Guns

[TenEightyOne]

Thanks for confirming what I suspected.

Your initial comment was not founded in any fact or real experience or knowledge on the subject.

So only gun owners have any knowledge of the subject? That seems to be a deluded point of view, I think.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's not what I said, what I said was that those situations didn't require an AR15 (emphasis on "require"), the fact that's what was used is beside the point. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post since you won't read my response anyways.

Also, you know what, you're right, I'm no longer on your side. REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!

Don't say that, just because of one myopic poster, who is so ingrained on his own personal mission he fights friend or foe when it comes to topic at hand.

So only gun owners have any knowledge of the subject? That seems to be a deluded point of view, I think.

Once again guys don't feed the troll.

 

[Northstar]

Don't say that, just because of one myopic poster, who is so ingrained on his own personal mission he fights friend or foe when it comes to topic at hand.

It would take alot more than that to change my views.

 

[RC45]

So only gun owners have any knowledge of the subject? That seems to be a deluded point of view, I think.

That is not what I posted.

What I posted was that my suspicion was that the poster had little practical or meaningful firearms knowledge and that is why he made the comment he did.

By way of example and proof I showed he was not correct and that my suspicion was well founded.

He did not know that:

a) an AR15 can and has been used for home defense in non-war torn arenas and that

b) there are scenarios where an AR15 would be the required self defense platform to give the defender the best possible advantage.

Now let us see if any of the other responders attacking my fact backed position have anything meaningful to add to the debate.

 

[Northstar]

b) there are scenarios where an AR15 would be the required self defense platform to give the defender the best possible advantage.

Still waiting on this by the way (posting events where they just happened to be the WoC isn't enough either)...

 

[RC45]

Still waiting on this by the way (posting events where they just happened to be the WoC isn't enough either)...

In both scenarios posted the rifle was the weapon that was provided for the defender to use.

It is no mistake that in both those scenarios the provider of the weapon (the husband and police parent) had provided access to the rifles.

But be that as it may, you are continuing to argue a point from a position of ignorance - again, where the individual is slight of frame and/or does not have the natural wrist and arm strength to accurately and confidently wield a pistol or revolver, it would still mean that the person have the best weapon at hand for the ensuing fight.

In this scenario the person would be required to use a rifle to have the best weapon in hand. The only way they could have the best weapon on hand would be if they had a rifle - this is now getting down to simple language not even common sense.

Oh - and it is no coincidence that SWAT teams breach with rifles, not hand guns - if they are to have the best weapon at hand they would be required to use rifles - which is what they do.

Why are you arguing this point any way? Your position was shown to be incorrect a while back.

 

[Northstar]

In both scenarios posted the rifle was the weapon that was provided for the defender to use.

You still aren't answering my request. I'm asking for you to give me a scenario where an assault rifle is the only option (As in, if you were to be holding a pistol you might as well save the coroner some time and crawl into a body bag). Neither of the videos you posted fill that very simple criteria.

 

[Tornado]

The fact that someone (or two people, in this case) used a rifle for the purposes of home defense is not in and of itself proof that the rifle was a requirement for home defense, or even that it was the best option. It is proof of nothing else other than that it was used in those specific instances.

 

[RC45]

You still aren't answering my request. I'm asking for you to give me a scenario where an assault rifle is the only option (As in, if you were to be holding a pistol you might as well save the coroner some time and crawl into a body bag). Neither of the videos you posted fill that very simple criteria.

In a jurisdiction where the mere possession of a hand gun by a minor or presence of a hand gun is a crime, a rifle is the only legal firearm option for self defense. In that case it is the required firearm.

To which your response will be "but where is it REQUIRED to have a firearm for defense"?

I can see this type of childish response keep coming up. I just have to wonder why?

The fact that someone (or two people, in this case) used a rifle for the purposes of home defense is not in and of itself proof that the rifle was a requirement for home defense, or even that it was the best option. It is proof of nothing else other than that it was used in those specific instances.

Using your logic what hand gun caliber is REQUIRED for home defense?

.50, .45, .40,, 10mm, 9mm, 38 Special, TCM22, 5.7mm, .22?

That you are arguing a semantic is all the proof needed that both of your positions have no merit or standing.

When is a handgun REQUIRED for home defense?

 

[Tornado]

Where did I say anything about handguns being REQUIRED for anything?

