Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

He likes the idea of opening his door with a gun behind his back so he can shoot local black teens.

"when they go low..."

- - - Updated - - -

Why you like living in fear and having a false sense of security because you have a gun......guess what everyone else does too and there are always better shooters, faster reaction times and what happens when you try to pull it on the wrong person and you are dead......guess what I do not have that fear here. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

What fear do you live without? That you might lose if you try to defend yourself? It's more comfortable living with the certainty that you'll be almost entirely unable to defend yourself? Or just the willful blindness that nothing bad is ever might happen?

[bladeXcrasher]

"when they go low..."

- - - Updated - - -



What fear do you live without? That you might lose if you try to defend yourself? It's more comfortable living with the certainty that you'll be almost entirely unable to defend yourself? Or just the willful blindness that nothing bad is ever might happen?

Implying I care about something Michelle Obama said? (I had to google that to know wtf you were talking about). Ghostpanthers words, not mine, gets brought up repeatedly around here.

[Stormdash]

Implying I care about something Michelle Obama said? (I had to google that to know wtf you were talking about). Ghostpanthers words, not mine, gets brought up repeatedly around here.

You trotted out a spurious accusation of both racism and homicidal tendencies to substitute for the fact that your overall position is intellectually bankrupt.

[Chaelexi]

"when they go low..."

- - - Updated - - -



What fear do you live without? That you might lose if you try to defend yourself? It's more comfortable living with the certainty that you'll be almost entirely unable to defend yourself? Or just the willful blindness that nothing bad is ever might happen?

If you think you have to protect your self you are living in fear........ that is basic psychology. Guess what I have not had to protect myself from anything since I was an 19 year old idiot at the bars and getting in fights. What am I protecting myself form? And next I am 6'5" 280lbs and built like a Dlineman with 9 years of martial arts(not afraid of much). Again I ask what am I protecting myself from? All I know is that there are not a bunch of guns floating around the streets and that every idiot out there does not have one because conceal carry laws.....you just gave a legally blind man a CC licence...... Does bad stuff happen, yes. But it seems to happen a lot less in Canada then The USA and when it happens here there are a lot less guns involved.


Guess what your idea of guns being there to protect yourselves is the same thoughts these kids are having because it has been taught to them that guns are there to protect themselves and well at this point nothing else has worked in stopping the bullying. Your twisted perception is also causing all your issues.

[Stormdash]

If you think you have to protect your self you are living in fear........ that is basic psychology.

Only if your default assumption is that violence and predation don't actually exist on two or four legs in the world, which is a far more pathological than believing it does.

[Chaelexi]

LOL, I live in the Canadian Prairies, the biggest animal in my area is fox..... As for violence, do not live in fear of getting jumped, robbed or broken in on and if it happens well me not having a gun(and yes I know how to shoot a gun, I can hit a quarter grouping with a .22 rifle 90% of the time) is not likely going to change much because the other guy with a gun is likely going to shoot first because I would think twice about taking a life...... I see you like all the other I need a gun to protect myself avoid the topic that these kids are just protecting themselves because you have no rebuttal to it.

[Stormdash]

LOL, I live in the Canadian Prairies, the biggest animal in my area is fox..... As for violence, do not live in fear of getting jumped, robbed or broken in on and if it happens well me not having a gun(and yes I know how to shoot a gun, I can hit a quarter grouping with a .22 rifle 90% of the time) is not likely going to change much because the other guy with a gun is likely going to shoot first because I would think twice about taking a life...... I see you like all the other I need a gun to protect myself avoid the topic that these kids are just protecting themselves because you have no rebuttal to it.

Actually, I have a perfect rebuttal -- who the hell do you think you are to suggest your wan fatalism about life's dangers can be imposed on others by force of law?

[Chaelexi]

Actually, I have a perfect rebuttal -- who the hell do you think you are to suggest your wan fatalism about life's dangers can be imposed on others by force of law?

