Come on there must be some statistics somewhere on how many criminals, intruders ect are actually shot by 'law abiding' citizens (cba to google myself). As I said previously I suspect it may be a very low number. You'd have to have a very small sense of self preservation to turn a gun on an intruder (who also has a gun) with a 50-50 chance of coming out on top and expect to win. I suspect most gun owning law abiding citizens probably shit their pants and hide/let them take whatever/call the police rather than use a weapon.
Apologies for a double post, but I'm sure someone will post before me.
You'd be correct in the case of active shooters, that something like 7% or so are stopped by citizen intervention (I can't remember what the FBI doc I linked said, but it was somewhere around there).
In the case of home invasions, I'm not sure what the stats are, but you're also right that most gun-owning, law-abiding citizens will shit their pants, hide, let them take whatever, and call the police.
In fact, that's exactly what you're
supposed to do in this case.
You need to secure your family first and foremost.
Don't go after the suspect, but let the suspect come to you.
Since you know the layout of your home, you have the advantage.
Once you're in a safe place and your family is with you, you should do everything possible to
avoid having to use a firearm.
Let the police handle it if at all possible, and defend yourself if you must.
I feel there's a misunderstanding here that gun owners are actively looking for the opportunity to kill other people whenever they have the chance, but most gun owners I know are all very responsible.
Shit, if you go to a range and do so much as put your toe over the safety line, you're asking to get chewed out.
No one wants to use that pistol or rifle against anyone, pro-gun or anti-gun.
The difference is that some of us want to have that choice if we need it.
How would a gun in the trunk have made any difference in his case? Or even a gun on himself?
Now think how it could've gone, if the criminals were somewhat less likely to have a gun themselves.
A gun in the trunk would have made no difference, but in the state of Missouri, you can legally carry concealed quite easily.
If he were out here in California, he'd have been dead regardless.
Had he a CCL, he may have had a chance.
For instance (this is in Brazil, but the point stands).If criminals were somewhat less likely to own guns, that'd be great, but we won't catch those criminals with their unregistered guns until they do something to get caught.
What you must understand is that there are millions upon millions of guns here, and simply banning those guns isn't going to put a dent in criminal activity, as the only people who would still have guns are dangerous people.
Just as you have a very anti-gun
culture, the US has a very strong gun
culture.
It may be difficult for you to reconcile the differences, but I can understand why you all think the solution is so simple; the US is the exact opposite of the UK.
Ideally, I'd prefer a country with no guns whatsoever, but that is simply not reality in the US.
Poll