[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Again, you're not considering the broad implications and their practicality.

Neither are always be practical or even possible. You may not have places nearby to run TO, or you may not be able to run as fast or as long as the attacker, or you may not be capable of running AT ALL.

You can say the same about guns. For instance, how likely is it that your gun will end out being involved in an accident or petty domestic dispute then actually used in self defence?

Similarly with "knocking them out", you think a typical 90-110 lbs. women can just "knock out" a 200 lbs. male (or two) with ease? or any elderly person? Not to mention blunt force trauma straight to the head is also very much capable of killing a person.

It's easy to cherry pick individual stories to support your position.

Not only simplified, but also missing just about every single factors that involves a real-life firefight. Your model may work with in a video game, but it bears no semblance to reality.

If you really want to know why, I'd be more than glad to go in-depth with you, but I'd prefer not to make these posts longer than they already are.

Go ahead. But I think my model made sense. Keep in mind, that the person who fires second can only fire if the first man misses, so right there they only might have a 70% chance of "victory"(if the attacker has a 30% chance of success). So they'll always be at a disadvantage compared to the attacker. I count a non-debilitating injury (IE an injury after which you're still able to fire back) as a "miss" here.

I won't believe you if you don't explain why. Why should I?

sigh, I'm not sure what species of human are on your planet, but I and most people would have little trouble killing one with a simple knife or a blunt instrument, or a string of rope, or just a good 'ol pillow. As a matter of fact, the latter 4 are used quite often in the commission of murder every day.

Usually on people who are asleep. For a person who is awake and alert, anything other then a gun requires a certain amount of skill and strength.

Actually, most home invaders target houses that they know are empty, the trouble starts when you get home invaders that don't care if the house is occupied or not.

Or if they're too stupid to figure out if it's empty.

debunked TV myth #24, next.

Please debunk it then. Don't say "that's a TV myth" without explaining why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CriVUV5lh_M

one 65-yr old women vs. 5 armed robbers, guess who ran away?

You still can't get out of the rut you're stuck in, where you think in over-simplified terms and making assumptions on things you're not familiar with, and drawing your conclusion based on those flawed premises.

So what? It's the exception that proves the rule. The other way around would not be newsworthy.

And rather then saying that what I'm saying is oversimplified and flawed, why don't you take a moment and tell me why? Do you expect me to just believe you without any logical argument to back it up?

I take the time to try to explain why I believe I am correct, I would hope that you would return the favour, how else am I to learn why I am incorrect?

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011...1/crime_091911

According to the FBI, firearms were used in 67.5 percent of reported murders, 41.4 percent of reported robberies, and 20.6 percent of aggravated assaults"

So 32.5% of the murderers, 58.6% of the robbers, and 79.4% of those who assaulted another did not get your memo that they should've been using a gun

If it was hard to get a gun, those numbers would be less then 10%. And look at how many murders are committed with a gun!

When you try to make direct comparison like that, you are automatically assuming that no other factors matters at all. Population density, social culture, crime culture, economic, education, religion, and countless other factors, including gun ownership, all plays into a country's violent crime rate.

Well, clearly other countries are not suffering from waves of crime epidemics because we lack the means to defend ourselves. I think your gun might make you feel safer, but does it actually make you safer?

It is not a either-or scenario as you're trying to claim, watch out for the logical fallacies again :P

Again, why don't you explain to me in my ignorance?

I have never argued against reasonable gun policy. That being said, just because I agree that there should be reasonable gun policy doesn't mean I think what you're proposing is reasonable.

I have no issue with gun registration, provided that there is no undue cost levied during said registration, but psychiatric check? I have one word for you: GTFO.

Then how should we prevent the next James Holmes or Seung Hui Cho from getting a gun? Or should we not even bother?

You can also GTFO with your resale ban too. See, there's plenty to debate about :P

Then there's really no barrier to any hardened criminal or psychopath getting his paws on a gun. You might as well not have any gun registration at all. It restricts only law abiding citizens, while criminals(and more importantly their weapon suppliers) are completely unhindered.

How else would you stop guns getting into the hands of criminals?

Guess we'd best abolish our court system too, after all, innocent people have been, and will continue to be convicted of crimes they did not commit

I quite like jury trials, thank you very much. Good check on an over reaching judiciary.