The Big Gun Debate

[spicypepperpickle]

With the ever increasing frequency of gun-related shootings and crimes, is it time to strengthen gun control? Or is gun control the opposite of what we need to do (more guns, more people to react to these incidents)? Where does the government fit into this? Should they dictate what we can and can't own? When is the second amendment appropriate to cite and when isn't it? All this and more in this thread.

[HomuraAkemiTheHero]

I think that it would be a good idea to at least strengthen gun control just a bit not too much though just to help prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands because it seems like most of the shooting incidents I heard about it was that the criminals had easy access to guns instead of letting people get more guns because they can still end up in the wrong hands and even though someone has a gun I'm not sure if they even show you how to use one properly so even if someone had a gun during let's say a home invasion it isn't going to do much if they can't aim properly or even cock the gun quick enough to use it. Also this might just be some examples of bad parenting and safe gun-keeping but there have been incidents where kids have accidentally shot someone or their self because their parent's gun wasn't stored properly or they didn't lock the gun cabinet up but if someone buys a gun they should at least have a forum about safe gun keeping and the dangers of not doing that even though it's mentioned a lot you can never be too safe.

[spicypepperpickle]

I agree with that. The problem, in my opinion, isn't as much with the availability of guns, it's more in the proper usage and record keeping on those who have one. I think that more safety guards would be beneficial, like requiring a background check or requiring more "how-to" courses. Although, I do believe that high powered guns should be banned like semi-automatics and the military grade ones that are up for public consumption.

[beruichi]

I am assuming this is referring to the US? Can't comment on that because of my limited knowledge of US law, but gun control has become relevant (again, due to recent events) in my country, too.

 

I dislike guns. If there is anything in the history of time I'd rather not have been invented, it would be guns. (And cigarettes, but that's another story.) But since it exists, I understand the need for the police (debatable, actually, because AFAIK in London, police officers aren't allowed to carry lethal firearms?) or the military to have them. What I don't understand is why civilians want to have them. Oft cited reasons are for personal protection, but come on. I'm pretty sure there are non-lethal ways to defend oneself.

 

I just googled the second amendment, and wow, it's a constitutional right to bear arms??? In verbatim:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (copypasta from wikipedia (: )

If I recall correctly, we don't have that in ours, and our constitution is practically an edited carbon-copy of the US constitution. No wonder the US is having trouble with gun control, considering the various interpretations the SC Justices are using in relation to that.

 

Without any jurisprudence guiding me, I would say that this does not necessarily give civilians the right to bear arms. Militia refers to civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the army, and I am assuming that such training is in reference to a potential war, so that if the army needs more people, the militia can provide personnel (like in Mulan?). So, if there's no war, there is no reason for civilians to be carrying weapons around.

 

If people are worried for their safety, there's no way carrying arms is gonna solve that. Carrying guns is a haphazardly slapped on band-aid on a wound that won't protect it from getting infection. People think they are gonna feel safe 'cause they'll be like "aww yeah, I got a gun so I could fight back, pew pew pew," but wouldn't it be better if there's no "fight" at all? There's a myriad of variables here, 'cause the obvious solution would be to reduce or prevent crime so people won't fear the streets, but then there's the issue of poverty when it comes to crimes against property, and the issue of morality when it comes to crimes against persons, etc. There is no panacea for society's ills, and fixing it is a long and arduous process no one seems to be willing to bother with.

 

 

Welp, this got so flipping long, but TLDR; I oppose the idea of civilians carrying guns.

[Azurablue]

Sadly, as a Canadian, I really can't comment on US law. That said, my personal opinion as a member of the human race is that there shouldn't be any guns available to anyone except the police and the military. If we can get all of the guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, things might get a whole lot better.

 

We have so few gun-related deaths in Canada as compared to the US, it's truly frightening. You have thousands down there and we have trouble breaking into the hundreds. It's not that we don't have it here, we do. Just nowhere near the numbers. This is largely because we have very few guns in the hands of the public up here (and because we have a much smaller population than the US). Less guns on the streets means fewer killings with firearms. It's just that simple.

 

I do understand why there is such determination to keep the constitutional right upheld - that everyone has the right to bear arms. It was written into your constitution in order to enable the common American to be able to defend the country and themselves against invaders. Sounds like it makes sense. It even makes sense when you consider how many world governments get overthrown by a military coup and all democracy is tossed out the window at the point of a gun. You obey or you die. I get it. But do you really believe that this is what's going to happen down there? Is the everyday American citizen so afraid of their own government and the military that they need to have a dozen or more guns in their homes at all times?