I see you like all the other I need a gun to protect myself avoid the topic that these kids are just protecting themselves because you have no rebuttal to it. Please provide a rebuttal to this here?


Guess what your idea of guns being there to protect yourselves is the same thoughts these kids are having because it has been taught to them that guns are there to protect themselves and well at this point nothing else has worked in stopping the bullying. Your twisted perception is also causing all your issues.

[Stormdash]

I see you like all the other I need a gun to protect myself avoid the topic that these kids are just protecting themselves because you have no rebuttal to it. Please provide a rebuttal to this here?

Who said anything about school shooting psychos or miscreants "just protecting themselves"? Pummel the shit out of that strawman, though, you show him.

[Chaelexi]

Who said anything about school shooting psychos or miscreants "just protecting themselves"? Pummel the shit out of that strawman, though, you show him.

Ahh you can't.... how about this. For gun control all guns must be registered. If you are found with an unregistered gun you lose the right to own any guns. And if one of your registered gun is found in a crime(even if you lose it, it is stolen or borrowed) you are still responsible for the crime. You can have your guns but if you are irresponsible with them you are still at fault.

- - - Updated - - -

Or how about this one, that gun owners will unholster and shoot faster than someone who is already pointing a gun at them. If an intruder is faced by two people, one unarmed who doesn’t move, and another who attempts to use a weapon - if the intruder shoots, who will they shoot first ?

Four armed and trained police were shot down by ONE armed person in a coffee shop. Three of the four individuals with holstered weapons were shot before they had a chance to unholster and respond - and all four were killed. Possessing a gun REDUCES ones safety.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78088192.html

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.105...99310073291506

Guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_...ession-safety/

[Ghostpanther]

Why you like living in fear and having a false sense of security because you have a gun......guess what everyone else does too and there are always better shooters, faster reaction times and what happens when you try to pull it on the wrong person and you are dead......guess what I do not have that fear here. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

I do not live in fear. Is someone who uses their seat belt guilty of living in fear? And I been around long enough to know, there is no such thing as perfect preparedness. But I am still going to make a good effort to be prepared. You can choose whatever you think is best for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the thing, I am conservative and would be happy if both could not lobby. But your response was basically the kindergarten response of I know you are but what am I. In the end you are scared that if they ever did that the NRA would lose control of the house/senate and you may get actual gun Reform as polls show that is what over 60% of Americans actually want.


Waiting for the are you going to ban cars debate again.....

And do you know how to have a debate without resorting to petty low comments?

- - - Updated - - -

Implying I care about something Michelle Obama said? (I had to google that to know wtf you were talking about). Ghostpanthers words, not mine, gets brought up repeatedly around here.

I am glad you have noticed. lol! And I am in no popularity contest here, so it is not really a concern of mine.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think you have to protect your self you are living in fear........ that is basic psychology. Guess what I have not had to protect myself from anything since I was an 19 year old idiot at the bars and getting in fights. What am I protecting myself form? And next I am 6'5" 280lbs and built like a Dlineman with 9 years of martial arts(not afraid of much). Again I ask what am I protecting myself from? All I know is that there are not a bunch of guns floating around the streets and that every idiot out there does not have one because conceal carry laws.....you just gave a legally blind man a CC licence...... Does bad stuff happen, yes. But it seems to happen a lot less in Canada then The USA and when it happens here there are a lot less guns involved.


Guess what your idea of guns being there to protect yourselves is the same thoughts these kids are having because it has been taught to them that guns are there to protect themselves and well at this point nothing else has worked in stopping the bullying. Your twisted perception is also causing all your issues.

You just contradicted yourself. Physically, you are in good shape for most physical only attacks. A lot of people are not. And it is usually weak and defenseless victims which are the ones the scums prey on. And I am sure there other things you do to help prevent premature injury to yourself.

