I’d like to see you cite your source in, I assume, the Journal of Bottom Lines before I’ll believe some BS like that.
Let’s all make wild assertions with no supporting evidence and pretend that we’re making valid, convincing arguments! All Rottweilers are homosexual! It’s snowing in Mexico! 90% of all people are above average! Wheee!

John R.Lott, Jr. “More Guns, Less Crime” (2nd Edition) University of Chicago Press (2000).

If anyone on this blog actually cares about data, this is the only respectable enpirical study that exists on the questions about which everyone here seems to have already reached unshakable conclusions.

I don’t support the idea of a person judging their own fitness to own guns. If a person does something to show they are unable to properly own a gun, they should be stripped of their right by the government. I would have no problem if a person had to first get a license before owning a gun, nor do I have a problem with wait times.

I think it is also silly how people differentiate between good “sport” guns and evil “killing” guns. The only difference between an AR15 (a civilian M16) and a hunting rifle is the aesthetics. This is called the case of the “scary black rifle”. Two guns that fire the same round, at the same semi-auto speed can be pronounced “evil” if it is black composite plastic stock and “good” if it is a woodgrain stock.

I would like to address the argument that guns are ineffective defense. “First you have to find the gun, then load it, and you’re sleepy”. This is fallacious. Simply grab the gun, pull the slide back, and you’re ready. Again, I’m all for responsibility and regulation, just not outright banning.

The idea of stopping a ‘home invasion’ with a gun always seems to me to be a bit like the argument that if only someone was carrying a gun, then a mad shooter taking out a school/university/shop/McDonalds would be stopped in their tracks. You hardly ever hear it happening. A couple of posters have already pointed out that if you wake up and hear a noise downstairs, you’ve got to find the gun, load it, and quietly go and find the burglar. Of course you are half asleep, while the guy stealing your stuff is wide-awake, possibly has pretty good night vision, and isn’t a stationary target. And he might have a gun….

In reality, you are more likely to miss the target (easy to do with a handgun), and in the long term, more likely to injure or kill someone in the house.

Guns don’t really protect, they just give the appearance of protection. Especially when you look at the US v UK murder rate, or even burglary rates which seem to be not dissimilar from a quick Google search. Certainly having a gun in the house (and on show), did nothing to protect this poor woman or her husband. I have no problem with properly regulated guns for hunting or sport, but its difficult to see what a Glock really did for her other than to provide a handy weapon for a tragedy.

I’m actually a trained community something – or – nuther as part of the Minneapolis SAFE program. (I’m sure my training has expired.) If you ask cops how to best protect your home, they’ll tell you lots of things about lights, exterior design, locks, and so on. If you say “OK, what ONE thing works best” they do not hesitate to say “a dog.”

My mother lives in south Florida and has four dogs. Since that part of the world is prone to hurricane attacks, many residents have gasoline powered generators on their property in case of a power outage. My mom is no exception.

A few years ago, my mom was rudely awakened in the dead of night by the incessant barking of the dogs. She was not amused! So in the colorful language that she’s prone to using in such situations, she shouted at the top of her lungs “I’M GOING TO STRANGLE EVERY FUCKING LAST ONE OF YOU!!!!” I’m not sure how effective this was against the barking, but the dogs did eventually stop.

The next day she discovered that thieves had stolen the gasoline tanks (for the generator) from every house on the block–except her’s.

ps—She doesn’t own a gun, but several of her neighbors do.