If you're caught off-guard taking a piss you're going to get shot. Nobody carries a gun while taking a piss.

"Sane people also prefer to avoid drawing attention to their criminal activity. "

Actually, sane people prefer not to *be* criminals. Those that are don't tend towards a life of home invasion, but steer towards the more profitable (greater reward for the risk) crimes like fencing stolen goods or forgery/fraud.

And I agree that more than just mental illness contributes to criminal activity. But I disagree that you can discount the mental illness. Theft, in particular, is often an impulse control problem (a mental illness). Look at the rich celebs who get busted pilfering costume jewelry from Target or clothes from Walmart. IT is often a contributing factor to the theft type of criminal. And home invasions when the people are home are more often about rape and or assault attempts. Anger or impulse control issues where the perpetrator *wants* a violent confrontation. Thieves who want your shit do so when they think you are out.

"If you're caught off-guard taking a piss you're going to get shot. Nobody carries a gun while taking a piss. "

False. Have you interviewed every person in the US who has a handgun?

Look, all I am saying is that one basing the protection of their family on an ASSUMPTION about the intent of a stranger is irrational. You can go about doing that if you choose (although I get the sense you don't have a family of your own) and pat yourself on the back because you're being a "good citizen" by remaining unarmed, but don't ask others to take such hazardous actions.

As I said, I am not looking for a fight. God forbid something as horrible as a home invasion were to play out in my life. But, just because something is unlikely and disturbing, doesn't mean that I have to base my preparations for such an event on assumptions about the mental state and intent of someone who has ALREADY shown himself to be an extreme risk taker.

I went through the death numbers in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_stabbing

2014 Taipei Metro attack: 4
Akihabara massacre: 7
Anne Anne Kindergarten stabbing: 6
Armanious family massacre: 4*
2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings: 2 (including the perpetrator)
2014 Calgary stabbing: 5
2014 Changsha attack: 6*
Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing: 0
2013 Etajima stabbing: 2
Franklin Regional High School stabbing: 0
2014 Guangzhou attack: 0*
2014 Isla Vista killings: 7
Masahiro Kanagawa: 1
2014 Kunming attack: 33 (including four perpetrators)*
Lone Star College–CyFair: 0
Maksim Gelman stabbing spree: 4
Nanping school massacre: 8
Osaka school massacre: 8
Yan Yanming: 9
Spring High School stabbing: 1
April 2014 Ürümqi attack: 3 (including both perpetrators)*
2012 Yecheng attack: 24 (15 pedestrians, 8 attackers, 1 police)*

*More than one perpetrator
None of the stabbings listed in that category had more than 9 deaths per perpetrator.

"*Eight* children dead in a stabbing. *Eight*. 8>1. And when you take away guns form everyone, the attackers with knives won't be as easily stopped as they are *with guns*. Better the evil I know than the one I don't."

Anders Breivik killed 77. Dylan Quick (Lone Star College–CyFair stabbing) failed to kill anyone. 77>0.

"If you're caught off-guard taking a piss you're going to get shot. Nobody carries a gun while taking a piss." Yes, what Draugnar said.

And further, you need to learn to read. I didn't say the homeowner was caught off guard, but the intruder. He's creeping around your home, and YOU surprise HIM when you get up. Maybe he thought you were out, or maybe you were sleeping in a different room then you had been when he cased your home and he's go an eye on the master bedroom, but not the guest bedroom from whence you suddenly emerge. He doesn't want to harm anyone, but now it's you or him. Guess what, that harmless burglar is now, potentially, a violent criminal.

The recent school attack killed *one*. You seem to like to ignore that number.

Anders Breivik occurred in Norway, where some of the toughest gun laws in the world exist. You're not helping your case by pointing out that tougher gun laws led to 77 deaths in one single incident.

I'm intrigued by this burglar-rapist character a lot of pro-gun people keep mentioning. Does anyone know how common this is? It strikes me that combining breaking and entering with rape is a rather complicated way of doing it, which makes me think it is exceptionally rare (less common than being struck by lightning, sort of thing). Does anyone have any figures?

Breivik got his guns legally, after trying and failing to get them illegally.

With my comparison I was trying to demonstrate how useless it is to cherry pick just two cases to compare.

I don't have any figures, sorry. But with regards to THIS discussion, the burglar character was introduced by the ANTI-gun guy, not the pro-gun guy. All I am saying, and have been saying, is that one shouldn't ASSUME that a person in your home is only there to take property from you, and under no circumstances would they become violent.

Now, if you come home from a nice evening out, and you see a guy loading your TV into a truck, fuck it, let him have it and I'd even go so far as to say give him a safe egress route to avoid a potentially violent confrontation. But that is not the scenario that ShockTrooper laid out.

Nope, Draug brought up home invaders. Not I.

I merely speculated that the cause of a home invasion is most likely to be theft, rather than them actively trying to kill you.

"I merely speculated that the cause of a home invasion is most likely to be theft, rather than them actively trying to kill you."

I agree that the cause of most home invasions is theft and not some homicial or sexual intent. All I am asking, again, is HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS in the heat of the moment? And, further, even if you are solid in your knowledge of this "fact" are you willing to bet your life and the life of your family on that.