[Chaelexi]

I do not live in fear. Is someone who uses their seat belt guilty of living in fear? And I been around long enough to know, there is no such thing as perfect preparedness. But I am still going to make a good effort to be prepared. You can choose whatever you think is best for you.

You just contradicted yourself. Physically, you are in good shape for most physical only attacks. A lot of people are not. And it is usually weak and defenseless victims which are the ones the scums prey on. And I am sure there other things you do to help prevent premature injury to yourself.

Actually Martial arts was originally taken to help with agility, balance, flexibility, discipline and off season training for other sports, football and basketball in high school and college, but continued on as I enjoyed it. The protection part of it was a bonus to the keeping me fit and flexible. I love how you completely ignored that the US gave a blind man a CC licence, all the points above because you can not refute them and then using an "Ad Hominem" fallacy in the first point. Owning a gun for protection is not preparedness it is in fear of the boogieman that will likely never happen and if it does you will likely be dead due to attempting to draw it. Where as wearing a seatbelt is using recommended safety gear.

[Ghostpanther]

Actually Martial arts was originally taken to help with agility, balance, flexibility, discipline and off season training for other sports, football and basketball in high school and college, but continued on as I enjoyed it. The protection part of it was a bonus to the keeping me fit and flexible. I love how you completely ignored that the US gave a blind man a CC licence, all the points above because you can not refute them and then using an "Ad Hominem" fallacy in the first point. Owning a gun for protection is not preparedness it is in fear of the boogieman that will likely never happen and if it does you will likely be dead due to attempting to draw it. Where as wearing a seatbelt is using recommended safety gear.

They make mistakes here when granting firearms to those who should not have them. I am not denying that. You are also ignored my point that not every one ( the great majority of people ) are a male who is young, large and trained for self defense. How is a old person going to successfully defend themselves from someone much stronger than they are? Or a young small girl who is about to be raped? A firearm is a great equalizer.

A study done by the US CDC *, which was commissioned by Obama back in 2013, concluded that firearms where a important deterrent for self defense. I trust their opinion over some MMO poster and other anti-gun studies which twist the facts to suit their agenda. Like adding in suicides for their numbers. :P

*https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent


Regardless how you feel about firearms, I own them and carry them because I want to have a tool which helps me to defend my life and in some cases, others. Plus the most important part is, I have a Constitutional right to. You have the right not to use one. Firearms are not going away here in the US. I have been doing this for decades and not had to use one yet and I hope I never do. Same can be said for my fire alarms I have had too. Recommended safety gear? Firearms are also recommended for self defense ( safety ) by many.

And one important rule for carrying a firearm for self defense.... never draw it if another person has the drop on you with a firearm. You wait for a window of opportunity. If it does not present itself, then I rather go down defending my self than be a helpless victim. Just like the teacher who tackled the shooter in the Indiana school recently. Sometimes you need to take a risk to save lives. Also there are some good tactical reasons not to open carry a firearm in public. I do not want anyone to know I am carrying.

[Chaelexi]

They make mistakes here when granting firearms to those who should not have them. I am not denying that. You are also ignored my point that not every one ( the great majority of people ) are a male who is young, large and trained for self defense. How is a old person going to successfully defend themselves from someone much stronger than they are? Or a young small girl who is about to be raped? A firearm is a great equalizer.

A study done by the US CDC *, which was commissioned by Obama back in 2013, concluded that firearms where a important deterrent for self defense. I trust their opinion over some MMO poster and other anti-gun studies which twist the facts to suit their agenda. Like adding in suicides for their numbers. :P

*https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent

Yet you ignore all the studies I posted cause it proves your point completely false...... If it was a crime deterent why does the US have the highest gun crime rate in the developed world?

Regardless how you feel about firearms, I own them and carry them because I want to have a tool which helps me to defend my life and in some cases, others. Plus the most important part is, I have a Constitutional right to. You have the right not to use one. Firearms are not going away here in the US. I have been doing this for decades and not had to use one yet and I hope I never do. Same can be said for my fire alarms I have had too. Recommended safety gear? Firearms are also recommended for self defense ( safety ) by many.

