Some people have defended their homes with guns. That doesn't mean that people are safer in general with guns, or that deaths from accidents and suicides don't far outnumber such instances of self-defense, but implying that no one has *ever* defended their home or family with a gun is the kind of hyperbole that can cause even responsible gun owners to dismiss gun-control arguments out of hand.

@Todd. You may notice I didn't say it's never happened, I asked a genuine question. I never hear about it. Where are the news stories about all the people successfully defending themselves?

@Alex www.reddit.com/r/justiceporn is a good place to start. Lots of stories. Here's two, pulled at random:
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeowner…

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-su…

And in your first point - it seems like that cop was found guilty for a bit more than just running a Google search. Not much more, but maybe enough more.

Alex, I'm about as anti-gun as one can get, but I have to confess to remembering the occasional news story about how someone shot an intruder in their home. Would one of those stories answer question #3 for you? I'm betting not, because we'll never know for sure whether the family would have been harmed had the intruder not been shot. And to be fair, most of those stories end by saying the police are investigating the circumstances to determine whether the shooting was justified as self-defense. But to take Todd's comment to the next logical step, maybe change question #3 to ask how an event of such rarity and murky circumstance justifies the overwhelming number of murders, suicides and accidental deaths facilitated by having guns in the home is probably a better approach.

I'd love to ask this of my pro-gun, non-crazy friends but the questions are all too condescending and I'd prefer not to talk to my friends that way.

Petition to rename article: Five Stupid (But Genuine) Questions For Gun Haters to Ask Other Gun Haters and Snicker About

@Reymont: I definitely looked through some of those "justice porn" type blogs including the NRA's (which you think would be carefully selected to be the strongest possible case for guns) and it's almost all store owners shooting meth heads trying to rob vending machines.

Have all decided, as a society, that it's justified to murder somebody for trying to rob you? I don't want anybody to steal my TV but shooting them seems a bit... vigilante.

@Alex: http://www.katu.com/news/local/Homeowner-s…

@Alex: This was a case that made the national news recently:
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/burglar…

1. It's one of a number of issues I care about. Ranks below strengthening the social safety net and improving healthcare, but I have talked and written about the issues around gun control in the past, because there's a history of bad legislation there. (Not joking: actual laws passed to ban things that don't exist.)

2. This is a batshit-crazy non sequitur of a question; you do realize that, don't you? You not only take for granted that all gun owners are "preppers", but imagine that the apocalypse they're preparing for is necessarily nuclear. I'm trying to take this in good faith, but you're not making it easy.

3. Yes, very, very frequently, as others have cited. Furthermore, in the overwhelming majority of cases where a gun is used for self-defense, IT IS NOT FIRED. Most often, simply seeing that someone has a gun is sufficient to persuade an invader or assailant that their time would be better spent elsewhere.

4. The problem here is less a slippery slope than a rachet effect. Once restrictions are passed, they're almost never rescinded, meaning that they tend to accumulate into a vast, Gormenghast-esque archive of rules, each of which seemed like a good idea at the time. For example, look at the way right-wingers have been chipping away at Roe vs. Wade, adding one restriction after another until it's de facto impossible to obtain a legal abortion in large areas of the country.

5. You've got your cause and effect in the wrong order here. Every time there's a prominent shooting incident, there's renewed calls for greater gun restrictions. That makes sense; it's a natural reaction. So it's at those times that you hear from gun owners arguing against the renewed calls for legislation. It also gives that asshole Wayne LaPierre the spotlight he likes, but frankly, the less said about the NRA, the better. They represent manufacturers, not users, and it really shows.

A woman in Oregon City pulled (but did not fire) a handgun and defended herself from an attacker a week ago.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/inde…


My parents live in a neighborhood in rural Tennessee, kind of like the far ends of Hillsboro. They're 20 minutes from the nearest police station and live near a lot of people we don't really know. They've had sheds broken into more than once, and people that show up on the sex offender map occasionally living nearby. I've never really lived somewhere that I felt in danger enough to want a gun, but I understand people that do.


We need a smarter conversation with a lot less hyperbole. We need fewer "gun haters" that keep wanting to make this argument about how guns are the worst thing in the world. It's counterproductive to those of us that want to see reasonable change occur. We definitely need fewer "gun lovers" that oppose any possible new law because it would at best inconvenience them and at worst because of some weird anti-government paranoia, because they detract from the millions of RESPONSIBLE gun owners out there that get safety pounded into their head while learning how to operate a gun.