 

While I see a certain logic in being able to raise an army at a moment's notice in the case of a large scale invasion by a foreign power, I can't really see how much good it's going to do. It's not like the US (or Canada) has manditory military training for all of its citizens (male and female). This ragtag army will be undisciplined, untrained, and quite possibly more dangerous in some ways than the invaders, despite their best efforts to be helpful. A bunch of dudes (and dudettes) who are awesome at Call Of Duty isn't the same thing at all as a fully experienced militia. A lack of discipline and training leads to friendly fire.

 

No offense is meant by my opinion. It's just that: an opinion. Guns shouldn't be in the hands of everyone everywhere for any reason. There are too many accidents and outright crimes committed all because someone could get their hands on a firearm far too easily. Gun control laws don't go nearly far enough. It should be an all-out ban.

 

Sorry to be so long-winded.

[missmadiemay]

We don't need anymore gun control laws. They need to actually enforce the ones we already have.

Really think about what outlawing guns would lead to - only the police, military, and CRIMINALS would have them. Criminals don't follows laws. What makes anyone think that they wouldn't get guns illegally? As if they don't already?

 

Also take a look at shootings recently. They're all nut jobs! Our mental health as a society needs to be focused on, not taking our guns away. All they do is pump us full of drugs to "cure" all types of these mental health issues, but half the time it makes them worse. And prescribing anti-depressants to teens? Don't even get me started on that.

 

I don't want to turn this into a medical debate, but there have been plenty of studies that all of the CRAP in our foods creates all these problems to begin with. But the medical industries make too much money on us being "sick".

[Navy]

"Women can't do this, gays can't do that, but touch my semi-automatic rifle and now you're restricting my rights."

 

 

 

 

Guns scare the living crap out of me and I don't think anyone needs them, gun control has been proven to work in other countries.

My little brother starts school for the first time in September, and I'm going to have to explain to him what to do in case of shooting, and I'm going to have to fear for his safety every day that he goes into those doors.

[beruichi]

We don't need anymore gun control laws. They need to actually enforce the ones we already have.

Really think about what outlawing guns would lead to - only the police, military, and CRIMINALS would have them. Criminals don't follows laws. What makes anyone think that they wouldn't get guns illegally? As if they don't already?

 

Also take a look at shootings recently. They're all nut jobs! Our mental health as a society needs to be focused on, not taking our guns away. All they do is pump us full of drugs to "cure" all types of these mental health issues, but half the time it makes them worse. And prescribing anti-depressants to teens? Don't even get me started on that.

 

I don't want to turn this into a medical debate, but there have been plenty of studies that all of the CRAP in our foods creates all these problems to begin with. But the medical industries make too much money on us being "sick".

 

I don't understand your logic. You want to enforce your current gun control laws, yet you say criminals don't follow the laws anyway, so what's the point? Your conclusion is despite the laws restricting gun ownership, criminals will get their hands on it anyway, and yet, you are opposed to the idea of "taking our guns away"? What do you suggest then, keep the status quo? I'm curious as to your current gun regulation laws, since I don't know anything about that; what are the safeguards you have in place?

 

I have to disagree with your whole discussion on mental health; your claim that drugs and the chemicals in our food cause mental health issues a slippery slope argument which completely disregards other variables affecting a person's mental state, like their individual experiences and the people surrounding them. I feel like you harbor a strong resentment against medicine in general, which affects your opinions on this matter, but we can't discuss that without going off-topic.

 

Though I agree with your suggestion that mental health should be more focused on, I resent your implication that criminals are automatically mentally ill. (Unless I misread your statement, and if so, I apologize.) That is the kind of thinking that needs to cease if we're ever going to lift the stigma against mentally ill persons so they could get the proper treatments they need without fear of getting shunned by society.

[missmadiemay]

 

I don't understand your logic. You want to enforce your current gun control laws, yet you say criminals don't follow the laws anyway, so what's the point? Your conclusion is despite the laws restricting gun ownership, criminals will get their hands on it anyway, and yet, you are opposed to the idea of "taking our guns away"? What do you suggest then, keep the status quo? I'm curious as to your current gun regulation laws, since I don't know anything about that; what are the safeguards you have in place?

