Well, Europe overall is much safer than the US by almost any metric you choose.
It is, unless you remove the urban city violence from the US, from places like Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, etc. Then it is virtually the same. But this is a racial discussion that makes liberals feel uncomfortable, so lets state the appropriate "trigger warnings" before we go there.
You watch too many movies, see my answer to gwbtrading. Very confident to think you have the upper hand in situations where the criminals intention is to surprise you. I guess you never sleep and you walk around with a gun in your pocket. Must be a sad life.
You barely understand the gun situation in the United States, and now you think you know my personal life? Has nothing to do with movies. A security system, a good dog and a gun will deter a criminal in almost all cases. If the criminal still chooses to try to break in, the best you can do is create as many variables to your advantage as possible. Not having a gun is a huge disadvantage.
Many countries have had large numbers of guns, Australia is a good example. They can easily be confiscated and destroyed. Obviously the status quo is how everything should be for you, nothing can ever change, it's impossible!
Ah yes. Easily. Please see
this post where I discuss, in full and supported by statistics, how "easy" that is with another self-described "expert" in the subject of gun control.
Read
this article if your attention span can hold long enough. Don't expect me to always find the facts for you just because you're too lazy to search for anything.
I read the article
in full. Some questions. The article states:
"Statistics bear out that there is a 50% chance that the gun is taken over," Fleegler said. "And what do you think will happen after the bad guy gets the gun away from you?"
My incredulity aside, where is the supposed statistic that this comes from? There's no study, no backup, nothing but someone (like you) saying "statistics say". There is no way someone is getting my gun out of the biometric safe I have it in. It requires my finger prints. The only person who is getting it out is me, and there is no way once I have it, it will be taken away. What a laugh.
More silliness:
"If your goal is to make sure that the intruder is dead and you're not dead, then you would have to fire at the moment that person is in your vision," he said.
Sounds reasonable, but shooting someone creates another set of variables.
"Here's the issue. You never killed anyone before, and you don't know if that burglar is the kid down the street or a street person who is just hungry. You made a decision to kill, and we have seen how this has played out in different cases across the country," he said.
Again, this is spoken like someone who has
absolutely no idea about gun safety, home protection and who is obviously more concerned about the intruder than the homeowner. I've got news for you, once I identify a target, that target is going to the floor. If he is unarmed, he gets one chance to comply. If he is armed, he gets no chance.
Florida Castle Doctrine states, quite clearly that a person entering a residence uninvited has already established his/her intent to cause harm and may be treated with
deadly force. End of story. The fact that I give the guy a chance to kneel and put his hands to his head is because I'm a nice guy. I could kill him and go have cheerios and be within my rights inside the law.
More from your article:
In a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study, he pointed out that there is a better chance that the gun meant for protection will be used in domestic violence, suicide or to injure a child.
First, this is the one and only time the entire article quotes a source for any information other than hearsay. Second, let's discuss this carefully. A family member wanting to harm a child with domestic violence will use whatever weapon they have - the issue isn't the weapon, it's the person wanting to cause harm to the child. They don't need a gun to hurt their child. Suicide, same thing. If someone wants to kill themselves, removing the gun does
absolutely nothing but make them get more creative to kill themselves. The only possible argument here is whether a child can get a gun that the parent owns, and this is a
very real threat. I do not take this likely. It is why I have biometric safes with firearms. No child can get anywhere near my firearms. Further, now that my boy is older, he has been properly trained in cleaning storing and handling of firearms.
That article you posted was a joke. Like most of your argument.
Your comment is all opinion, is the only fact you had that there are "hundreds of millions of firearms" around? Okay, congrats man, good job.
I train regularly with firearms. I train with police and ex military folks. I have lived in some of the most dangerous cities in the US. I am well versed on the subject and both federal and state firearm existing and proposed legislation, and I am an American. Please state what credentials
you have on the topic.