 

[Imari]

Oh - and it is no coincidence that SWAT teams breach with rifles, not hand guns - if they are to have the best weapon at hand they would be required to use rifles - which is what they do.

Er, SWAT teams use carbines, don't they? That being a compromise between a handgun and a rifle, and therefore affording them the greatest flexibility in an unknown situation.

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-weapons-and-tactics/

That says entry teams are armed with carbines, SMGs and handguns. Obviously in situations where a rifle would be preferable they'd use a rifle, but I can't see any particular advantage to having a long barrel inside an enclosed area.

 

[RC45]

Where did I say anything about handguns being REQUIRED for anything?

You didn't' - it was a way to introduce your defense of, and the original posters pointless school yard point "A rifles is not REQUIRED , naanaananaanna... I got yoouuu!!1!1!" to each other.

If that is the posters attitude, then strictly speaking a hand gun is not REQUIRED either - making his point sort of pointless, because the alternative he is touting is not REQUIRED either.

Er, SWAT teams use carbines, don't they? That being a compromise between a handgun and a rifle, and therefore affording them the greatest flexibility in an unknown situation.

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-weapons-and-tactics/

That says entry teams are armed with carbines, SMGs and handguns. Obviously in situations where a rifle would be preferable they'd use a rifle, but I can't see any particular advantage to having a long barrel inside an enclosed area.

Er, I was giving general non-gun folks a chance to keep up. The civilian form of the carbine - the SBR or short barrel rifle, in either rifle or pistol caliber, is slightly more complicated to buy and own, requiring an NFA tax stamp and application and registration.

So, absent the SBR by name from the discussion, a 16.5" barrel AR15-like platform (even an AK-like platform) with a telescoping (or folding) stock would still be the required platform if the home defender was to have the best possible firepower and platform against the home invader, especially if the home defender does not have the wrist and arm strength to wield the heavier, larger caliber pistols or revolvers.

Exactly what are you folks trying to argue here? That any home defender is required to use the least capable platform legally available, or are you just arguing the semantics of the word "required"?

 

[Imari]

Exactly what are you folks trying to argue here? That any home defender is required to use the least capable platform legally available, or are you just arguing the semantics of the word "required"?

I'm not arguing anything. You said SWAT teams use rifles, I thought "that's odd, I wouldn't want to go into an apartment complex swinging a long barrel around, I wonder why they do that". I looked it up, and they don't.

So while you were trying to argue that an AR15 was an ideal gun type for home defense and using SWAT as an example of this, it turns out that SWAT are not. They use carbines, SMGs, and handguns. Any of which, depending on the situation, could be ideal for home defense. Even shotguns have their place.

You weren't giving non-gun folks a chance to keep up, because the only thing you do by muddling terms like that is confuse people. If you think people are going to misunderstand, then explain rather than simply sweep it under the rug.

You messed up, a rifle or an AR15 is almost never the ideal choice for home defense, unless you live in a basketball stadium. It's a solid choice, and given the other things that an AR15 can be used for it's a great all-rounder. If you had to have one gun and one gun only, you could do a lot worse. But the number 1 choice for home defense it is not.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Surely the best possible defensive firepower is one notch up from what your potential aggressor might have? Since criminals aren't subject to gun control, I don't see why the USG isn't selling Phalanx for home Defence.

 

[RC45]

I'm not arguing anything. You said SWAT teams use rifles, I thought "that's odd, I wouldn't want to go into an apartment complex swinging a long barrel around, I wonder why they do that". I looked it up, and they don't.

So while you were trying to argue that an AR15 was an ideal gun type for home defense and using SWAT as an example of this, it turns out that SWAT are not. They use carbines, SMGs, and handguns. Any of which, depending on the situation, could be ideal for home defense. Even shotguns have their place.

You weren't giving non-gun folks a chance to keep up, because the only thing you do by muddling terms like that is confuse people. If you think people are going to misunderstand, then explain rather than simply sweep it under the rug.

You messed up, a rifle or an AR15 is almost never the ideal choice for home defense, unless you live in a basketball stadium. It's a solid choice, and given the other things that an AR15 can be used for it's a great all-rounder. If you had to have one gun and one gun only, you could do a lot worse. But the number 1 choice for home defense it is not.

Here is a video that explains visually why anyone's concern of the extra length of wielding the rifle/shotgun platform in the home situation is not founded in reality.

The lesson involved shotgun versus pistol, but the explanation is the same - a properly held and presented handgun is almost the same length as a long gun brought to bear.