Sorry, the ignorance of question #3 is really, really bad and is the perfect example of why the pro-gun lobby goes on tirades against that "evil liberal mainstream media".

Is that someone breaking into your home to steal your TV also armed? Are they going to to possibly kill you or do something to one of your family members? Is there more than one of them? If you call the cops and they drop everything to help you...are you far enough out of town that it still takes them 20 minutes to show up? Are you implying that people shouldn't really worry about these sorts of things?

Asking broad snarky questions like #3 is why it is so damn difficult to get sensible gun control in this country, even something as simple as universal background checks.

To answer your question, yes, I've know of two people who had to unfortunately shoot someone who was breaking into their home. Were they all feeling Johnny Hero on the Spot about it? No, they felt terrible.

Seriously? Can we start getting paid to do your research? It took me longer to type this actual post that to answer question #3 with actual news articles:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&t…

Really appreciate the effort, @humanclock. So basically everybody is in agreement that if the hamburgler shows up you're allowed to pop him a couple times in the chest? That seems fine with everybody? I can't help but notice that justice system doesn't say "The punishment for home invasion is 10 years + you get instantly shot." Must be an oversight.

Thanks for taking the time to actually respond, @Noah Brand. As I clearly stated I mean these questions genuinely even if they seem stupid. So let's talk about a couple of these.

[2] It's not a non sequitor, it's a response to what people actually site as their reason for buying a gun. So what possible apocalypse would you buying a gun now really affect?

[4] If the "rachet effect" theory were true, why did it not matter in the assault rifle ban?

[5] I totally agree with your version of the cause and effect. But I'm not wondering why it happens, just if it feels weird having to defend the issue most passionately during children's funerals.

@Alex - You originally asked for examples where people were able to defend themselves from an attack using a gun. We provided LOTS of examples, but instead of responding to them you just keep going back to your emotional argument that we shouldn't shoot thieves. It's as if you're "sending" but not "receiving." Just blathering on, secure in your point of view, and ignoring anything that doesn't fit in it, rolling over the answers to the questions that you yourself asked if they don't fit with that view....

Very disappointing.

"you just keep going back to your emotional argument that we shouldn't shoot thieves."

Umm, hey Reymont? You know you don't *have* to shoot thieves, right?

Alex - if you were ACTUALLY concerned about the answers, you wouldn't be lacing them with condescension.

I don't like when people think their second amendment rights should trump someone else's sixth or eighth amendment rights. You trivialize the discussion when you bring the god damn hamburgler into things. I agree with your point - stand your ground laws are terrible and some dude taking your TV shouldn't carry a death sentence. Not everyone that breaks into your house is after your TV and you don't know that line until it's about to be crossed. Most people breaking into your house aren't your friends. Even if they ARE after your TV, that's still no guarantee they won't hurt you first.

As a follow-up: That's not to say we should cede the argument that guns are the only means of protecting yourself. At home, a baseball bat or the like. Anywhere (including at home) your best option is RUN. You've probably got a cell phone on you to call the cops once you're safe. Give up the TV. Give up your wallet. They're not worth killing for and certainly not worth dying for.

Just don't be so naive as to pretend there are literally no situations in which a gun wouldn't be the best means to protect someone from harm.

Exactly, Aestro.

If someone has broken into my house, I have to assume that they're not the considerate type of person that deserves to be hit with kid gloves. I would also have to assume that they don't give a flying fuck about me, my loved ones, or my property, and that they'll probably do whatever they need to do to get what they want without getting caught or hurt, up to and including killing me and whoever is in the house with me. Fuck them for that. If I'm armed, I might not automatically pull the trigger, but if I did, I'm not so sure I'd feel all that bad about it. Stay the fuck out of my house. And if you don't, be prepared to take your medicine.

Okay, here is the Second Amendment in it's entirety:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

My question for the NRA and the other rabid pro gun folks is always this one: How is it you can trumpet the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms" and yet so conveniently gloss over the "Well regulated" part?

Which begs another question: Who is supposed to regulate this, if not the government? God? Your mommy? The hobo who collects cans in your neighborhood park? Who?