And one important rule for carrying a firearm for self defense.... never draw it if another person has the drop on you with a firearm. You wait for a window of opportunity. If it does not present itself, then I rather go down defending my self than be a helpless victim. Just like the teacher who tackled the shooter in the Indiana school recently. Sometimes you need to take a risk to save lives. Also there are some good tactical reasons not to open carry a firearm in public. I do not want anyone to know I am carrying.

Only recommended for self defense in the USA or remote communities where the risk of a bear or other large predator is there. Firearms are a tool for killing, you are not defending anyone with them.......See linked studies above.

Also, after "112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings in a decade", Australia enacted gun laws; a decade after the implementation of gun laws, the gun death rate had halved, and there have been no mass shootings. This was with a 20% REDUCTION in gun ownership.

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

and you have yet to discuss my proposed gun regulation. Every firearm is registered, if you own an unregistered one and are caught you lose all firearms for ever, if your firearm is found to be used in a crime you are guilty of a firearms offence even if your firearm is stolen, lost or borrowed to someone. This will force people to lock up their firearms properly and keep most firearms in control.

- - - Updated - - -

Leaving aside that the estimates are likely to be a gross overestimate (Hemenway estimates that the actual number could be only 5% of that), the actual number is more likely to be between that and the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey estimates of around one tenth of that.



But is the actual number even relevant ? It merely reflects “possession”, and makes no statement about contribution to defense. It is a mis-characterisation to call it a “Defensive Gun Use”. The victims were probably also clothed; why not “Defensive Clothing use” ?

The risk of an event is assessed as the product of the probability of it occurring, and the impact if it does. Consider a burglar entering an unoccupied house. The probability of being caught is relatively low (no eye witnesses), and the impact of being caught is medium (“merely” a burglary with no personal injury).



Consider the same scenario but with an unarmed occupant. The probability of being caught is significantly higher, (eye witness), and the impact of being caught is much higher (robbery with assault). This is high risk for the intruder, regardless of whether the victim is armed.

Whilst the victim possessing a weapon increases the risk for the intruder, the argument attempts to equate the “Defensive” benefit as being entirely attributable to the weapon, and NOT to the presence of the victim. If “guns don’t kill” then “guns don’t defend”.

This requires a methodology to assess the contributory impact of the weapon, and discounts the victim himself (herself).



We can do this by considering a particular scenario (e.g. home invasion) :

Assessing the ratio of people killed to the number of events (homeowner does NOT possess a weapon). Call this “Unarmed Killed Ratio” = UKR

Assessing the ratio of people killed to the number of events (homeowner DOES possess a weapon). Call this “Armed Killed Ratio” = AKR

To claim that “Guns Save Lives” (for a particular scenario) this would require that AKR < UKR.

Unfortunately, data so far (e.g. University of Pennsylvania study) shows that the opposite is true, i.e. UKR = AKR / 4.5 ! That is, a person is nearly FIVE TIMES MORE likely to be shot in an assault if armed, compared to unarmed !

This does however provide a methodology to estimate the “number of lives saved if people were UNARMED rather than armed".

Seems like your story that it protects you is wrong, if anything it increases the likelihood that you will die in a confrontation.

[Ghostpanther]

Yet you ignore all the studies I posted cause it proves your point completely false...... If it was a crime deterent why does the US have the highest gun crime rate in the developed world?


Only recommended for self defense in the USA or remote communities where the risk of a bear or other large predator is there. Firearms are a tool for killing, you are not defending anyone with them.......See linked studies above.

Also, after "112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings in a decade", Australia enacted gun laws; a decade after the implementation of gun laws, the gun death rate had halved, and there have been no mass shootings. This was with a 20% REDUCTION in gun ownership.

