a few months ago- http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/12/homicide-drops-off-us-list-top-causes-death/

I disagree (note the difference between disagreeing and outright stating somebody is wrong, you could quite easily start a few flame wars that way),

Unfortunately I was always taught to be direct.

a hammer is a tool used for a wide variety of different purposes, a gun only fires at things.

By your logic you could say that a hammer only pounds things.

Just because it is a low powered killing tool that you use to fire at targets doesn't stop it being only useful for that purpose. A gun can be more or less efficient at shooting specific things, but at the end of the day that is all it does.

Negative. You would never bring my small bore rifle out hunting with you (despite how accurate it is). You also would never bring an ar-15 to a 1000 yard match. And on. They are tools and each and every one has a specific purpose. My small bore rifle is not meant to kill anything. Your average hammer is not meant to kill anything. However an m16a1 and a war hammer are both meant to kill things. Gun, is a category of tools just as hammer is. You cannot state that all tools are meant to do the same thing.

If you are interested in my general viewpoint(this being the internet, probably not), I am against people carrying knives as well. A knife has far more utility than a handgun or a rifle and I personally still do not agree with it. All these things seem to do is add the potential for abuse and misuse, something which a responsible owner has to repeatedly be wary of.

I am interested. I like hearing what people think and learning about other cultures and viewpoints. It gets tiresome with some people because they only want to argue but overall I like to talk to people.

As for your point I have to disagree again. I grew up in a rural environment. EVERYBODY had a pocket knife on their person. Hell, at one point a school board member brought up the idea of a no tolerance policy towards pocket knives at the school and one of the other members laughed at her. Kids carried the knives everywhere but when there was a fight it turned into a boxing match. No knives were ever drawn despite their being easily available (and fights were relatively rare).

putowtin:
No, no one should own a gun.

I see you as an anti gun person
I hold no grip against you but i disagree completely with your statement
No one should own a gun O.o that really changes the fact that people have knives as well
oh and fists i remember them they are the things on the end of your arms

Saying what you just said without any real evidence
WHY!!

I dont own any proper firearms
I own airsoft weaponry which i treat the same way as i would a firearm
Not once have i hurt anyone without either permission or during an airsoft day
They are my second fave hobby

PROVE to me that people should be allowed to own a gun
(btw im from the UK)

dyre:
I'd say owning a gun and knowing gun safety is safer than not owning a gun. The only potential scenario I see in which owning a gun would be unsafe is if you tried to stop a criminal but somehow botched it up, and the criminal killed you when he saw you were armed.

farson135:

Tanksie:
if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe.

Uh huh.....you want to run that by me again? In Aussieland people are killed by guns in only 1/3 cases. The other 2/3 is by something other than a gun. In Lithuania 7/8 murders are preformed without a gun.

I think he means "if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe from gun violence" :P

Cuz people who get stabbed to death feel so good that they weren't shot to death instead right?
Sorry, I just don't see the importance of what weapon is used, you're still in the hospital or the morgue, and I'd rather have the ability to own a gun for sport and self-defense, even if it means that I'm slightly more likely to end up getting shot as opposed to stabbed.

spartan231490:

dyre:
I'd say owning a gun and knowing gun safety is safer than not owning a gun. The only potential scenario I see in which owning a gun would be unsafe is if you tried to stop a criminal but somehow botched it up, and the criminal killed you when he saw you were armed.

farson135:

Uh huh.....you want to run that by me again? In Aussieland people are killed by guns in only 1/3 cases. The other 2/3 is by something other than a gun. In Lithuania 7/8 murders are preformed without a gun.

I think he means "if no one owns a gun then everyone is safe from gun violence" :P

Cuz people who get stabbed to death feel so good that they weren't shot to death instead right?
Sorry, I just don't see the importance of what weapon is used, you're still in the hospital or the morgue, and I'd rather have the ability to own a gun for sport and self-defense, even if it means that I'm slightly more likely to end up getting shot as opposed to stabbed.

Context, man. I was joking around...

yes but u have more crime

Well, considering:

1) I've never trained with a gun
2) Guns misfire
3) House robbers armed with guns in Britain? Very rare
4) You can't get a pistol in Scotland, it'd have to be a rifle or a shotgun, which are big and cumbersome.

So yeah, I think I'd be better off without a gun.

If you get robbed and happen to have the gun at hand(i.e. not stashed in a drawer), and the robber doesn't happen to have one, it's safer to own a gun. That's pretty much the only situation where I can think of it as an advantage to own one.