And also, if you truly love the Second Amendment so much... Isn't regulation really control? According to the dictionary it is. So why the cherry picking?

@ Human in Training

Sighhh... when you act all "Arnold Schwarzenegger" it gets me so hot! I'll take your "medicine"... if it's sweet love bullets!

@Wm. Steven Humphrey

And now I can't get They Might Be Giants' song "Sapphire Bullets Of Pure Love" our of my head. Thanks. Asshole...

Not every intruder is a gentle television thief, and not every intruder is a violent nutter who breaks down the door with a crowbar even though he knows the house is occupied (see the second link I posted above).

There are cases where shooting an intruder would not be justified, and cases where it would. It's Alex's refusal to see that the issue isn't all-or-nothing that is driving some of us nuts, Steve's attempts to lighten things up and take the heat off Falcone notwithstanding. (Don't worry, we don't have a crowbar.)

Oh, Alex can stand the heat just fine. During his comedy routines he faces down tougher hecklers than you mealy-mouthed jokers. It's just hard to take some of you macho gun lovers seriously. Whenever you bark things like, "That thief better not come into my house!" I just think of a cowering yapping dog that's afraid of life. Get rid of your gun and grow some balls.

You're not asking for the best and brightest answers when you lead, strawman, and insult your audience like that. Was this intended to be a humor piece, or are you just being disingenuous?

Question #1 - This is not my most important issue. Who told you it was? I suspect that some people who get worked up about it feel that most gun-control measures are attempting to limit the #2 amendment in the Bill Of Rights. I am not equating in this comparison, but what if this was about limiting the right to use the N-word?

Question #2 - I grew up learning to hunt and fish and as a Boy Scout I learned survival skills (because camping is fun), so if society fell I could probably go on living. Wait, what does this have to do with anything? This isn't really part of the debate, and is just being used to make your opponent look crazy.

Question #3 - Yes, there are lots of anecdotes where this happened, and even more where the attacker fled. They are not statistically significant, but they hold tremendous statistical significance. And a great many people who care about protecting their families know that the police cannot always help or get there in time. If you want to do a humor piece, maybe look into a bit where someone tries to use a modern cell phone under duress.

Question #4 - This just in, lots of people on both sides of the issue are poorly educated. Instead of talking about that we are spending the bulk of our energy and focus talking about guns.

Question #5 - Wait, who's the most passionate here? Isn't it Obama invoking passion and tragedy to make an emotional argument to resurface an issue that is not central to our success as a nation? Gun control opponents didn't bring this up, they just happen to be well-organized because they've had lots of practice over the years.

Holding up a Ted Nugent as an example of 2A defenders being rabid, nut jobs is an awful strawman of the millions of earnest, intelligent gun owners. You're not going to find middle ground that can garner votes until you cut that shit out.

Most of us aren't opposed to reasonable gun-control measures where they make sense, but the proposals on the table have flaws that need to be addressed before we are in agreement.

@Alex:

First you write in Question #3:
"..I mean, has anybody ever had a violent attacker enter their home..."

Then you write in the comments:
"So basically everybody is in agreement that if the hamburgler shows up you're allowed to pop him a couple times in the chest? That seems fine with everybody?"

A person breaking into your home and brandishing a weapon vs a guy dressed up in a costume stealing burgers off your grill are two very different situations.

If you were thinking about the latter situation when writing the question, next time don't use the word "violent attacker" and maybe bring up Yoshihiro Hattori instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hat…

@ Wm. Steven Humphrey:

Firstly: Jesus.

Secondly: I didn't realize that I was coming off as "all Arnold Schwarzenegger" -- I've been pretty darn vocal and one-sided here in the past about the shameful dearth of gun control in this country and the equally-as-shameful abundance of (surely Schwarzenegger-idolizing) idiots who use guns in the stupidest and most dangerous of ways. Gun lover I am not.

But yeah, the idea of an intruder harming or taking the life of another in such circumstances for such non-reasons certainly gets me more than a little angry.

I'm just surprised that some of you have so much consideration for the life of someone who obviously has so little for yours. I mean, I wouldn't be able to forgive such a person for harming my dog, let alone an actual person.

