My point still stands. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. There's gun violence worldwide, not just America.
Speaking of the US, look at Chicago - it has strict gun laws and it has one of the highest rates of gun crime in the country.
wrong. in France yeah we have pretty much lot of robberies with weapons, but they are toys (can't shoot) in 99% of the cases
in Chicago? you mean where you have 3 states within 100 kms, come on.
full auto are probably fun yeah. but go say this to the Columbine kids (that are probably adults now) that still have the bullets in their bodies. with hunting weapons, slaughters like Columbine would have been 10x less deadly
i have a side by side at home that i inherited from my uncle which him inherited from his father (my grand father). and if it didn't have such a strong sentimental value, i would have separated from it. i keep it probably because of my survivalist side lol
Well actually if you look at the Cumbria shooting incident in England, it kind of shows that even "hunting" weapons can leave quite a death toll. He killed almost as many people, though spread out over an hour and many miles. But if you think about the University of Texas sniper incident too, he was using a bolt-action rifle, which many would consider a "hunting" rifle even though it was initially designed for war.
Where are the statistics for justified civilian homicides? I would assume that would be a relevant statistic considering that if someone killed another person ( a homicide ) it would only be justified it it was in self-defense. On the other hand, I don't know if any such statistic about the number of non-lethal self-defense shootings is collected.
Personally, I know I've seen quite a few stories locally about a person shooting a home intruder, or even a case of someone shooting a person on the street or thwarting a robbery, but those incidents pale in comparison to the number of stories I see in the local paper about gang shootings, accidental shootings, and things of that nature.
I believe the true metric is to examine how many home invasion deaths are the result of a firearm. Most firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides if I remember right, but I don't know if they distinguish between accidental and intentional in that context. I know that's about 20k a year, and then there's gun homicides which are about 10k a year, and of those probably a fraction are justifiable homicides but that can't begin to count incidents where no crime or incident occurred as the result of a firearm being pointed as a deterrent, so it's really not an argument that can really be made in my opinion.
I think though the only thing you can really accurately see form the statistics is that you're far more likely to die of an accidental shooting or suicide than of a homicide with a firearm, regardless of context. When you do look further into the context it's a little trickier because they don't really catalog "gang" shootings, but going by the "local paper" example, the grand majority of shooting deaths are from gang shootings. I'd really bet that the same can be said for Chicago as well.
So in America the real danger seems to be 1) Accidentally shooting yourself or 2) Being mistaken for a gang member and being shot dead on the street at random. Having a gun doesn't really help to prevent either of these, and just increase incidents of number 1. In a kind of ironic way, if you look at shooting victims, the propensity of them being armed is much more likely than a shooting victim being unarmed. Take a gun to a gun fight, and you're still just as likely to be shot.
All that being the case though, I do think that in a country of 300 million people, and firearm fore every one of them and more, it's the volume that counts more than the percentages. If only 1% of the population is killed in a home invasion every year, that's still kind of a lot of people given the overall population. It only takes one gruesome incident like that to strike fear into people and so I think it's reasonable that they feel this need to cling to some kind of sense of power and defense. I think though that Americanism culture has always been to "fight fire with fire," so the concept that armament and the proliferation of firearms is exactly what has caused this problem doesn't really occur to people when they say they're worried about someone breaking into their homes and shooting them.
But in a way it's kind of crying over spilled milk, because the guns are there, and even if we tried to collect them all, there's going to be people to make them or import them and sell them on the black market. In a way that would only be worse since then the guns would be in the hands of the criminals and there wouldn't even be the "unknown" factor of who might be armed to deter them from muggings and the like. I'm not sure that the American problem can be solved the same way as other country's were. Sure they had guns, but did they have gun culture?
Besides that, home invasions can be scary even if the perpetrators don't have guns, and especially if the victims are young or eldery. There was some drug addict here that broke into some old people's homes, like people in their 90s, and bludgeoned them to death. Not to mention they lived at least 30 minute drive from town so the police response time couldn't have saved them even if a home alarm had went off. Now, I remember reading a story about something similar happening, maybe elsewhere in the country I'm not sure... But it was a woman home alone and some guy trying to break in through her door, and she couldn't even get him to leave despite poking him with a fire poker. She was on the phone with 911 the whole time and this guy got through the door and she shot him. Kind of hard to convince someone they don't need a gun after they hear about stuff like that.