Blablahb:
Let me guess... A suspicious looking person either knocked on your door, or stopped you in the street and asked for money. You stuffed a gun under their nose and threatened them with murder, and now you believe your life was saved back then?

Watching silly pro-violence lobbyists go at it has taught me that when they say their gun has had a use, 99% of the time they're talking about situations in which there was no threat to them, and the presence of weapons only escalated the situation.

No, back in 1994 two men were cutting through the front door of my parents house. They called the police and were told that it would take 20 min for the police to reach their address. My parents decided to set up an ambush inside with ballbats and a pair of flintlock pistols.

After the police arrived and took the robbers into custody, they found they had also been behind several other home invasions at different farms and had killed two people.

TechNoFear:

Kleck is used as an example of how not to do a scientific study.

"The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." (FBI's criteria from those links) Again though, did not disprove his point about the FBI's numbers, and showing the two tables did not disprove my point about them being lumped together on table

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

It just shows they also have a table on defensive gun use under very specific circumstances.

Also, your pdf that you pass out on the myths of gun defense skirts the issue by stating not that gun defense did not work but that the use of guns in crimes leads to more deaths then the use of knives, which is logical, as knives generally take more skill to use effectively than guns do.

And, btw: I'm willing to bet that more then 5% of the US public think they met an alien.

farson135:

Unfortunately I was always taught to be direct.

It's not a matter of being direct or not, saying something is right or wrong based on your opinion only is generally something the internet is not good with. In a sense you are 'wrong' to say that somebody else is outright wrong in something like this unless disputing facts (note, not interpretation of facts).

farson135:

By your logic you could say that a hammer only pounds things.

Sure if you want to simplify it down, but pounding on things actually brings out multiple different outcomes in different processes. Shooting at different things does not count as multiple uses, because it's too situational. A gun is almost exclusively recreational and for me that makes it not a tool in those circumstances, there is a debate on whether or not firearms can be classified as tools in a traditional sense. I believe the debate is more about the nature of the task you are performing than in the firearm's ability to be a tool.

I do not disagree with them if it is part of your job to cull animal populations or as a security person, because then it is a tool within a job.
To take it out to its extreme edge that's like saying having a huge stock of nuclear explosives is just a tool because I enjoy making home made reactors in the middle of a huge lifeless desert. I am a responsible nuclear materials owner so it is my right to own these tools for recreational use.

farson135:

Negative. You would never bring my small bore rifle out hunting with you (despite how accurate it is). You also would never bring an ar-15 to a 1000 yard match. And on. They are tools and each and every one has a specific purpose. My small bore rifle is not meant to kill anything. Your average hammer is not meant to kill anything. However an m16a1 and a war hammer are both meant to kill things. Gun, is a category of tools just as hammer is. You cannot state that all tools are meant to do the same thing.

I think you are mistaking how I am defining purpose for something more like context. Your small bore rifle is still a weapon that has been modified to be less efficient as a weapon for a certain situation.

farson135:

I am interested. I like hearing what people think and learning about other cultures and viewpoints. It gets tiresome with some people because they only want to argue but overall I like to talk to people.

As for your point I have to disagree again. I grew up in a rural environment. EVERYBODY had a pocket knife on their person. Hell, at one point a school board member brought up the idea of a no tolerance policy towards pocket knives at the school and one of the other members laughed at her. Kids carried the knives everywhere but when there was a fight it turned into a boxing match. No knives were ever drawn despite their being easily available (and fights were relatively rare).

I should have been more clear, when I talk of knives I talk in the general sense of what is illegal here, which is something with either a locking blade or over 3 inches in blade length. I don't feel like pocket knives are really appropriate for school children but at the same time I don't feel like they need to be automatically taken away from people, you have no real reason to be carrying them with you to school that the school cannot provide for.

I think the idea of a gun for home protection is predicated on some pretty big assumptions; 1. that he with the gun always "wins", 2. that getting the drop on the intruder is simple, and 3. that getting the drop on them is an automatic "win".

To me, having a gun in my home for protection is only effective in the very specific scenario that 1. I have an intruder, 2. that intruder is armed, 3. I can get the drop on them, and 4. They aren't crazy enough to start shooting.

1. The odds of having an intruder are slim, but if there is one they can generally be scared off by knowing that I'm awake, or with a baseball bat. Unless they are armed.

