From a previous post of mine, referring to burglaries in America -

A realistic hypothetical is when you propose a hypothetical situation that actually happens on a daily basis (2 million in one year? Gee...2 million divided by 365? That's over 5000 burglaries a day in the country). So according to FBI crime statistics, there are 2 million breaks per year here on average in America.

So if you have a home breakin, and you are actually home for it, and are not skilled in hand to hand combat or an elderly/short statured/etc against a home attacker...a gun is not appropriate? I agree tasers can be effective- but what if there are two assailants? Tasers haven't really got that covered. Also, better hope you don't miss with a taser, cause its kind of a one hit sort of deal.

FYI, I do believe we could do more to prevent guns from getting in the hands of people who would use it for nefarious purposes - but to just outright ban to most Americans is not the solution. Obviously someone can use a can to devastating effect if they want too, but the people using it for this purposes represents a paltry amount of overall gun owners.

You are a pathetic debater, just to let you know. You can't answer a direct question with a direct answer, try to dismiss it as being BS hypothetical, and resort to petty personal insults. For future reference - let me explain to you what a nonsense hypothetical is - a nonsense hypothetical would be me saying that I need a gun to defend myself from a pirate invasion of the United States. A realistic hypothetical is when you propose a hypothetical situation that actually happens on a daily basis (2 million in one year? Gee...2 million divided by 365? That's over 5000 burglaries a day in the country) and ask for an answer, only to NOT receive one, and then ignore it because you obviously don't have a good answer. Oh, and nice comeback against my "gun nut" statistics where I show you statistical evidence from the FBI directly about break ins in the United States. So go be a little factoid - that's all the anti-gun people seem to be nowadays, and resorting to petty insults.

For your reference, the number of burglaries greatly exceeds the amount of home fires per year (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/index.shtm), yet we plan for those in homes with alarms, extinguishers, and oh yea, have building inspectors have to perform fire inspections on buildings before they are allowed to be occupied. So how is that not a bullshit hypothetical scenario then sir, considering they happen WAY LESS than burglaries? Yea, go ahead and ignore all that, Mr Factoid.

creed = dogma

err...vice versa. Dogma = Creed

I'm starting to realize this :D

So there's no differentiation between killing in the name of murder, defense, sustenance, sport (some hunters eat their meat, others don't)? That's a very narrow definition by that standard and ignores the circumstances surrounding each distinction. If you want to look at it that way, how does golf/golf club have a practical value? It doesn't. It has an entertainment value and no practicality at all by your standards. All of the same practical values (entertainment, social aspect, getting off your butt and moving, etc) can also be a byproduct of hunting and sport shooting. Golf clubs can be used to kill as well. Oh btw- if you took away sport hunting/shooting, you'd kill a large section of jobs and the economy as well. Plenty of retailers make their livelihoods by selling to outdoorsmen.

Another practical value of guns - making money. Many people buy guns and sell them for a profit. I understand this shouldn't be a sole reason for a product to be legal, but it is a practical value if one is looking to earn cash.

And also, for the record, I don't believe a gun solves every situation or that all confrontations as such require gun use, or even that other measures can't be used, but in some situations, a gun is clearly the best choice.

The question is NONSENSE?! Apparently YOU don't have loved ones, or you wouldn't make such a statement. Like I said before - MY PARENTS HAVE HAD THEIR HOUSE BROKEN INTO WHEN THEY ARE THERE. I HAVE HAD A FRIEND WHO HAD 3 GUYS BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM IN A HOME INVASION. It's not some "hypothetical" BS when it actually HAPPENS.

You are the one turning the question into NONSENSE by bringing in snipers into the equation. What does that have to do with burglaries and assaults?

Since you a clearly an anti-gun statistics "nut", look at the FBI crime statistics for burglaries - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime/burglarymain . Stats can be used by both sides, you see? Over 2 million burglaries in one year.

As I already stated, some people would stand little chance of defending themselves against a bigger, more experienced aggressor without a gun. You clearly cannot answer the question without illogical dismissals of something that is a lot more common than you think. If no one was allowed to have a gun, a homeowner would pretty much be at the mercy of the burglar. Apparently you are OK with that. Maybe when it does happen to someone you know, you'll change your mind. And also, for the record, I don't even own a gun myself. So when you refer to me as a "gun nut", you are mistaken. I just happen to have a lot more common sense then you have.

You see, I would give you points for validation that with the responsibility of gun ownership comes those who aren't responsible with it. But why is it that all of the responsible owners must be punished for the mistakes of those irresponsible citizens? Are you the type of person who also bans violent media because of a "correlation" between those who commit violence wanting to watch violent media?

Why have you ignored the question I proposed to you? What gives you the right to tell someone they can't defend their home with a gun? And if the answer is "statistics say gun owners are more likely to blah blah blah", statistics are meaningless when you are faced with an assailant or burglar. Call the police? Good luck. Better hope the response time is they live with you. Am I happy that my parents bought a gun to defend their home? I'm not happy about the circumstances surrounding the reason to purchase one, but I am happy they did it.

The stanford prison experiment wasn't about equipment being used. It was about guard/inmate mentality. So by that logic, we shouldn't have police simply because they will get full of themselves? He took regular joes and suddenly infused some of them with control. They had no experience with that much control. Hypothetically, police are given training to avoid letting it get to their head. Does it always work? No, but I don't think body armor is suddenly going to boost thee control feeling to an unmanageable level.

@geekinkinc said:

Courtesy of Business Insider

Those numbers are from 2011. I'd say we need to make our cops more accountable for not being prepared for their jobs because other places are doing a better job at it, a WAY freaking better job.

That is a BS comparison and you know it. If the person is armed with a gun, police really have no choice but to shoot said person. Only in America out of those 4 countries do most criminals have guns (this isn't a debate about gun control, but the reality is criminals do have easier access to them here than the other countries you listed). If someone has a bat/knife, you can just taser or pepper spray them.