And again, imagine a slight framed man/woman or child presenting a handgun versus presenting a long gun. I would not ask a slight framed person to try bring a shotgun to bear, again the AR15 is the smart choice.

Look, none of these things I am saying or suggesting are coming from a vacuum - I am presenting to you sound and practiced self defense information.

At the end of the day, the gun you do have access to and can use is what you have - and it is better than not having any gun at all.

I am not dismissing any particular type of firearm for home defense, but I am defending the ones that some people suggest have no use.

 

[Northstar]

You didn't' - it was a way to introduce your defense of, and the original posters pointless school yard point "A rifles is not REQUIRED , naanaananaanna... I got yoouuu!!1!1!" to each other.

If that is the posters attitude, then strictly speaking a hand gun is not REQUIRED either - making his point sort of pointless, because the alternative he is touting is not REQUIRED either.

Okay, I think we need to just take a minute and refresh here.

This is the post that started it all...

I know it's not the current topic of discussion, but I never get why people use self defense for justifying needing anything other than a handgun or hunting rifle. Don't get me wrong, if you want one and are responsible I have no problem with people owning them. But is it so hard to just be honest enough to say you want a high powered gun because you like shooting them? Using the "self-defense" line just seems like saying you need a La Ferrari in case you ever need to outrun a tornado.

Note: If you are in an area where a semi-automatic rifle is required to stay alive, you should probably re-evaluate some things in your life.

Nowhere in that post or any other post have I said that nobody should have them, I was just questioning that particular line of reasoning. I've also never said that a handgun is not required, in fact I've stated the opposite, that it's a perfectly fine form of self defense.

To this you responded...

Now I am sure that nonsense makes sense in your mind...

What one sounds more like a schoolyard response to you?

And by the way, you still haven't come up with a scenario where an assault rifle is the only possible form of self-defense*...

*I'm actually kind of surprised by this as you could easily go with one of the countless cases of SWAT teams going to wrong houses and shooting the place up. But hey, who am I to tell you how to debate your point.

 

[RC45]

Okay, I think we need to just take a minute and refresh here.

This is the post that started it all...

I know it's not the current topic of discussion, but I never get why people use self defense for justifying needing anything other than a handgun or hunting rifle. Don't get me wrong, if you want one and are responsible I have no problem with people owning them. But is it so hard to just be honest enough to say you want a high powered gun because you like shooting them? Using the "self-defense" line just seems like saying you need a La Ferrari in case you ever need to outrun a tornado.
Note: If you are in an area where a semi-automatic rifle is required to stay alive, you should probably re-evaluate some things in your life.

Pal, your post was a flippant un-educated post (I bolded the most blatant inaccuracies) trying to make light and pose in a bad light the idea that an "assault rifle" was a good home defense platform.

I showed your opinion to be ill founded yet still you continue. And yes your post was nonsense and can only make sense in your mind. The bottom-line is you where wrong.

Nowhere in that post or any other post have I said that nobody should have them, I was just questioning that particular line of reasoning. I've also never said that a handgun is not required, in fact I've stated the opposite, that it's a perfectly fine form of self defense.

Using your own logic, a hand gun is not REQUIRED to survive a home invasion - simply hiding in silence could also work. So why have a hand gun if they are not REQUIRED to survive a home invasion?

To this you responded...

What one sounds more like a schoolyard response to you?

And by the way, you still haven't come up with a scenario where an assault rifle is the only possible form of self-defense*...

*I'm actually kind of surprised by this as you could easily go with one of the countless cases of SWAT teams going to wrong houses and shooting the place up. But hey, who am I to tell you how to debate your point.

BTW, the idea that you are going to hold off SWAT to "prove a point" is pretty ignorant, whether or not SWAT raided the incorrect house, they will by way of overwhelming force kill you during that scenario, so trying to use that as the only justification for an AR as a home defense platform is just as silly as your first post.

Quit while you still think you are ahead.

This comment ----> Note: If you are in an area where a semi-automatic rifle is required to stay alive, you should probably re-evaluate some things in your life. Is both flippant and ill thought out. You are trying to make the case that only people living in a war zone would ever conceivable need an AR style platform.

 

[Northstar]

You are trying to make the case that only people living in a war zone would ever conceivable need an AR style platform.

And I'm still waiting for you to make a case for the other side...

Anyways, the amusement of this conversation has ran out for me so I'm bowing out. So yeah, good night, make sure you tuck your guns in tight.