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

and you have yet to discuss my proposed gun regulation. Every firearm is registered, if you own an unregistered one and are caught you lose all firearms for ever, if your firearm is found to be used in a crime you are guilty of a firearms offence even if your firearm is stolen, lost or borrowed to someone. This will force people to lock up their firearms properly and keep most firearms in control.

Once again, I do not live in any place but the US and what they do is their business. So comparing what countries enact with their laws, is not going to impress or convince me.

Your studies linked only prove how bias some can be when they are endorsed and supported by anti-gun rights individuals and groups. The CDC study was a independent study done by the US Government, which was commissioned by a liberal president, but he had no control over it's findings.

I have no objections to starting a registration program at a certain date with new firearm purchases. Trying to require all 300+ million firearms in circulation to be registered is not going to be realistically enforced here. The FBI even proposed such back in the 1930's with the crime wave the us was experiencing. They finally dropped the proposal based on the fact it would be unrealistically enforceable.

The gun culture here is very deeply rooted into our nation and along with the Constitutional right to keep and carry them, will be also strongly supported by those who cherish that right. Most people here are for stronger gun control laws which do not violate the Constitutional right to have them. I am one of them. Such as Universal background checks for all firearm gifts and purchases. I also support stronger laws when it comes to keeping firearms properly stored and not easy access for unauthorized use by others.

[Draco-Onis]

Once again, I do not live in any place but the US and what they do is their business. So comparing what countries enact with their laws, is not going to impress or convince me.

Your studies linked only prove how bias some can be when they are endorsed and supported by anti-gun rights individuals and groups. The CDC study was a independent study done by the US Government, which was commissioned by a liberal president, but he had no control over it's findings.

I have no objections to starting a registration program at a certain date with new firearm purchases. Trying to require all 300+ million firearms in circulation to be registered is not going to be realistically enforced here. The FBI even proposed such back in the 1930's with the crime wave the us was experiencing. They finally dropped the proposal based on the fact it would be unrealistically enforceable.

The gun culture here is very deeply rooted into our nation and along with the Constitutional right to keep and carry them, will be also strongly supported by those who cherish that right. Most people here are for stronger gun control laws which do not violate the Constitutional right to have them. I am one of them. Such as Universal background checks for all firearm gifts and purchases. I also support stronger laws when it comes to keeping firearms properly stored and not easy access for unauthorized use by others.

So basically all studies that contradict your point of view are fake news well at least we know why you support the president.

[Ghostpanther]

So basically all studies that contradict your point of view are fake news well at least we know why you support the president.

If they try to twist things to fit their agenda. For damn sure.

[Chaelexi]

They make mistakes here when granting firearms to those who should not have them. I am not denying that. You are also ignored my point that not every one ( the great majority of people ) are a male who is young, large and trained for self defense. How is a old person going to successfully defend themselves from someone much stronger than they are? Or a young small girl who is about to be raped? A firearm is a great equalizer.

A study done by the US CDC *, which was commissioned by Obama back in 2013, concluded that firearms where a important deterrent for self defense. I trust their opinion over some MMO poster and other anti-gun studies which twist the facts to suit their agenda. Like adding in suicides for their numbers. :P

*https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rime-deterrent

The methodology used by Kleck has been severely critisized (*4), Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time." (*4)



Hemenway comments on the 2.5 Million estimate concluding, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate”. He posits that the main culprit is “the telescoping and...false positive problem that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, a matter of misclassification that is well known to medical epidemiologists”.



Other statements regarding “claims by the CDC” (e.g. on the value of gun ownership for self defense) are similarly NOT by the CDC itself, but reporting on claims by others (Kleck et al) “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses” (*4).

Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the likely number (sic) is closer to 338,700 over a FIVE year period; thus closer to 68,000 a year (*2) – only one thirty fifth (3%) the number claimed by Gleck (and the NRA); although depending on the years chosen NCVS estimates vary from 60,000 to 120,000 (*7).