Lastly: I don't own a gun and have been trying to grow some balls for years, but I don't think they'll grow any faster by allowing someone the chance to harm or kill me (or, worse, a loved one) by simply crossing my fingers and hoping that they're as good of a person as you are while they're robbing/whatevering me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUY1J8KizU

(The hamburglar represents Alex's lameass questions and the readers' excellent responses are Homer. I'm the kid in the striped shirt.)

@Todd Mecklem
I don't think it's all or nothing. Obviously the real issue is do the three times a year somebody saves themselves from an actual attacker make up for the 100 times a year a 4-year-old accidentally shoots somebody at a cookout. But we can't study those because corporate gun money has made it illegal to study gun violence.

But I'm fascinated that everybody thinks it's okay to shoot robbers. Of all the links you guys posted more than half were unarmed burglars with many of them being juveniles. Which goes to @human in training's point that we value lives of people who don't value ours. Isn't that precisely what the justice system is about? I don't think home invaders deserve the death penalty and neither does the government. But scared people get to make that decision in the moment. And scared people with guns seem like the last people who should have guns.

And since @fignuts was being so polite, a response for you.

1 - "This is not my most important issue. Who told you it was?" A fair point. I didn't write this whole piece about you specifically.

2 - "This isn't really part of the debate, and is just being used to make your opponent look crazy." There are no opponents, I'm asking questions. There are crazy people, and I'm referencing them.

5 - "Wait, who's the most passionate here? Isn't it Obama invoking passion and tragedy to make an emotional argument to resurface an issue that is not central to our success as a nation? Gun control opponents didn't bring this up, they just happen to be well-organized because they've had lots of practice over the years."

That's a really interesting point. Obviously you could also say the president is responding to a situation and trying to keep it from happening again, but that's all just PR theory and not what I asked. I was asking if it feels weird to have to defend this while children are being buried. It seems the consensus is "no, we feel fine."

"Holding up a Ted Nugent as an example of 2A defenders being rabid, nut jobs is an awful strawman of the millions of earnest, intelligent gun owners."

Straw man is specifically when nobody is making an argument. Ergo Ted Nugent, not a straw man. The other questions are all direct references to things I heard, as I stated very clearly, from idiots leaving a gun store on a news piece about surging gun sales. Except for #4 which was from multiple senators in the United States Senate.

And there's nothing disingenuous about any of it. I mean it all very much. Except the jokes, which are there to keep it from being boring.

1) "Why is this your issue?" Your sentence implies that this is the only thing gun supporters care about, or at least it's the most important issue to many gun supporters. In fact, very few people name gun control their most important issue. According to a recent Gallup poll, only 4 to 6% of Americans identify gun control as the most important issue in America.

Now, if you'd asked a more reasonable question, like "why is this one of many issues that you have a passionate opinion on?" you might get different answers. Popular answers would likely be: (i) I care about the safety and well-being of myself and my household, and (ii) I care about my personal freedoms as stated in the US Constitution. Both of those points (and many other points that I haven't listed here) are valid reasons for a person to be passionate about a topic.

2) "Why do you think you're going to survive the nuclear apocalypse?" This is clearly an ignorant and condescending question, and Alex should own up to that. A small amount of gun owners might seriously consider a potential apocalyptic event as justification for owning firearms. That apocalyptic event could take many forms: pandemic, economic/governmental collapse, traditional warfare, civil war, nuclear war, climate change, meteor strike, etc. There is probably a very small possibility of any one of these events happening in our lifetime. But throughout the course of human history, many humans, in many places all over the world have suffered through terrible "apocalyptic" events, where they have not had a government to count on for protection, and it is not unreasonable to think that a similar event could happen again in the future.

3) "Has anybody ever successfully defended their family with a gun." The answer is obviously yes. As you point out, most of the media coverage is of thieves being shot, and said thieves may or may not have posed a "danger" to a person and their family, and deadly force may not have been justified in all instances. As others have pointed out, there are many instances where someone simply shows a gun and it is enough to send intruders running for the hills. Ultimately, it would be nice if the government were allowed to study these incidents, and keep track of all of the times guns in homes resulted in protection of the residents, as well as all the times they have resulted in senseless violence and death. Although the NRA is apparently at blame for the lack of good data on this issue, most Americans (and most gun supporters) agree that this issue deserves to be studied.