 

[Imari]

This comment ----> Note: If you are in an area where a semi-automatic rifle is required to stay alive, you should probably re-evaluate some things in your life. Is both flippant and ill thought out.

Seems accurate to me. If you're in a situation where you need serious firepower for defense, one of the best things you could do would be to move to a place where you don't need serious firepower for defense.

The best way to not get shot is not to be in situations where you're being shot at.

 

[Michael88]

The best way to not get shot is not to be in situations where you're being shot at.

Such a wise, universal advice. Also the best way not to slip and break your leg is to avoid situations where you slip and break your leg.

Ah, life would be so easy if things were as simple as that *snickers*

 

[Imari]

Such a wise, universal advice. Also the best way not to slip and break your leg is to avoid situations where you slip and break your leg.

Ah, life would be so easy if things were as simple as that *snickers*

You can be a smart arse all you like, but it's true. Certainly, it's nice to be armed for the situations where life slips you lemons by surprise and you just have to deal with it. But if you're actually living in a situation where you're planning ahead for how you're going to defend yourself from a serious armed invasion, your time might be better spent getting yourself out of that situation instead of figuring out how to shoot the other guy in the face.

I remember talking to a highly qualified martial artist some years back, and I made some comment not unlike you, about how it must be nice to know that you'll win any fight that you get in. "You've got it all wrong", he told me. "I don't let other people get into fights with me". He would go out of his way to make sure that people couldn't get into a fight with him, or that he wouldn't be in situations where his only reasonable choice would be to fight someone. And with good reason, he probably would have killed or seriously injured someone.

A firearm is the same thing, to me. You can have one for defense and it's a good thing to have, but you spend all your time making sure that you will never have to use it. Serious martial artists learn this as they spend 20 years honing their craft, so once you're good enough to kill someone you're also aware that if you ever have to do it then you're the one who :censored:ed up.

I think that message fails to get passed on to a lot of gun owners who can simply walk into a shop and buy the ability to kill with ease. You may have a gun as security against the day you 🤬 up and find yourself in an untenable situation, but you should absolutely be doing everything you can to try and make sure that you never have to use that weapon in anger.

 

[Tornado]

You didn't'

So this bit here, where you assigned an argument I didn't say as being following from "my logic" when you clearly didn't read what I actually said:

Using your logic what hand gun caliber is REQUIRED for home defense?

.50, .45, .40,, 10mm, 9mm, 38 Special, TCM22, 5.7mm, .22?

Was just meaningless pap so you could try and be ahead of the curve in trying to look clever. Or, in other words, it was just your attempt at doing this:

naanaananaanna... I got yoouuu!!1!1!

Without actually checking to see if you had in fact "got" anyone. For what it's worth, I would use .45 because I like how .45s fire compared to the snappy recoil I dislike about .40s and I don't like the idea of a 9mm stuck with the NY magazine size laws.




Unfortunately for you, the initial question remains in the air since you've spent much more time talking out of your ass with vague "facts" then you have actually defending the assertion you made out to be "reality": In what situation is a long gun, be it an AR platform or Mini-14 or Saiga or any other similar popular medium-to-high powered rifle, required for home defense? Not usable. Not an option. Not a manner of personal preference. Required, since those were the words Northstar used and those were the words you flipped out on him over.
Because right now you've posted two examples of people who happened to use them for home defense because that's what they had access to, but that doesn't actually prove anything (and for someone who keeps throwing around the word "logic" around I hope you actually apply it this time in your response) for why they were ideal for that usage or that they couldn't have been better served with some other weapon; nevermind whether they were required to drive off two possibly unarmed guys or three guys with a fake gun. Because as someone who does own several long guns and does own separate weapons specifically for self defense against home invasions, I'm really struggling to see how a semi-automatic rifle is an inherently better solution as it pertains specifically to home self defense than the Ithaca 37 I have in the closet about 10 feet away from me or the Auto 5 I have downstairs are unless I'm somehow home invaded by a small platoon of burglars. Though I can certainly think of a couple of disadvantages, no real objective advantage comes to mind. If there is one, please, by all means, clearly state what it is.
And no, I don't really think "because a 15 year old boy home alone with his 12 year old sister can more easily shoot anyone who breaks into their house multiple times with an AR-15 than he could with a different type of gun he has unsupervised access to" is a particularly well thought out bit reasoning, for the record.