2. The odds of the intruder being armed are slim, but if they are, they won't be scared off by anything less than another gun. However, they probably are keeping an eye out for me, and if I step out of the bedroom with a gun, they'll already have a bead on me. I'd have to be able to sneak up on them undetected.

3. An armed intruder who isn't keeping an eye out for the owner is not unheard of, but a little much to ask. However, should I get the drop on them and they surrender; my gun is effective.

4. If they should not surrender, I would find myself in a firefight in my own home, and regardless of "victor"; any collateral damage would be my own property, person, or family.

Otherwise, a baseball bat will do. In the very, very, unlikely situation where I have an armed intruder in my home, my family is safer if I don't provoke them. I'm not a Tom Clancy or Bruce Willis character, and I know it.

As for the risk of owning a gun; there are risks, but they can be mitigated following appropriate safety precautions. Of course, those precautions include keeping the weapon and ammo secured in separate locations; which is fairly inconvenient for the home protection method of loaded in a nightstand. Also, don't draw and aim until you have identified your target; which by then may be too late if you're trying to get the drop on them. Then again, you don't really want to accidentally get the drop what what turns out to be your kid or the family dog, either.

So, for me, it seems like a wash, and I'd rather not bother with it. Though if it makes others feel better, great for them.

The best method of safety would be knowing proper firearm handling and discipline. The owner must accept responsibility for their weapon. I live in one of the gun-iest states of North America, and have never come in contact with guns in public, except for one time a cop almost drew his sidearm on me because I turned around too quick for his liking.
I have however been struck by vehicles enough times to count on what remains of my left hand.
So protect yourself: Buy a large firearm; learn how to use, maintain, and properly store it; and keep it in your hand and wave it around for all to see every time you cross the street.

Revolutionaryloser:

Griffolion:

Agayek:

If no one owns a gun, they'll just find something else to kill/attack people with. The fantasy that safety comes from banning weapons is just that, a fantasy. The single most dangerous weapon is utterly impossible to ban without making lobotomies mandatory, everything else is just window dressing.

If you want to stop violent crime, the only way to do so is to make nobody want to commit violence, and that's impossible for all intents and purposes.

This is very true. In the UK, gun crime is minimal, because of our restrictive laws on guns. However, knife crime is through the roof compared to other countries. When one type of weapon is banned, those seeking to do harm or have self defense will resort to the next common denominator, in this case it's knives.

Captcha: dont stop (I think lord inglip is having a good time...)

The true answer to this whole thread is, people will always have weapons or make weapons out of things, it's never truly safe whatever is/isn't around.

That's strange. I live in the UK and I thought carrying knives was illegal.

My bad, please read - "This is very true. In the UK, gun crime is minimal, because of our restrictive laws on guns."

As - "This is very true. In the UK, gun crime is minimal, because of our restrictive laws on the distribution and sale of guns."

Knives are easy to come by, kitchen drawer etc which puts the knife as the next common denominator as lethally offensive weapon.

farson135:

theSteamSupported:
Really, here's the way I see it. Whenever you need a gun, your living standard will drop. Harmful activities like murder, rape, drug addiction, theft and assault are less likely to occur in a community populated by educated, employed, happy and healthy citizens.

My family lives on a farm and we need guns to protect our crops and livestock. Is the necessity of having a gun lowering our standard of living?

Not necessarily, I was thinking in more of an urban context.

So if you're only using weapons to scare away wild animals from destroying your property, sure, go ahead. Just make sure you're thoroughly trained on how to use your guns for those particular objectives, and try not to kill anything endangered, please. Doing so could play awful tricks on the ecosystem, which you really don't have anything to win upon.

With that being said, what is it you're protecting? And from what, may I ask?

ElPatron:

loc978:
If you live in an apartment complex in an urban area, owning a gun... even knowing how to use said gun and being a master of combat tactics... will not save you from criminals out to take your life with guns. Your only hope then involves the police. You are not a movie action hero.

Combat tactics? Close one of my eyes, turn my flashlight to strobe, open both eyes, shoot.

My house has a pretty easy layout. I do not need to be a SWAT operative to be able to shoot on the move, cut the pie, etc.

CQB combat tactics are only 100% relevant if you are a group of police officers trying to rescue hostages without anyone being killed.

If you are a person already inside the building trying to stop an invader, they have the short stick.

It's pretty easy to move around the house with a gun. Doesn't matter if you are a fatass or a skinny guy, you can defend yourself even if you are not Rambo.