4) "When you talk about how you're worried about slippery slopes, do you understand the metaphor you're using?" I personally have never heard a gun supporter use the "slippery slope" metaphor. Regardless. Policy changes frequently happen incrementally, so it isn't unreasonable for a person to think that a given piece of legislation is only the first step towards a more robust policy framework in the future.

5) "Is it weird to always be the most passionate about something after it's been used to murder children?" Yes, I suppose that it is weird. But it's also very natural, as everyone else has pointed out, since these national tragedies shine a spotlight on the issue, and spur conversations on both sides of the issue.

From a recent PPB News release: "During the daytime hours of March 20th, 2013, an unknown person pushed his way into a home in the area of SE 174th and Division and sexually assaulted a woman inside. Previously unknown to the victim, the suspect was armed with a knife and may have been stalking her prior to the attack. The victim sustained injuries during the attack."

He was later caught and charged with, among other things, Rape I and Sexual Abuse III. This guy's intent wasn't ambiguous -- he wasn't there to steal a TV.

Now imagine that that woman was your wife, mother, daughter, or sister. Seriously -- take a minute and really imagine it. Imagine her tears and screams. Imagine the utter fear she must've been experiencing. And then imagine that you were there when it all went down, regardless of whether or not you were armed, and that the dude was fighting you both and winning.

At what point do you decide that enough is enough, that he's not going to give up and that your lives aren't worth trading for his? Do you continue to turn your cheek and let him have at her because his life is too valuable?

"I don't think home invaders deserve the death penalty and neither does the government. But scared people get to make that decision in the moment. And scared people with guns seem like the last people who should have guns."

Well, there you go. It wasn't the guy who broke down the door with the crowbar who was to blame, it was the woman who got scared. If she couldn't control her emotions, she shouldn't have owned a gun. Maybe he could sue her, claiming she overreacted, he just wanted to inspect the crawlspace she and the kids were hiding from him in for termite damage.

Hopefully the Mercury can print a page in a future issue that we can all keep by our bedside to hand to the next home invader asking them to please leave our home without harming us (if that's all right with them), and detailing services available to burglars (or at least ways to more easily fence our belongings).

I'm liberal, and I hate guns, but your seeming inability or unwillingness to believe that anyone could possible enter someone's home and try to harm them, EVER...I don't know, are you sure you're not an NRA agent provocateur, trying to make gun control advocates look ridiculous?

I'll take "Why do you think you're going to survive the nuclear apocalypse?" for $200.00 Alex.

The reason they think they won't die is because okcupid askes them "In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?" and these bitches always answer yes. They've been brain washed by a dating site to think they even have an option.. You dont have one, you dont have a choice, you're not Sylvester Stallone, you're totally going to die.

In a certain fairly serious sense, for me, owning and being able to use a gun is about having a Plan B. Plan A is, of course, civilization. People being able to deal with each other like civilized adults and not having to resort to violence. And generally, Plan A works great. Human violence has declined more or less steadily for centuries because Plan A is awesome. I am a big fan of Plan A, and work every day to try to strengthen it, to the extent I can. But, and perhaps I'm paranoid, I am just not comfortable only having one plan. Yeah, folks talk about a massive failure of civilization: nuclear war's one option, but I think pandemic, natural disaster, or structural collapse are more probable at this point, not that any of them strikes me as overwhelmingly likely. (Except possibly climate-change-induced catastrophe.) However, even a localized failure of Plan A is sufficient to kill most people. One person, or a few people, who in one terrible moment can no longer act like civilized adults and thus resort to violence. In case of such a localized failure, I want a backup plan, and for me, that means gun ownership. It's about having access to violence as an option, for situations where better options have failed.

(There's also a collector's appeal for me because I'm sorry, but the Colt 1903 .32 Hammerless is a fucking MASTERPIECE of design. Folks talk about the 1911 .45, but whatever. I was into John Moses Browning before he sold out with that big military contract deal. The 1903 is gorgeous; the proportions, the lines, the surfaces, the integrated magazine safety, that amazing trigger... it's a classic. Yes, I'm a handgun hipster. Assume I'm screaming THIS IS PORTLAND and kicking a guy into a pit.)

Can we get a little more specific about what kind of gun control laws are actually being proposed and considered now? Because this discussion is varying widely in focus and maybe specifying what we mean by "gun control" would narrow the field.

