Sure, there are other ways to protect against thugs breaking into your home. Maybe try hand grenades? Perhaps it would be more efficient to evaporate them with some fancy laser. Mustard gas anyone? Personally, I would opt for a pistol because it is better controlled and effectively eliminates the threat while keeping a distance. If you chose to heavily regulate the victim's ability to defend him or herself, then they will likely be hurt by following those laws more so than by the criminal activity.
For instance, if the security guard in the Los Vegas hotel had possession and trained in the use of firearms, then perhaps those 59 people wouldn't have died. But with heavy regulation, then more and more law-abiding people will lack this opportunity to defend themselves and others. Criminal activity will never cease as long as this world exists as we know it. — Lone Wolf

The evidence is not on your side. The US allows far easier access to firearms than most other countries. The US also has a disproportionately high level of gun crime compared to most other countries. Your cops have guns. You also have a higher level of police shootings. All you have to do is put two and two together.

If the police officer who shot dead Scout Schultz had used pepper spray or a taser instead of a firearm, then what is the likelihood that Scout would be alive right now?

What about that security guard that you mentioned? Would a taser not have disabled the target without killing him? Would it not then have been the case that even more lives were saved? (Although, did he not in fact manage to slip past the security guard? If so, then why are we even discussing this? Either way, it would not have made any difference in this particular case).

Perhaps one day - hopefully sometime soon - you, and others like you, will realise that you're part of the problem.

When you want to have a serious discussion, let me know. — Sapientia

Is this kind of answer some sort of a defense mechanism for your inferiority complex.

It seems to happen a lot. Especially when you don't have sensible answers or anything of value to add.

I'm going to count how many times you have given answers like this to people. It might make some interesting statistics.

Is this kind of answer some sort of a defense mechanism for your inferiority complex.

It seems to happen a lot. Especially when you don't have sensible answers or anything of value to add.

I'm going to count how many times you have given answers like this to people. It might make some interesting statistics. — Sir2u

Are you telling me that you genuinely expect me to take those replies seriously? Why would I do that?

Are you telling me that you genuinely expect me to take those replies seriously? Why would I do that? — Sapientia

See, you did it again.

You were the one that said no one can dodge a bullet so I figures that the worlds military organizations and I were missing out on something.
Are you not capable of explaining your own worlds?

See, you did it again.

You were the one that said no one can dodge a bullet so I figures that the worlds military organizations and I were missing out on something.
Are you not capable of explaining your own worlds? — Sir2u

It's not about capability. It's about spending one's time wisely. If you're having trouble figuring things out that plenty of others can easily grasp, then you have my heartfelt sympathy, but that's all you're getting.

It's not about capability. It's about spending one's time wisely. If you're having trouble figuring things out that plenty of others can easily grasp, then you have my heartfelt sympathy, but that's all you're getting. — Sapientia

See, you did it again.

Who's time are you talking about?

I don't have a lot to spare but I do at least take the time to understand you, even if you refuse to explain things. What I don't have time for is googling all of your ideas to get explanations.

That might be part of the total, but how many of the deaths are related to them carrying guns with intentions to use them? — Sir2u

Someone carrying a gun always intends to use it. Why else carry a gun? Nobody carries a gun with the intent not to use it. That includes what is called the law abiding citizen who, for reasons unclear to me, walks about in public with a firearm concealed or worn openly.

They intend to use it "when necessary." The law abiding citizen, presumably, intends to use it to protect themselves or others from someone also carrying a gun.

I'm not at all certain that a law abiding, gun-toting citizen would do a significant deal of good in a public firefight. It isn't easy to accurately use a firearm, particularly a handgun, without extensive training even in circumstances where there is no threat to life and limb setting the adrenaline flowing or people milling about. Even those trained in use of firearms, like law enforcement personnel, can end up shooting the innocent, e.g. the incident involving a gunman confronted by two officers outside the Empire State Building in 2012. The officers ending up shooting 9 innocent bystanders in addition to the gunman. One officer shot 7 times, the other officer shot 9 times. So, it seems 9 of the 16 shots fired didn't hit the intended target. For me, this doesn't inspire much confidence in the utility of gun carrying ordinary citizens trying to confront the bad guys.