 

Are you asking what the point is in enforcing gun control laws? Hopefully making it harder for criminals to get guns in the first place, but also allowing for harsher punishment for carrying one without a permit. In some states a permit is not even required for concealed or open carry. Most states do not require a permit to buy guns or require registration, but this also depends on the type of gun.

Ok so I'm contradicting myself a bit after going back and reading what I wrote, we do need to strengthen gun laws, but the last couple of posts I read seemed to be saying get rid of them altogether. I was spitting off at them mouth too fast - that's what I was referring to. Pardon me.

 

I have to disagree with your whole discussion on mental health; your claim that drugs and the chemicals in our food cause mental health issues a slippery slope argument which completely disregards other variables affecting a person's mental state, like their individual experiences and the people surrounding them. I feel like you harbor a strong resentment against medicine in general, which affects your opinions on this matter, but we can't discuss that without going off-topic.

As far as having a resentment towards medicine in general, well, yes and no. Modern medicine has come so far and helped so many people, but too often doctors are quick to diagnose and prescribe medicine without investigating very far and finding the real problem. This can be very dangerous with mind altering drugs, narcotic or not. I'm not saying that medicine can't help people, rather that it's abused and over-prescribed. I also think there should be more preventative measures out there focused on being healthy. I wasn't saying that ALL mental health issues result from antibiotics/chemicals/gmos/etc in our food. That would be absurd. I don't know if you've read anything about the over-consumption of sugar and all the other things in our food, but it is pretty scary stuff.

 

Though I agree with your suggestion that mental health should be more focused on, I resent your implication that criminals are automatically mentally ill. (Unless I misread your statement, and if so, I apologize.) That is the kind of thinking that needs to cease if we're ever going to lift the stigma against mentally ill persons so they could get the proper treatments they need without fear of getting shunned by society.

Sorry I get my thoughts jumbled and am at work all day, so I forget what I started off with sometimes. No I wasn't saying that all criminals are mentally ill. If only that were their only motivation and not greed/desperation/whatever! I was speaking in regards to recent school shootings.

 

 

You never hear on the big news stations about how guns have SAVED peoples' lives, only the horror stories.

See http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx for a few examples.

 

It is estimated (I think this is a little old, 2007 maybe?) that civilians own around 270 millions firearms in America. Do you really think the government is going to get rid of all these?

[Shelley]

The less guns in the general public, the better. I'm sorry but the thought that MORE people need to be armed is ridiculous.

 

The other day on the news I was hearing more about the big topic of arming teachers. We shouldn't even be having that conversation in the first place!! How terrifying to know that this is what has become of our society. That we actually have to have a conversation about if teachers should carry guns or not in their classroom of ten year olds.

 

While I realize that guns can save lives (by having the power to kill others), the amount of harm they do outweighs the good. Seriously, they're machines designed to kill, are we really going to sit around and glorify them?

 

The argument of how to control this epidemic of shootings is not to treat fire with fire.

 

I mean good god, you are aware that our society is now making real firearms in child size now?? Why not add fun colors too!

[wolfponies]

I don't think it's fair in a country like the US to apply a law preventing civilians to own a gun/rifle/whatever can kill and take all guns already owned by civilians away from them. Since guns are perfectly legal to buy at the moment, we can assume a very high percentage of the dangerous and violent criminals already own a gun. Now if you suddenly say it's against the law to own a gun and send out the government to confiscate all guns, then I'm sure a majority of normal people will hand them over simply because they neither are nor want to be criminals. The criminals however won't happily hand in their guns because they've chosen a criminal life, a life in which guns are a must. The result of gun prevention and confiscation will thus be significantly less weapons among normal citizens. The winners will be the criminals who can now more easily rob places/people or perform any illegal action made easier because of guns.

I'm against guns but I think the US is doomed to keep allowing civilians to buy guns.

[missmadiemay]

I don't think it's fair in a country like the US to apply a law preventing civilians to own a gun/rifle/whatever can kill and take all guns already owned by civilians away from them. Since guns are perfectly legal to buy at the moment, we can assume a very high percentage of the dangerous and violent criminals already own a gun. Now if you suddenly say it's against the law to own a gun and send out the government to confiscate all guns, then I'm sure a majority of normal people will hand them over simply because they neither are nor want to be criminals. The criminals however won't happily hand in their guns because they've chosen a criminal life, a life in which guns are a must. The result of gun prevention and confiscation will thus be significantly less weapons among normal citizens. The winners will be the criminals who can now more easily rob places/people or perform any illegal action made easier because of guns.