Also, murder implies premeditation. I can't predict when an armed criminal will enter my house. Therefore, not murder.

Sounds nice. hope you live in a state that has adopted some sort of castle doctrine. (most haven't). As to your combat tactics... I hope the people invading your home aren't familiar with the extremely complex "shoot at the blinding light" tactic.

I'm just going by things I've gone over (admittedly a few years ago) in a concealed carry class. In any state that hasn't adopted a castle doctrine, having and using a home-defense firearm is tantamount to premeditation. At that point, it's completely subjective and up to the jury... and lawyer vs lawyer.
But I don't suppose that means anything to ya. Not sure why I'm arguing this. My google-fu seems to be lacking in coming up with a precedent (though I found one for home defense with a sword... still, city-dwellers in the US are more gun-phobic than sword-phobic), so I guess that's a concession on my part.

xSKULLY:
)

I've seen so many varying statistics on this that I've decided that I cannot really give an opinion

Daystar Clarion:

Zachary Amaranth:

Daystar Clarion:

If you live in America, where guns are an ingrained part of their culture, then you're much more likely to have to defend yourself against someone with a gun, and the best way to do that, is with a gun.

Gun crime is really low in a good chunk of the country.

Maybe because everyone has guns :D

Makes you question robbing someone if there's a chance you're gonna get shot up.

That's especially true in one town further east. I think it was somewhere in or near Tennessee, I'm not sure. Either way, the town passed a law that anyone legally able to carry a gun has to. What happened? Crime dropped at least 50% soon after. Why? Because a person is much less likely to rob/hurt/kill someone if there's a very good chance that the target is armed.

I've owned a gun. Since I sold it, there hasn ever been a situation where I thought "gee, a gun would make this better".

But there are many instances in which it might've caused something horrible. I was paranoid every time I left the house, even though it was secure in a safe. I only felt really secure when I got rid of it. It was a weight off my shoulders.

Edit: also, to the people saying banning guns would make no difference, because people will still commit crime, why do you want to make it easier for them to do so? We're all also going to die, but we still take medicine to fight against it, inevitable though the outcome may be. Saying "People will kill people, might as well make guns available" is stupid.

Owning a gun definitely.
If you take the necessary safety precautions obviously.
+ It helps keep the government be afraid of the people rather than vice versa

loc978:
snip

I only used the light as an hypothetical example. I don't always have it mounted.

EDIT: try to shoot at something when your eyes are fucked. I can adapt pretty quickly to light but a strobe just kills my vision.

Also, most criminals around my area don't have firearms. Don't expect me to have fair play, I wake up very grumpy.

Angry Juju:
Why do you need to have a gun? why not a taser and/or pepper spray?

Because this
http://www.evilchili.com/videos/12291/Police_Officer_is_Shot_Dead_After_Pepper_Spraying_Suspect

Rodney King was on drugs, refused arrest, broke a set of handcuffs and resisted arrest.

The cops had to batter him with nightsticks to detain him.

Tazers fail, pepper spray fails.

Iwata:
I've owned a gun. Since I sold it, there hasn ever been a situation where I thought "gee, a gun would make this better".

But there are many instances in which it might've caused something horrible. I was paranoid every time I left the house, even though it was secure in a safe. I only felt really secure when I got rid of it. It was a weight off my shoulders.

Then gun ownership is definitely not for you.

I have to say, at least you had the mature decision of not having a gun because if you were not comfortable with it, then you wouldn't perform well with it.

On the other hand, you misunderstood the point of having a gun. You DON'T want to use it unless you are in the shit.

So yeah, having a gun does not make my food taste better, or the movies I watch not suck so much. It's just there for when I need it. For sport, and for protection.

And again, if you are against things that kill people, I have the "car argument right here.

xSKULLY:
so lets get to it is it safer to own a gun or not

STAITISTICS! (Taken from gunfacts, which is pro control, however this still demonstrates a point quite well)

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002)0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

The statistics say you are far more likely to kill yourself with a gun than someone else, so I'd say your safer without it. For home defence a big 'ol can of pepper spray or a taser seems more sensible as you are less likely to kill yourself or the other guy with it.

No weapon is 100% safe, since the whole point of a weapon is to cause harm. That said, one can maximize safety with correct training to the point where accidents and mistakes occur very little.