Someone carrying a gun always intends to use it. Why else carry a gun? Nobody carries a gun with the intent not to use it. — Ciceronianus the White

As I have already said, I agree with this. But the distinction is as you say.

They intend to use it "when necessary." The law abiding citizen, presumably, intends to use it to protect themselves or others from someone also carrying a gun. — Ciceronianus the White

The non-abiding folks are intent on using as necessary to advance their own way of life, and bugger the rest.

I'm not at all certain that a law abiding, gun-toting citizen would do a significant deal of good in a public firefight. — Ciceronianus the White

That would depend on the situation. As I have said sometimes the presence of one and the knowledge that it will be used is enough to avoid further problems. I already explained my personal experience with gun carrying.
Another example that might be pertinent happened on the same bus route I use daily. Almost everyday one of the buses would be robbed. A different man would get on somewhere at the beginning of the trip and wait for the bus to fill up. Then he would reach into his bag and pullout a gun before making everyone take of their valuables, wallets, mobile phones and once even a pair of tennis shoes.
It stopped the day three people pulled guns on him. He got off the bus after returning the few things he had already picked up and started running. But as usually happens here phones are for taking selfies and no on thought to take his picture.

The case you mention as well as others involving police are not the norm. They are if you look at the big picture very rare incidents.

I've looked at the bigger picture. My conclusion is that, if incidents such as those mentioned are indeed rare, they are not rare enough. More can and should be done. The answer: tighter gun control.

On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in repealing the constitutional right to bear arms, as lately - largely in light of the autocratic tendencies of President Trump - I have had largely negative attitude towards strengthening the federal government. — Brian

Two thoughts come to mind with these types of arguments. As much as I loathe Donald Trump, and as big of a megalomaniac as he is, the fact of the matter is that if this current kakistocracy did transform into some sort of dictatorship, there is very little the citizenry can do. There are a handful of examples where armed US citizens clashed with the government (in the form of one armed agency or another) and always goes poorly with the former. It is a delusional fantasy to think that armed US citizens can stand against the US government.

Secondly, the idea that the US government will transform into a dictatorship remains just that, an idea. It is a hypothetical. Gun avoidance, however, exists in the very real quotidian. This is a substantive issue that has plagued our nation for decades, whereas other similarly developed countries have fixed their gun avoidance problem with gun control.

"military/armed police"

Only a British resident could write that. Well, actually, I searched and, based on this page, realised I need to add Ireland, Iceland, Norway and New Zealand to that.

Anywhere else - including where I live unfortunately - 'armed police' is a tautology.

I really respect the model where the only police that handle firearms are specialists that have been highly trained and tested for the temperament and capabilities that are needed to be able to handle firearms judiciously and skilfully when under pressure. It seems to work well in the countries where it's used.
Of course, it helps that gun ownership is tightly controlled in those countries.

Here's a BBC article about why British beat police don't carry firearms. I was intrigued by what it says about the effect on the relationship between the police and the public.

Britain has its share of race problems, but people of colour regularly being inappropriately shot by police is not one of them.

The answer: tighter gun control. — Sapientia

The question: in what specific way should they be made tighter?

Yes, it is a model that warrants respect. It's crazy that some people actually think that it would be a good idea to make firearms even more widespread than they already are in places with an armed police force by arming security guards, like those working in hotel security, as well.

The question: in what specific way should they be made tighter? — Sir2u

If you won't listen, then I won't speak. I have already spoken on this subject, yet your question indicates that you have not listened.