I'm against guns but I think the US is doomed to keep allowing civilians to buy guns.

Yessss why couldn't I say it that simply.

[Shelley]

I don't think it's fair in a country like the US to apply a law preventing civilians to own a gun/rifle/whatever can kill and take all guns already owned by civilians away from them. Since guns are perfectly legal to buy at the moment, we can assume a very high percentage of the dangerous and violent criminals already own a gun. Now if you suddenly say it's against the law to own a gun and send out the government to confiscate all guns, then I'm sure a majority of normal people will hand them over simply because they neither are nor want to be criminals. The criminals however won't happily hand in their guns because they've chosen a criminal life, a life in which guns are a must. The result of gun prevention and confiscation will thus be significantly less weapons among normal citizens. The winners will be the criminals who can now more easily rob places/people or perform any illegal action made easier because of guns.

I'm against guns but I think the US is doomed to keep allowing civilians to buy guns.

 

The United States Government doesn't want to confiscate everyone's firearms (well granted you don't commit any of said crimes that call for the revoke of your license). I don't think that's ever been a point of discussion. It's just the future restrictions placed on acquiring guns that everyone's "up in arms" about (heh no pun intended :p)

 

I don't think we're doomed. I think slowly strengthening our guns law will help tremendously.

[wolfponies]

 

 

I don't think we're doomed. I think slowly strengthening our guns law will help tremendously.

 

How do you slowly strengthen the gun laws?

 

Also, if the government has no intention of confiscating guns, then I think demanding something like a weapon license (which should only be obtainable by military, hunters, competing shooters and so on) is a good idea. By demanding this, many stores selling guns and ammunition would probably need to close due to economical problems from less people buying guns because they can't. The number of guns would slowly decrease, both among normal civilians and criminals. It's a very slow process but probably necessary. In the end I'd assume that only a few civilians would own a gun but also less criminals would own a gun since they're harder to get.

[Shelley]

 

How do you slowly strengthen the gun laws?

 

Also, if the government has no intention of confiscating guns, then I think demanding something like a weapon license (which should only be obtainable by military, hunters, competing shooters and so on) is a good idea. By demanding this, many stores selling guns and ammunition would probably need to close due to economical problems from less people buying guns because they can't. The number of guns would slowly decrease, both among normal civilians and criminals. It's a very slow process but probably necessary. In the end I'd assume that only a few civilians would own a gun but also less criminals would own a gun since they're harder to get.

 

here..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

there already are certain restrictions with certain weapons and licenses..it varies from state to state and depends on the type of gun, but you can get an idea of the permits and such from this page.

 

but yeah! you kind of answered you own question, that's pretty much what I mean, what many people are aiming for. Add more restrictions over time. Just don't go all out tomorrow and be like "yo! no one's allowed to buy guns anymore!" lol ..there has to be compromise over time.

[Navy]

It's not a mental health problem, it's a gun problem and this will never stop until we treat it like one.

[beruichi]

...

As far as having a resentment towards medicine in general, well, yes and no. Modern medicine has come so far and helped so many people, but too often doctors are quick to diagnose and prescribe medicine without investigating very far and finding the real problem. This can be very dangerous with mind altering drugs, narcotic or not. I'm not saying that medicine can't help people, rather that it's abused and over-prescribed. I also think there should be more preventative measures out there focused on being healthy. I wasn't saying that ALL mental health issues result from antibiotics/chemicals/gmos/etc in our food. That would be absurd. I don't know if you've read anything about the over-consumption of sugar and all the other things in our food, but it is pretty scary stuff.

...

Sorry I get my thoughts jumbled and am at work all day, so I forget what I started off with sometimes. No I wasn't saying that all criminals are mentally ill. If only that were their only motivation and not greed/desperation/whatever! I was speaking in regards to recent school shootings.

 

You never hear on the big news stations about how guns have SAVED peoples' lives, only the horror stories.

See http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx for a few examples.

 

It is estimated (I think this is a little old, 2007 maybe?) that civilians own around 270 millions firearms in America. Do you really think the government is going to get rid of all these?