A lot of the arguers here sound like they think "gun control" means "making it so you can't have a gun but the bad guys can." But -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- I think one of the central aims of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of the Hamburglar/home invader/attacker. And then also to keep them away from children. Excuse me if this offends anyone, but if you feel you need to exercise your right to keep a gun in your home to protect your family, but you aren't taking the strict safety precautions necessary to prevent your child from shooting it at you, then guess what? You're failing at that. And maybe some regulations are necessary because of you. And maybe you're ruining it for everyone else.

But if you're one of the responsible, educated, non-criminal gun owners? Then you probably don't have anything to worry about because those laws are not going to be aimed at you, right?

1: The fact that you use the term “War Machines” suggest you have already drawn your own conclusions. The guns that people are trying to ban now are not war machines. They are simply modern rifles. They do not spray bullets. They are not fully automatic. They are not used by any military organization. The term “Assault Rifle” came into use in the late 1980’s at the suggestion of lobbyist Josh Sugermann. He wrote, in several documents, that the term should be used to confuse uninformed voters into thinking that civilians were armed with some kind of super gun that needed to be banned.
It is a top issue because private gun ownership is the only real and tangible barrier to the government getting completely out of bounds. Without that barrier, the other amendments, like the 1st and 4th, would remain intact only until the government decides they are inconvenient. That does not mean that the average gun owner is itching for a revolution. The whole idea is that the government be discouraged from ever pushing to the point where a revolution seems like a viable option. For now, the beer and circuses work.

2: The number of doomsday preppers out there is probably about the same as the number of people who actually think there is a legitimate Jedi religion. That is just a stereotype pushed by lobbyists.

3: Tens of thousands of defensive gun uses happen every year. Most happen without anyone getting hurt. You don’t hear about it if you get all your news from HuffPo or MSNBC – such stories tend to invalidate their agenda. Check out r/DGU on Reddit.

4: The slope has already proven itself to be slippery. Gun legislation that will “solve all the problems” gets passed every decade or two. “Deciding how far down to climb it” isn’t that simple either. Consider Obama, who stated during both of his presidential campaigns that he would not push for more gun control. But when a certain overly-politicized tragedy happened last December, he announced on Meet the Press that “This is the opportunity we have been waiting for”.

5: You simply are hearing more from the pro-gun crowd now because the anti-gun crowd is on the attack. The 1990’s proved that gun-control as a deterrent to crime is a complete failure. But there are anti-gun lobbyists who will not give up. And they like to use tragedies to popularize their agenda.

6: (Even though you didn’t bring it up) The NRA is not a gun industry lobby. It represents the agenda of over 5 million individual members. A very small portion of their revenue comes from the gun industry – they have their own lobby.

I'd like to give the award for least crazy / best informed comment to @Anonymous503. So let's continue that discussion for just a bit.

[1] Fair enough. Would you disagree that you (or the people you're talking about if you're not in this group) are as passionate about the 7th amendment and how it's being ignored for "combatants" in off-shore secret prisons? Or the 1st in cases like the "Cannibal cop" who are prosecuted for their writing and web searching?

[2] So sure, there are lots of other situations where 99% of people die, not just nuclear situations. Aren't you still assuming you are the miraculous survivor of this apocalypse? If it's worth buying a gun for that tiny possibility, why not gas masks, food, secret shelters, zombie repellent, etc.?

[3] I think we (all of us as a group) have solved this one. It happens, it's rare, and we can't study how common it is because of the NRA.

[4] But a bill is only a first step, can't you still vote against step 2 or step 15 or wherever it stops being entirely reasonable?

-----------

And some less impressive entries:

@human in training - Yep, that sounds very scary. But so is the 4 year old finding the gun and shooting the neighbor while he's barbecuing. And that seems to happen more often. So I'd rather my fiancee learn some self defense and not have something around that my kid can use to accidentally kill people just because of that million-to-one chance that something awful happens.

@Todd Mecklem, this applies to you too. The chance of somebody dying who doesn't deserve it seems WAY higher than the chance it's used to defend ourselves.

And @Noah Brand, as above, listing other bazillion-to-one scenerios doesn't change the fact, you're assuming you survive AND your gun makes a difference in that world. Seems unlikely enough. Collecting seems fine to me, and since nobody is going to make that illegal, you're just like the guy with a bunch of stamps. Don't show the collection unless somebody actually cares.