The bus incident you refer to didn't involve the use of a firearm, though. That, apparently, was unnecessary. But guns when carried will be used, eventually, and that's my concern. I use shotguns with some frequency, but have only fired one kind of handgun, a .357 Magnum, and I was shocked at how often I missed the target--the stationary target. Of course, with scatter guns your chances of hitting a target are much greater, but when you shoot trap or sporting clays your target is moving at a pretty good speed. The difference between a moving target and a stationary one is profound, and people have a tendency to move.

I suspect that most of the law abiding citizens carrying firearms for protection haven't spent much time being trained in their use.

The bus incident you refer to didn't involve the use of a firearm, though. — Ciceronianus the White

The use of firearms as a preventive method does not always require one to fire it. But the incident did involve the use of firearms. If one of the passengers had started to fight with the thief things might have ended up very different as has happened on several occasions before.

I suspect that most of the law abiding citizens carrying firearms for protection haven't spent much time being trained in their use. — Ciceronianus the White

And I suppose the bad guys are about the same, except for the practice they get attacking others.

There are a handful of examples where armed US citizens clashed with the government (in the form of one armed agency or another) and always goes poorly with the former. It is a delusional fantasy to think that armed US citizens can stand against the US government. — Maw

"It is a delusional fantasy to think that COLONIAL citizens can stand against the BRITISH government."

How unpleasant this idea would have been if it were mainstream in the 1770s. Thank god the founding fathers weren't disposed to it.

Military technology has moved on a bit since muskets.

Military technology has moved on a bit since muskets. — Baden

Also, the enemy wouldn't be half a world way, and also opposed by France, Spain, the Netherlands, and the Kingdom of Mysore.

It is a mystery why gun crime is so bad in the United States in comparison with other countries. Almost everyone in the US who has a gun is a good person who would only use the gun for self-defence. Such a tiny proportion of people that have guns are bad people that it would hardly account for the high number of gun murders.

It's inexplicable. I think other countries should take the lead from the US and loosen up their ridiculously strict gun laws - unless they think their citizens are generally bad people who would use guns to do harm to others. Clearly the US is doing something right.

It is a mystery why gun crime is so bad in the United States in comparison with other countries.

...

Clearly the US is doing something right. — Cuthbert

Huh?

They allow everyone to have guns and then the good people use guns to protect themselves and their families from the tiny number of bad people who also have guns. If the Government takes the guns away then the good people will give up their guns, being law-abiding, but the bad people will continue to have guns and use them for evil, having no respect for the law. It is a theory I have heard many times from good US citizens. It works. Just look at the US rate of gun crime and how much worse it would be if they had gun control. It's a persuasive argument and I don't understand why the whole of the rest of the civilised world has not understood this argument and has not yet freed up their own stupid restrictive gun laws.

There's something both hilarious and pathetic about the language of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in American discussions of gun regulation; as if their discourse can't rise above the level of children's bedtime stories and fairytales. Undoubtedly why the whole issue is a nightmare over there.

Just look at the US rate of gun crime and how much worse it would be if they had gun control. It's a persuasive argument and I don't understand why the whole of the rest of the civilised world has not understood this argument and has not yet freed up their own stupid restrictive gun laws. — Cuthbert

Why would you think it would be worse with gun control? Have you ever considered that it would be better? If people can't get hold of guns (and ammo) then how can they use guns to commit crimes?

According to this:

The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.

In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population.

Make it easier to get guns and I guarantee that gun crime will increase. That's why we don't free up our own sensible restrictive gun laws.

Why would you think it would be worse with gun control? Have you ever considered that it would be better? If people can't get hold of guns (and ammo) then how can they use guns to commit crimes? — Michael

I think you missed the irony of his post.

The bad guys will still get guns, because they are not afraid to break the law. The good guys will have given their guns away, being law-abiding. And the result is that innocent people will be left undefended against evil-doers. That's how it is in the US and how it should be in Britain and everywhere else.