Ah yes, well I think we can agree that medicine isn't bad per se, it's just that some people try to take advantage of those who need them in order to make a profit. Unfortunately, being in a capitalist society, people think it's fine to grab any opportunity to make money, regardless of the fact that they're trampling on somebody else's feet in the process. Gonna scream cultural revolution anytime now so I'll stop here. (:

 

I also agree with you on the preventive health care part. I've seen a documentary called Food Inc. that discusses how multinational corporations control the food industry in the US, and how they manipulate the system in order to make sure that the unhealthy foods are cheaper than the healthy ones (see McDonald's food prices vs. prices of organic produce). Again, at the risk of repeating myself, my leanings will tell me this problem is rooted in the prevailing capitalist system.

 

So I'm reading all the news headlines in the link you gave, but it still didn't change my mind about removing guns from the general public. It's a reactionary measure, giving people guns to protect themselves; it doesn't solve the inherent problem of why they need protection in the first place. Robber, robber, robber, home invader, home invader, robber, robber, robber, home invader, robber. Isn't there a pattern here? The crimes are all against property (except for the murder charges in some, but I think that's just incidental to the robbery). I think the people who resort to these crimes are in desperate need (or part of a crime syndicate lol). It's an oversimplification of motives, but it is the most common one (in our news, at least). I'm going to stubbornly maintain that addressing poverty is a better move than letting civilians carry arms. What's the point of the police force, then, if you're willing to give civilians a literal weapon to take the law into their own hands?

[Batgirl]

actually data worldwide on how gun control is working is quite varied. and within the US, it actually tends to correlate to worse violence.

 

i wouldnt object to more requirements in terms of education and maintenance. But I don't think stricter bg checks are as good an idea as they seem on the surface, and I do think it's a difficult conv to have because most people discussing it arent directly affected, and most who have been directly affected are set in their views, in either direction, so firmly that it wouldnt really matter what data showed.

 

and beruichi, with respect, you may not have looked at the very example you give carefully. if people in need are much more likely to have an armed intruder enter their home, that makes it even more crucial that they be able to be armed themselves.

[hrtbrk]

I don't think it's fair in a country like the US to apply a law preventing civilians to own a gun/rifle/whatever can kill and take all guns already owned by civilians away from them. Since guns are perfectly legal to buy at the moment, we can assume a very high percentage of the dangerous and violent criminals already own a gun. Now if you suddenly say it's against the law to own a gun and send out the government to confiscate all guns, then I'm sure a majority of normal people will hand them over simply because they neither are nor want to be criminals. The criminals however won't happily hand in their guns because they've chosen a criminal life, a life in which guns are a must. The result of gun prevention and confiscation will thus be significantly less weapons among normal citizens. The winners will be the criminals who can now more easily rob places/people or perform any illegal action made easier because of guns.

I'm against guns but I think the US is doomed to keep allowing civilians to buy guns.

People think this cannot be done but Australia did it. And it worked.

 

There hasn't been any major shooting sprees since.

[Batgirl]

australia is not the us. not socially. not geographically. not in any way.

 

it is MUCH easier to control what comes in and goes out there. gun control can sometimes work in places where you can reasonably prevent most citizens and most criminals from getting them, and where the law enforcers can generally be trusted. but it fails abyssmally in a situation where criminals can and citizens cant, or when law enforcement is deeply problematic.

[hrtbrk]

Of course, but I do not think it is an unobtainable goal if the USA was to go though with such plan especially since this generation very proactive and more adaptive to change than let's say the older generation that's currently against it. (speaking of semi-automatic weapons etc)

 

Corruption is everywhere, but I would not be surprised if this is something I saw the US do in my lifetime.

 

It certainly wouldn't get rid of every single gun in America, but it would greatly diminish the accessibility to them and may prevent them getting into the wrong hands.

[Batgirl]

All that does is increase the 'status' of criminals having them and leave citizens undefended. It's all fine and well to say rely on the police, if you haven't truly and unavoidably lived someplace where the police will not come, will not care, or are part of the problem.

 

Don't get me wrong, in a world where some of this could safely be enforced, I would feel differently. But I am not a fan of solutions based on magic wands. It is not possible to control illegal gun traffic in the US without it becoming the kind of Orwellian nightmare that makes some people feel a need to own a gun ala 2nd amendment to begin with. So, not obtainable in the US by any means that wouldn't make me really, really uncomfortable not having firearms.