I am neither pro nor contra about guns by themselves. My main gripe with gun or weapon ownership of any kind is taking one look at the average person (i.e. untrained) and realizing I don't trust that person anywhere near a weapon. Human nature makes us dangerous. Give a guy a gun and he'll want to use it. I suppose the tired and cliché adage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true in this sense. Guns just make killing a whole lot easier. Short version: human + weapon = tragedy.

Catpcha: hug me
Aw, it wants some affection.

If it's not guns, it's knives. If it wasn't knives it's bats. If there were no violent weapons, people would use deadly martial arts.

I don't really think you would be safer holding a gun. It DOES however make you more dangerous, so it then completely depends on how people react to you. In some cases it may deter someone but if you are unwilling to shoot someone who pulls out a weapon then you are more likely going to escalate the situation, either the assailant will go for you or bring out a gun of his/her own. If you wanted a gun to be safe you wouldn't want either of those situation.

I (probably incorrectly) assume people get guns because being more dangerous makes them think they're safer. I guess it is true in some ways, but on a whole I disagree with that sentiment.

fix-the-spade:
The statistics say you are far more likely to kill yourself with a gun than someone else, so I'd say your safer without it. For home defence a big 'ol can of pepper spray or a taser seems more sensible as you are less likely to kill yourself or the other guy with it.

Not to be an ass, but if you have a gun you will probably use it to kill yourself. If you don't have it, you will kill yourself with other means, like a knife or pills. Or jump off a bridge.

Check Japan and Nordic countries. High suicide rates, yet low gun ownership rates.

Pepper spray: the attacker is well capable of slashing with a knife or shooting a gun even if he is blinded. Short-range. Very dangerous because it might cause unintended victims.

Tazer: requires physical contact. You are likely to get stabbed. Or shot. People on drugs can shrug off it's effects and keep charging you. Tazers might not even get trough thick clothing.

Pointless. You want the thread stopped, even if it includes killing the assailant. Point at center mass. Fire until threat starts falling at the ground, even if it involves shooting many times.

Kwil:
Please. The government is not concerned about you and your gun. Or two guns. Or four. They can mobilize armies of armed and trained men wielding fully automatic weaponry and high-grade explosives/chemical agents against you. Should you be in a situation where you need to use your gun against the government, you've already lost.

(...)

If you do have a gun, you are less safe in situations where an armed intruder feels they need to kill you to protect themselves, as opposed to merely threatening you.

So you believe that the military will try to kill you? Then if you don't trust them try to ban guns in the military?

Afghanistan needed 300,000 "men" and cost trillions of dollars.

Do you think you can control a country with 9 million square kilometers and a population of almost 300 million with 300,000 men?

The US does not have enough money to start a war with itself.

Also, a criminal has no right to protect himself. You have.

If he shoots, he will face more charges. If you shoot, it's legit self-defense and you have saved the state to pay for someone's life sentence.

orangeban:
Well, considering:

1) I've never trained with a gun
2) Guns misfire
3) House robbers armed with guns in Britain? Very rare
4) You can't get a pistol in Scotland, it'd have to be a rifle or a shotgun, which are big and cumbersome.

So yeah, I think I'd be better off without a gun.

And planes fall from the sky.

Any mechanical device will fail, that's why you keep it clean. If you get yourself killed because you fucked your gun, it's your fault, not the gun's.

TechNoFear:

ElPatron:
Let's say that correlation does imply causation.

True, that is why we rely on scientific, peer reviewed studies, like Neill and Leigh 2010, which do show causation.

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?:
Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected firearm homicide and suicide rates.

We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates.

The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise.

The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf

Perhaps what caused the "insecurity" was the things that lead to suicide, but that's just me.

Perhaps depression makes people unsafe. Wow, we have discovered a great thing today.

Just watched the beginning of this clip and it reminded me of this thread. Funny man, Dylan Moran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1v5slCZj8A&feature=related

As much as I love shooting things, the fact is guns aren't safe. Guns don't have any ambition for murder, but people do, and people are dumb.

A 9mm goes through an average of 4 layers of drywall. A nine milimeter. Usually, when someone wants to scare someone else away, they pull out an overcompensation cannon.

While I think people should be allowed to own guns, fire them regularly in safe, supervised circumstances, using one for self defense is likely going to get someone killed.

Use them at your own precaution.

Angry Juju:
Why do you need to have a gun? why not a taser and/or pepper spray?

Because with home defense, you can't always count on that bringing them down. But a 12-gauge round or a .45 ACP HP? That may work out rather well.