It is important to note that although a firearm was “involved”, the degree of involvement is not clear :

Did the firearm actually play an active role in self defence ? Thus an armed homeowner might well have scared off an armed intruder, but to what extent was the firearm a contributing factor ? Was the intruder scared off merely by the presence of the other person ? It is already known that the majority of burglaries occur when homeowners are away (*8), indicating an understandable preference to avoid confrontation. Becoming aware of the existence of the homeowner may well have sufficed to deter some intruders – the presence of a firearm may well have been irrelevant; one could equally argue that the homeowner was clothed, therefore clothes are an active deterrent.
Was the firearm used by civilians ? If the argument is that civilians require weapons for self defense, the that should be supported by data relating to civilian use. As yet it is not possible to exclude off duty usage by law enforcement or military (operating under a different regime of training and controls).
Was the firearm of actual value – compared to the disadvantages? It is known that around 0.75% of firearm related deaths were justifiable homicides [in 2010 of approximately 31,076 firearms deaths (*3), 230 were “justifiable” (*2)]. Given the relatively low percentage of “justifiable” homicides one needs to know whether the advantages for self defense outweigh the disadvantages. Having a firearm available for self defense requires accessibility – which contrasts with the need for security with children in the home; it is already known that there are many incidents of children killing people after obtaining access to firearms that should have been stored securely (*9). It is already known that possession increases the likelihood of bbeing shot by a factor of 4.5 (*9).
Ironically, as the NRA argues “If we implement laws requiring gun controls then only criminals will have guns” (see myth #1), demonstrating that to ascertain the value of self defense, one should rightfully exclude usage by criminals (unless one is arguing that criminals engaged in crimes have a legitimate right of armed self defense). For the data claim to be meaningful, one must have an estimate of the usage by criminals so that this can be deducted from the total. To date this is not possible.
Until there is better data available, one must approach claims of the value of firearms for self defense, with great caution. Certainly the suggestion of “millions” of annual uses should be considered a fantasy number.

Hell putting a solid door and good windows on your home prevents more in home violence than a gun that actually increases it
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/0...violent-crime/

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...write-f/194660

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-de...es-statistics/
This one is my favorite, in 2010 there were only 230 times that a killing someone with a gun was justifiable. out of 33000 gun related deaths........that is not even 1% of the time. Guns do not save lifes they take them.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Once again, I do not live in any place but the US and what they do is their business. So comparing what countries enact with their laws, is not going to impress or convince me.

Your studies linked only prove how bias some can be when they are endorsed and supported by anti-gun rights individuals and groups. The CDC study was a independent study done by the US Government, which was commissioned by a liberal president, but he had no control over it's findings.

I have no objections to starting a registration program at a certain date with new firearm purchases. Trying to require all 300+ million firearms in circulation to be registered is not going to be realistically enforced here. The FBI even proposed such back in the 1930's with the crime wave the us was experiencing. They finally dropped the proposal based on the fact it would be unrealistically enforceable.

The gun culture here is very deeply rooted into our nation and along with the Constitutional right to keep and carry them, will be also strongly supported by those who cherish that right. Most people here are for stronger gun control laws which do not violate the Constitutional right to have them. I am one of them. Such as Universal background checks for all firearm gifts and purchases. I also support stronger laws when it comes to keeping firearms properly stored and not easy access for unauthorized use by others.

Yet you support concealed carry which stops proper storage of firearms?

[Draco-Onis]

If they try to twist things to fit their agenda. For damn sure.

But you are dismissing data from entire countries out hand, other countries have lower instances of gun violence those are facts. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't true but those are the facts.