@Alex, the rate of justifiable homicide by firearm by civilians (201 deaths in 2011), and the rate of unintentional deaths by firearms (851 deaths in 2011), is about a 2:8.5 ratio, not the 3:100 you suggest.

Also, can you elaborate on what you mean by make it illegal to study gun violence? I am not aware of there being any legal barriers to studying gun violence. It is my perception that when the statistics are broken down, and contextualized, it neither favors, or disfavors, the concept of private gun ownership. However, what it will show is that people left with no other options had to rely on their firearm to protect their lives, or the lives of others.

Gun control has historically relied on knee-jerk political actions in order to pass. Which to me, delegitimizes it as being a terribly effective, or realistic, strategy to deal with crime in a society. I think any policy is illegitimate when it depends on there being high degrees of emotional turmoil, where people can say anything they want in regards to the issue before people can get informed about the topic. The longer these gun control talks take, the less of a chance the anti-gun people have to see their ideology promoted by means of the criminal justice system. They just have to make sure they convince enough people before the blood dries. When these isolated incidents are not happening, which is most of the time, the organized anti-gun strategy is to brainwash people and twist information to paint a false sense of reality in which guns have no useful purposes. Until then, the anti-gun people depend entirely on associating guns, or, "assault weapons (tm)," with dead children in Newtown, CT.

When the picture starts to change back to that of a society where these kinds of things are normal and owned by law-abiding people, for legitimate purposes, then gun control has no chance of passing.

To answer your last question: Yes, it is weird sometimes. However, it is necessary to realize that the anti-gun people are really the ones on the offensive when it comes to discussing the topic of gun control. The pro-gun people are simply reacting to protect their rights, their hobby, their investments, their companies, their lives, or whatever their reason for standing up against particularly unjust, and unconstitutional policy and legislation.

@hafetysazard

We pass gun laws after gun violence, but we also pass changes to FEMA after hurricanes, water safety measures after contamination, rules requiring buildings to have parking after one doesn't. If your standard for laws are things we think about when they're not in the news, you've delegitimized everything.

The president just ended the ban on the CDC or department of Health and Human Services from funding any gun research (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-r…).

@ Alex:

I know it's a little messy in here, so I can understand how it might be easy to miss someone's point/question. Mine was something like "At what point do you decide to save your own life, even if it means taking the life of they that are trying to take yours?", yet somehow I (and maybe Todd, too) seem to have gotten thrown into the "GUNS FOR EVERYBODY SANS RESTRICTIONS FOREVER!!" category.

I jumped into this thread to take issue with your (and WSH's) idea of how much value should be placed on the life of someone assaulting you and/or your loved ones. In the scenario I laid out, I made sure to qualify it with "whether or not you were armed" -- whether or not guns are involved on either side is irrelevant to my point. My point is that nobody should roll over and let someone harm them or a loved one because preventing said assault by fighting back (via whatever means and to whatever degree) would somehow be "wrong". Sometimes people just won't stop doing horrible things until you make them. Sometimes it literally is 'kill or be killed'.

Anyway, as far as guns go, I think you and I agree on the issue more than you realize. Personally, if I thought it could ever be successfully implemented, I would be all for an extensive ban and extreme regulation wrapped in miles of red tape. News like that about the 4 year old is shameful and stupid and tragic and so, so preventable. And all too common. More than being an embarrassment to the gun lobby, it's an embarrassment to our species. In general, we are impulsive, careless, and imprudent, regardless of our intentions to the contrary. And because of said ineptitudes, I think that the extreme majority of us shouldN'T be allowed to own firearms -- we're simply not responsible enough. (And most of us have no business owning one anyway.)

@Alex

Some legislative and policy changes are able to be passed quickly, without splitting hairs, because usually the presumption there are pertinent needs that must be addressed that are highly beneficial.

However, when the issue directly involves people's personal safety, personal freedom, and constitutional rights, there deserves to be much more of a discussion. There is some benefit in discovering the potential consequences of a law might be when everyone can chime in and give their opinion, rather than letting the ignorant and opinionated bleedheart reactionaries take the reigns and screw up the lives of people they do not know about, think about, or care about.