As to the question, why gun crime is much lower in countries with gun control than in countries without it, well, it's an inexplicable mystery that the finest minds have been unable to fathom. Some people say that it's because gun control actually *causes* the lower murder and crime rate. Obviously, that is ridiculous. Most people who have guns don't mean any harm and there are only a few bad guys with guns, so that would have no effect on the over-all murder rate. No, it's a mystery and beyond all possible explanation, as far as I can see.

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

The genuinely distressing thing is that you can post this kind of nonsense and the irony is missed - not because people are insensitive to irony, but because the arguments are peddled so widely without the slightest irony at all....

I think you missed the irony of his post. — Benkei

The genuinely distressing thing is that you can post this kind of nonsense and the irony is missed - not because people are insensitive to irony, but because the arguments are peddled so widely without the slightest irony at all.... — Cuthbert

The US allows far easier access to firearms than most other countries. The US also has a disproportionately high level of gun crime compared to most other countries. — Sapientia

Hmm, actually by my research from a study in 2011, places with high gun-control laws are more likely to have gun-related crime. Within the United State, Washington D.C and California have the highest rate of firearm-related murder. California ranking at 3.25 murders per 100,000 people, accounting for 68% of deaths in that state. Utah, quite contrary, with its laws being deemed the most relaxed towards gun-control, has a rate of about 0.97% of firearm-related murders. Which, given these facts, it would seem most plausible that gun-control to extreme extents, increases firearm-related murder.
As for the United States having a high level of gun crime compared to most other countries, I must ask where you obtained those statistics. The only statistics I could find supporting this was from a 2003 study of all homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm-related death among high-income nations, not most other counties.

If the police officer who shot dead Scout Schultz had used pepper spray or a taser instead of a firearm, then what is the likelihood that Scout would be alive right now? — Sapientia

If the police officer had a taser or pepper spray instead of a firearm, the risk would have been greatly increased for the lives of other students and the officers themselves. You must understand how a taser operates before recommending such weapons. Both require relatively close distance. Given that Schultz called 911, declaring that he had a knife and a gun and that he purposefully threatened the officers by advancing with multiple warnings to stop, one would be insane to want to endanger everyone else's lives by using a taser or pepper spray. So rather the question should be, what would have happened if Schultz wasn't stopped?

What about that security guard that you mentioned? Would a taser not have disabled the target without killing him? Would it not then have been the case that even more lives were saved? (Although, did he not in fact manage to slip past the security guard? If so, then why are we even discussing this? Either way, it would not have made any difference in this particular case).

Actually, no. If a taser was used, you would have to again be relatively close (15-20 feet) and pray that the barbs latched onto the clothing of the one you shot. You only have one chance, and if you miss, you die. If the security guard was armed with a firearm and used it properly, then it would have been more likely that lives would have been spared.

And I suppose the bad guys are about the same, except for the practice they get attacking others. — Sir2u

Hmm. I'm unsure what the point of this remark may be. Law abiding citizens need not train in the use of firearms because those who break the law don't? The more untrained users of firearms, the better? The only way to stop a bad incompetent shooter is with a good incompetent shooter?

There are those Americans who seem to regard the gun as a kind of totem (I'm not saying you're one of them). It's virtually impossible to enter into intelligent discourse with such people about guns. Those who take a less worshipful view of them should, however, consider the possibility--I would say probability--that, when push comes to shove, people who carry guns with them for purposes of protection may present more of a danger to others than anything else if they lack training in shooting them.

There's something both hilarious and pathetic about the language of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in American discussions of gun regulation; as if their discourse can't rise above the level of children's bedtime stories and fairytales. Undoubtedly why the whole issue is a nightmare over there — StreetlightX

Well, yes, of course the concepts of good and bad, and therefore the notion that there may be good people and bad people who can be identified as such, are the stuff of bedtime stories and fairytales. But the less intelligent and sophisticated among us are entitled to a certain indulgence in this regard, don't you think? So, "bad guys" might, as a kindness, be accepted as intended to refer to people who use firearms in the commission of crimes, for example, which of course can't be described as "bad", not really, but generally is as a matter of common speech.