 

[RC45]

*snip*

I think that message fails to get passed on to a lot of gun owners who can simply walk into a shop and buy the ability to kill with ease. You may have a gun as security against the day you 🤬 up and find yourself in an untenable situation, but you should absolutely be doing everything you can to try and make sure that you never have to use that weapon in anger.

Hello - THAT is the mind set of every law abiding gun owner. The life altering repercussions of ever having to use a firearm causes law abiding folks with a lot to lose, to in fact, steer clear of confrontation where possible. That's why it is a DEFENSIVE tool.

It is the CRIMINAL that seeks out conflict and confrontation.

Why is it that every anti-gunner to a T just assumes all gun owners are of the criminal mind set and are killers plotting their next raid?

Anti-gunners are the ones all caught up in the Call Of Duty hype, not law abiding gun owners, as anti-gun folks keep bringing up these scenarios that they believe gun owners are either living for, looking for or creating.

All of which are false narratives.

It gets old real quick to continually have holier than though anti-gunners preach on and on. It hasn't occured that law abiding educated gun owners haven't already thought though all of this very carefully before?

So this bit here, where you assigned an argument I didn't say as being following from "my logic" when you clearly didn't read what I actually said:

Was just meaningless pap so you could try and be ahead of the curve in trying to look clever. Or, in other words, it was just your attempt at doing this:

Both you and Northstar like the idea that no situation exists where a rifle is required for home defense.

I gave you an example - a jurisdiction where a minor may not legally possess a handgun.

But again - using your logic that a rifle is not required for home defense, a hand gun is also not REQUIRED for home defense.

Please go ahead and indicate where a handgun is required for home defense. <-- this is a rhetorical question as I really don't feel like dodging another of your asinine "word" games.

Without actually checking to see if you had in fact "got" anyone. For what it's worth, I would use .45 because I like how .45s fire compared to the snappy recoil I dislike about .40s and I don't like the idea of a 9mm stuck with the NY magazine size laws.

Reading is not your strong suite - this comment "You didn't' - it was a way to introduce your defense of, and the original posters pointless school yard point "A rifles is not REQUIRED , naanaananaanna... I got yoouuu!!1!1!" to each other. is referring to you and Northstar comparing notes how you got me on the word "required", not the other way round.

Unfortunately for you, the initial question remains in the air since you've spent much more time talking out of your ass with vague "facts" then you have actually defending the assertion you made out to be "reality": In what situation is a long gun, be it an AR platform or Mini-14 or Saiga or any other similar popular medium-to-high powered rifle, required for home defense? Not usable. Not an option. Not a manner of personal preference. Required, since those were the words Northstar used and those were the words you flipped out on him over.

In a jurisdiction where a minor is prohibited from possessing a hand gun.

Because right now you've posted two examples of people who happened to use them for home defense because that's what they had access to, but that doesn't actually prove anything (and for someone who keeps throwing around the word "logic" around I hope you actually apply it this time in your response) for why they were ideal for that usage or that they couldn't have been better served with some other weapon; nevermind whether they were required to drive off two possibly unarmed guys or three guys with a fake gun. Because as someone who does own several long guns and does own separate weapons specifically for self defense against home invasions, I'm really struggling to see how a semi-automatic rifle is an inherently better solution as it pertains specifically to home self defense than the Ithaca 37 I have in the closet about 10 feet away from me or the Auto 5 I have downstairs are unless I'm somehow home invaded by a small platoon of burglars. Though I can certainly think of a couple of disadvantages, no real objective advantage comes to mind. If there is one, please, by all means, clearly state what it is.

So it boils down to you having a pseudo-intellectual circle jerk about the word "required". You feel better now?

Your choice to not use a semi-auto rifle as home defense weapon is yours. Its a poor choice if you have rifles at your disposal.

And no, I don't really think "because a 15 year old boy home alone with his 12 year old sister can more easily shoot anyone who breaks into their house multiple times with an AR-15 than he could with a different type of gun he has unsupervised access to" is a particularly well thought out bit reasoning, for the record.

Then you would be clearly ill informed. I have been part of a couple of training exercises geared towards youths and small framed women that have allowed direct family members to receive training for exactly these types of situations.

Your short sighted view of home defense is quite telling. A shotgun and large caliber hand guns are unsuitable for use by small framed women and teenagers - and the popular smaller caliber handguns (380, 32 and 22) are only good where the attacker is reasonably close at hand and they are not going stop a determined attacker in their tracks - and the point of effective home defense is to either drive off the attacker or stop him before he closes in.