 

And, it is not realistic to think that criminals are not even MORE interested in guns and the crimes that go with them the safer they feel about the victims not having firearms. The kinds of violence pointed to can, and often is, done by other means just as deadly. As guns became harder to obtain in NY, gun deaths did go down. Deaths by bat, knife, deliberate vehicular homicide, mass beatings, and other methods all rose right up to fill in the gap. It sounded nice on paper to say gun deaths went down - but it didn't actually make anyone any safer, any saner, or any more empowered.

[missmadiemay]

All that does is increase the 'status' of criminals having them and leave citizens undefended. It's all fine and well to say rely on the police, if you haven't truly and unavoidably lived someplace where the police will not come, will not care, or are part of the problem.

 

Don't get me wrong, in a world where some of this could safely be enforced, I would feel differently. But I am not a fan of solutions based on magic wands. It is not possible to control illegal gun traffic in the US without it becoming the kind of Orwellian nightmare that makes some people feel a need to own a gun ala 2nd amendment to begin with. So, not obtainable in the US by any means that wouldn't make me really, really uncomfortable not having firearms.

 

And, it is not realistic to think that criminals are not even MORE interested in guns and the crimes that go with them the safer they feel about the victims not having firearms. The kinds of violence pointed to can, and often is, done by other means just as deadly. As guns became harder to obtain in NY, gun deaths did go down. Deaths by bat, knife, deliberate vehicular homicide, mass beatings, and other methods all rose right up to fill in the gap. It sounded nice on paper to say gun deaths went down - but it didn't actually make anyone any safer, any saner, or any more empowered.

Totally agree.

 

I don't live IN Jackson MS, but I live close to it. I've spoken with cops who won't even go in certain areas, because it is too dangerous for them. People will shoot at them just because they are cops. Good luck if you live there and don't have a gun to protect you, because the police aren't coming.

[passiflora]

I'm no expert on the topic so my arguments against guns are largely emotional ones. I'm in favour of gun control but I'm also not American so in the end, it doesn't really matter. I just know that *I* would not feel any safer owning a gun. I think they escalate dangerous situations instead of de-escalate them.

 

 

You never hear on the big news stations about how guns have SAVED peoples' lives, only the horror stories.

See http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx for a few examples.

 

So I'm reading all the news headlines in the link you gave, but it still didn't change my mind about removing guns from the general public. It's a reactionary measure, giving people guns to protect themselves; it doesn't solve the inherent problem of why they need protection in the first place. Robber, robber, robber, home invader, home invader, robber, robber, robber, home invader, robber. Isn't there a pattern here? The crimes are all against property (except for the murder charges in some, but I think that's just incidental to the robbery). I think the people who resort to these crimes are in desperate need (or part of a crime syndicate lol). It's an oversimplification of motives, but it is the most common one (in our news, at least). I'm going to stubbornly maintain that addressing poverty is a better move than letting civilians carry arms. What's the point of the police force, then, if you're willing to give civilians a literal weapon to take the law into their own hands?

 

Couldn't agree more with beruichi. Reading through those headlines, I see a bunch of preventable deaths. This is an assumption, but I don't think most people who commit property crimes bring guns to their crime scenes intending to kill their victims. I.e., if the victim complies, nobody gets hurt. It's unfortunate and nobody wants it to happen to them, but as mentioned, the people committing these crimes are often acting out of desperation - I don't think getting shot by another civilian is any form of justice.

 

What's more, I can conduct a quick Google search and probably match every headline with an equally regrettable one, including but not limited to:

 

• Police: Man mistakes wife for intruder, shoots her
• Man who shot wife in error can sympathise with Oscar
• 55-year-old father allegedly mistakes 16-year-old daughter's boyfriend for intruder, shoots and kills him
• Charles Williams Shot, Killed By Wife Mistaking Him For Intruder: New Orleans Police
• Man shoots wife in chest as she returns home after mistaking her for an intruder
• Wife, Mistaken For Burglar, Killed

 

and beruichi, with respect, you may not have looked at the very example you give carefully. if people in need are much more likely to have an armed intruder enter their home, that makes it even more crucial that they be able to be armed themselves.

 

I think what she was saying is that people in need are much more likely to be an armed intruder.

[wolfponies]

People think this cannot be done but Australia did it. And it worked.

 

There hasn't been any major shooting sprees since.

 

I think that's a very bad example. Start presenting figures and I'm sure this statement fails.