[Ghostpanther]

The methodology used by Kleck has been severely critisized (*4), Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway has labeled Kleck's result "an enormous overestimate" and pointed out that the results require one to believe, for instance, that "burglary victims use their guns in self-defense more than 100% of the time." (*4)



Hemenway comments on the 2.5 Million estimate concluding, “It is clear that the claim of 2.5 million annual self-defense gun uses is a vast overestimate”. He posits that the main culprit is “the telescoping and...false positive problem that derives from the very limited number of respondents claiming a self-defense gun use, a matter of misclassification that is well known to medical epidemiologists”.



Other statements regarding “claims by the CDC” (e.g. on the value of gun ownership for self defense) are similarly NOT by the CDC itself, but reporting on claims by others (Kleck et al) “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses” (*4).

Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the likely number (sic) is closer to 338,700 over a FIVE year period; thus closer to 68,000 a year (*2) – only one thirty fifth (3%) the number claimed by Gleck (and the NRA); although depending on the years chosen NCVS estimates vary from 60,000 to 120,000 (*7).

It is important to note that although a firearm was “involved”, the degree of involvement is not clear :

Did the firearm actually play an active role in self defence ? Thus an armed homeowner might well have scared off an armed intruder, but to what extent was the firearm a contributing factor ? Was the intruder scared off merely by the presence of the other person ? It is already known that the majority of burglaries occur when homeowners are away (*8), indicating an understandable preference to avoid confrontation. Becoming aware of the existence of the homeowner may well have sufficed to deter some intruders – the presence of a firearm may well have been irrelevant; one could equally argue that the homeowner was clothed, therefore clothes are an active deterrent.
Was the firearm used by civilians ? If the argument is that civilians require weapons for self defense, the that should be supported by data relating to civilian use. As yet it is not possible to exclude off duty usage by law enforcement or military (operating under a different regime of training and controls).
Was the firearm of actual value – compared to the disadvantages? It is known that around 0.75% of firearm related deaths were justifiable homicides [in 2010 of approximately 31,076 firearms deaths (*3), 230 were “justifiable” (*2)]. Given the relatively low percentage of “justifiable” homicides one needs to know whether the advantages for self defense outweigh the disadvantages. Having a firearm available for self defense requires accessibility – which contrasts with the need for security with children in the home; it is already known that there are many incidents of children killing people after obtaining access to firearms that should have been stored securely (*9). It is already known that possession increases the likelihood of bbeing shot by a factor of 4.5 (*9).
Ironically, as the NRA argues “If we implement laws requiring gun controls then only criminals will have guns” (see myth #1), demonstrating that to ascertain the value of self defense, one should rightfully exclude usage by criminals (unless one is arguing that criminals engaged in crimes have a legitimate right of armed self defense). For the data claim to be meaningful, one must have an estimate of the usage by criminals so that this can be deducted from the total. To date this is not possible.
Until there is better data available, one must approach claims of the value of firearms for self defense, with great caution. Certainly the suggestion of “millions” of annual uses should be considered a fantasy number.

Hell putting a solid door and good windows on your home prevents more in home violence than a gun that actually increases it
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/0...violent-crime/

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...write-f/194660

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-de...es-statistics/
This one is my favorite, in 2010 there were only 230 times that a killing someone with a gun was justifiable. out of 33000 gun related deaths........that is not even 1% of the time. Guns do not save lifes they take them.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Of course studies which contradict what you want to believe and is against your agenda is going to be discredited. I am also going to be blamed for doing the same thing. They do not know for sure how many times a firearm is used to deter a crime. Because most of the time, there is no report done or made by the police. But it is enough for the CDC study to conclude it is a important deterrent for self defense.

Taking measures to deter someone from breaking into your home is a important thing to do. Such as deadbolts on doors and window locks, security lights, dogs, etc.
Using a firearm to shoot a intruder is a last resort option. But it is a option I am going to use.

Also your link http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf stats does not agree with yours. Suicides are a voluntary action by a individual on themselves. Japan, which has a very strict gun control policy, also has a higher suicide rate than the US does.