Again, a light weight rifle that is held in a two handed grip is easier for a slight framed woman to wield and accurately deliver rounds on target.

But I digress, you are still circle jerking with Northstar over the word "required".

 

[Denur]

Why is it that every anti-gunner to a T just assumes all gun owners are of the criminal mind set and are killers plotting their next raid?

 

[Imari]

You anti-gunners are the ones all caught up in the Call Of Duty hype, not law abiding gun owners, as you folks keep bringing up these scenarios you seem to believe gun owners are either living for, looking for or creating.

All of which are false narratives.

Let me get this straight.

I say that gun owners should be trying to avoid confrontation, which you seem to agree with pretty strongly.

@Michael88 comes back with the smart quip, and I elaborate on the point.

And you're having a go at me for this? I'm pointing out what you rightly identify as the obvious to someone who clearly didn't get that message. I don't know whether he's a gun owner or not, but I sincerely doubt that there are no gun owners that share the attitude.

It gets bloody old real quick to continually have holier than though anti-gunners preach on and on. You don't think that law abiding educated gun owners haven't already thought though all of this very carefully before?

I think many of them have, I think there are a few that haven't, and I think that there's people like the 15 year old you posted on the last page who probably never had the opportunity to think about it until they were put on the spot.

You, on the other hand, are awfully quick to slap labels on anyone that you perceive to disagree with you, and you're awfully rude about it too. Why is that? Why can't you just have a discussion, and possibly educate people who are less informed than yourself?

You can't think that this sort of behaviour in any way furthers the cause of gun owners. What if people think that you're an typical example of the kind of short tempered reactionary gun nut that they most fear? The truth is that most gun enthusiasts are thoughtful, kind people who are more than willing to teach others about how guns are a useful tool rather than an object to be feared, but you're not helping with any of that. You simply abuse anyone who doesn't share your view, as if that would make them suddenly agree with you.

 

[jimipitbull]

That is not what I posted.

What I posted was that my suspicion was that the poster had little practical or meaningful firearms knowledge and that is why he made the comment he did.

By way of example and proof I showed he was not correct and that my suspicion was well founded.

He did not know that:

a) an AR15 can and has been used for home defense in non-war torn arenas and that

b) there are scenarios where an AR15 would be the required self defense platform to give the defender the best possible advantage.

Now let us see if any of the other responders attacking my fact backed position have anything meaningful to add to the debate.

Did you know that there are scenarios where old ladies have defended their homes by shouting loudly? http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/tacoma-woman-chases-burglars-out-home/npKJ8/

There's really no need for guns. You just need knowledge of conflict resolution techniques. Using the correct tone of voice has been shown to succesfully defend homes in non war torn areas.

Dogs can defend homes too http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/...e/news-story/1afd10b83f66292b8d1124697e2860c8 Dogs are renowned for their home defense capabilities.

 

[x3ra]

The number of gun deaths cannot be directly related to the number of guns in a country, in the same way that gun deaths are not directly related to the overall level of idiocy in the country( I suspect this actually has a higher bearing, than the number of guns) . Different factors are at play. The American police shoot more people than the british police, does that mean that the American police should be disarmed? I think not.

The argument over militia being trained or not is not an argument. The militia referred to in the constitution, is a force set-up to resist an oppressive government, whether they are trained or not is immaterial.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The number of gun deaths cannot be directly related to the number of guns in a country

Wrong.

 

[Imari]

The number of gun deaths cannot be directly related to the number of guns in a country, in the same way that gun deaths are not directly related to the overall level of idiocy in the country( I suspect this actually has a higher bearing, than the number of guns) . Different factors are at play.

Interesting.

Would this then imply that owning a gun does not significantly affect your chance of being murdered with a gun? Basically, you're as likely to be shot whether you own a gun or not.

If there's no statistical relationship at a national level, what changes at the individual level to make a gun a reasonable choice for reducing your personal risk of gun death? Or does it?

 

[Danoff]

Wrong.

This debate will never been won with statistics. Would you rather have a 0.01% chance of death by gunshot or a 0.2% chance of having to survive a stabbing? For every one of those studies there is another one saying the opposite... even at the same university:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
http://calwatchdog.com/2012/08/07/ignorance-abounds-in-gun-control-stories/
http://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...u-s-has-more-guns-but-russia-has-more-murders