The trouble with the home defence argument is this. The bad guy is wide awake and alert and has been for some time. You have likely just been woken from a deep sleep. The bad guy is entirely focused on himself whilst you are likely distracted by having to think about everyone in the house. The bad guy has the gun in his hand whilst you have to find and load yours. The bad guy likely doesn't care too much about killing you whereas your average good guy will hesitate before shooting.

If a gunfight breaks out the odds are firmly stacked against you. Not having a gun seems like by far the better option

To be real safe do we need to stay awake all night in our homes with a loaded gun in our hands .... no, that is ridiculous.
Even if someone broke into our house would we want to shoot them dead or just scare them away?
Most burglaries are committed by poor desperate people who want money to further their miserable unhappy existence, possibly a drugs victim, possibly someone trying to feed their children. Social justice and social equality could deal with a certain percentage of the crime you now experience, who knows it might just alleviate some of the pressure on kids who feel the need to shoot up other kids.
Don't look for over-simple answers to a difficult complex social/political issue (US gun control), look for the RIGHT answers.

@ Draugnar: "who carries pepper spray around? I don't have any on me."

So it's unreasonable to expect people to carry pepper spray, but assuming everyone should carry a loaded gun around is just fine?

Okay.

No Jamie. Read again. I never suggested everyone. Just the fact that someone *might* have a handgun acts as a deterrent and if people near you have it, they *may* be able to save your life. Someone near you with pepper spray? Notnlielly as it has a limited range of less than a foot.

Not likely. I suck at phone keyboards.

I'd rather doubt the possibility of random people possibly having the capability to return fire is better at limiting casualties than denying access to guns would.

Octavious,

Lots of assumptions in your hypo there. I just don't understand why anyone thinks that just because there is a chance that the odds COULD be stacked against you that one would essentially insure that any chance they MIGHT have is gone. How do you know the bad guys is "entirely focused on himself?" or that he has a gun in his hand? Let alone whether or not the bad guy is intent upon homicide.

All I've been saying is one cannot base a gun control policy on assumptions with regards to a criminal's intent during a home invasion scenario. If there is an an assumption to be made, it MUST be in favor of the innocent party/victim. Meanings someone has invaded your home, at least accordion to the Texas castle laws (and many other states) the assumption is that your life is in danger. Asking the innocent party to try to determine the intent and capability of the invader is profoundly irrational -- the stakes are too high.

Gtlbix,

It's about the right of self defense. Your only justification for telling people they don't have the right to defend their family from harm is because someone MIGHT be harmed by the tool they choose to use? That's asinine! Self-defense doctrine predates the Magna Carta. If you don't want a gun, don't have one. But making assumptions about capabilities, probabilities and scenario after scenario isn't an effective means of legislating risk.

Why not allow only tools not designed to kill? I don't want to have a gun, but I also don't want someone attacking me to have a gun.

"but I also don't want someone attacking me to have a gun. "

What don't you get about the fact that guns exist and we can no more take them all away form the *criminals* than we can get every teenager to stop having sex? Dude! You take away guns from law abiding citizens and the criminal element will *still* have them. Your attacker would be a criminal. He will still have one. You will be just as dead.

I don't want anyone attacking me with a gun either. Nor do I want to shoot anyone. But, I most certainly don't want to have my ability to defend myself (how ever remote it might be) take from me because other people are scared.

"What don't you get about the fact that guns exist and we can no more take them all away form the *criminals* than we can get every teenager to stop having sex? Dude! You take away guns from law abiding citizens and the criminal element will *still* have them. Your attacker would be a criminal. He will still have one. You will be just as dead."

Oh, I've seen that argument numerous times, I just remain unconvinced by it. If guns were not so easily accessible where would the black market dealers get them from? You mentioned how Norway has strict gun laws. Despite this Breivik was unable to get a gun illegally.

Besides, "the criminal element" aren't the only ones murdering people, legal guns are used in murders too.

Guns exist and are out there in the US. Norway doesn't have the black market we do. Norway has had those strict gun laws for a long time. Norway has never had the equivalent of the second amendment. The guns in existence now will not just go away. They will continue to exist for a long time to come. Therefore the black market doesn't need new guns, it just needs to get it's hands on the guns that exist now. The criminals who already have guns now are not just going to turn them in. They will continue to have guns even after you take them out of the hands of the citizens. The criminals don't need a black market if they already have a gun before this new ban takes effect because their gun isn't going to go "Oh! I shouldn't exist! <*poof*>". Guns have a life longer than the humans who own them. So it would be generations before all the guns fell into disrepair and ceased to be. Meanwhile, the criminals will continue to rob banks with guns and invade homes with guns.

"Besides, "the criminal element" aren't the only ones murdering people"

Uh, yes they are because by committing murder, they become criminals. How fucking stupid are you?

We'll, in that case at least some of the criminal element have their guns legally and would give up their guns. First time murderers who aren't involved in criminal activity before their first murder do exist.

"You take away guns from law abiding citizens and the criminal element will *still* have them. Your attacker would be a criminal. He will still have one. You will be just as dead."

This made me think that by criminal element you mean organized crime and people who own illegal guns.

I wouldn't claim to be particularly intelligent, but I do think your comment is more fucking stupid than mine.

I'm referring to anyone who does a home invasion. Criminal element does not refer to organized crime exclusively. Anyone with a record of B&E is part of the criminal element of society. Anyone with a record of car jacking or of gangbanging or of bank robbery or of... You get the idea.