Orlando shooting, thoughts?

I didnt retract that. In fact here's an article on it.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1

While I will retract the "mass" in mass shootings the fact remains that there are shootings in Australia.

You're assuming that all cases of DGU (defensive gun use) was in response to burglaries. We have rapes, attempted murders, kidnappings, muggings, etc.

What alternatives? A stun gun is best used in offense to subdue someone or if your opponent is an 80 year old grandma beating you with a purse because you're taking too long in line. When your life is in danger you need lethal force. After this post I'll post a video explaining it better. Also here's Kleck's response.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

Our SWAT teams accross America our arming themselves with M4 and AR carbines because it penetrates less walls than pistol rounds. So howmowners have as much if not more reason to own such weaponry since they don't know how many intruders there are and there intentions. Also most homeowners don't have backup.

Better him than me. I'm quote sure that even as slow grandma is she still can draw faster than hiding, calling the police, and explaining to them what's happening.

I thought smuggling would entail that.

Quote

Quote

Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...

I'll com back with a link disproving that.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 23, 2016, 06:51:31 PM

I didnt retract that. In fact here's an article on it.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1

While I will retract the "mass" in mass shootings the fact remains that there are shootings in Australia.

A dramatically reduced amount, sure. I'd class less people being shot in rarer shootings as a good change, wouldn't you?
Also, gun control's always been about long term change. A few people might have hung onto guns, and a few people might need to adjust, but you do inevitably see long-term change, and there's no notable increase typically. The robbery case is the only outlier, though the U-shapes curve at the peak would seem to imply other factors at work. Even so there's no gauge of success or damage related to those crimes: I'd guess a fair few were likely down to robbers hoping certain people still had guns and trying to steal them, or trying to make use of the guns they'd kept illegally. With no increase in homicide rate, seems pretty clear guns didn't help.

Quote

You're assuming that all cases of DGU (defensive gun use) was in response to burglaries. We have rapes, attempted murders, kidnappings, muggings, etc.

Typically kidnappings etc would take place at the home, but regardless home invasion was the primary example you gave, and was all your results seemed to refer to. Being attacked by someone walking down the street plainly doesn't offer much, because they'd inevitably out-draw you. You'd have to rely either on short-range self-defence or pray a passer by comes by: and guns don't help the former, and aren't particularly needed in the latter either especially given if they shot a close-range attacker there's a fair chance they'd shoot you.

Quote

What alternatives? A stun gun is best used in offense to subdue someone or if your opponent is an 80 year old grandma beating you with a purse because you're taking too long in line. When your life is in danger you need lethal force. After this post I'll post a video explaining it better. Also here's Kleck's response.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

Typically your life is only in danger if it's someone with a gun coming after you. And seriously, read your sources, there was a rebuttal to Kleck's rebuttal: he did nothing but offer insults with very little substance, lied, and quoted out-of-date and questionable studies.

Quote

Our SWAT teams accross America our arming themselves with M4 and AR carbines because it penetrates less walls than pistol rounds. So howmowners have as much if not more reason to own such weaponry since they don't know how many intruders there are and there intentions. Also most homeowners don't have backup.

How, exactly, does that follow? Supposing a rare worst-case-scenario doesn't benefit anyone. And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that homeowners who used guns to defend their homes don't have any advantage over those that don't.

Quote

Better him than me. I'm quote sure that even as slow grandma is she still can draw faster than hiding, calling the police, and explaining to them what's happening.

She can draw fine if she's in another room, sure, but she'd still need to be able to slowly sneak to where the burglar is and aim and fire. Much harder than staying in the same room and tapping three numbers.

Quote

I thought smuggling would entail that.

Smuggling is typically cross-border. There was no indication I could see of what definition that site used, so I assume the default.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...

I'll com back with a link disproving that.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1-1.pdf/view
FBI report on active shooter incidents. Your link wasn't a disproof, it was a handful of anecdotes.
For the summary: 56.3% ended when the shooter killed themselves or fled. Generally though, only 40.6% ended before law enforcement arrived, and of those 23.1% were down to shooter-suicide, 13.1% ended when unarmed citizens intervened. 1.3% were ended down to off-duty police officers present.
Which leaves your grand claim of a good guy with a gun helping at a whopping 3.1% of cases. Unarmed citizens do better.
It's about what you'd expect, really. An armed civilian present is untrained generally, so if they pull out a gun they might miss, or might be too slow: after all the shooter's already present. if it's in a school-type setting with rooms and corridors then they'd have to navigate them and not shoot at just anyone passing by because it might be another civilian fleeing, but it might also be the shooter who could kill them on the spot. You'd need split-second recognition and decision making which law enforcement take years to learn, and you don't pick up on the spot when it's convenient. Real life doesn't work like that. And then of course even if said good guy doesn't get killed by the shooter, they're still someone running around waving a gun at a place there's known to be a shooter so they'd probably be shot themselves by some other supposed good-guy or law enforcement.
And even if logic isn't enough, the stats remain. Armed citizens don't help.

A firearm can up my chance of survival from 0% to 1%.

That is a statistically significant difference.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 24, 2016, 01:47:01 PM

A firearm can up my chance of survival from 0% to 1%.

That is a statistically significant difference.

Evidence? Which situation do you believe you'd only have 0% chance to survive in without a handgun?

And as a side note, 1% is very rarely statistically significant, with statistics you need to account for standard deviation: errors that inevitably arise from the fact you're judging by samples and not every possible situation.

A life or death situation in which my opponent is hell bent on my demise.
Life or death. Sample size one.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 24, 2016, 02:51:30 PM

A life or death situation in which my opponent is hell bent on my demise.
Life or death. Sample size one.

When do you believe such a situation would develop? If it's not going to happen, you're not really in danger.
How would you determine that such behaviour was their motive and take action to shoot them before they killed you? If you want to ensure they'd be armed with a gun too, you'd better have a solution beyond pre-emptive strike. For all you'd know it could be a hostage situation and trying to take action would get others killed.

So, a long time ago, in the middle of the night, I was alone fishing at the end
near the "c" in "com".

At the other end of the T were two dudes disagreeing over a drug deal.
They were loud enough that it was obvious what they were yelling about.

Two shots rang out and one of the men came running to my end of the pier.

He was running with a gun in his hand. I was stationary.
If I had my 9mm in my pocket he would be dead.

Turns out he was able to spend several seconds with his gun to my head
deciding whether I live or die. His choice.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 24, 2016, 03:33:55 PM

So, a long time ago, in the middle of the night, I was alone fishing at the end
near the "c" in "com".

At the other end of the T were two dudes disagreeing over a drug deal.
They were loud enough that it was obvious what they were yelling about.

Two shots rang out and one of the men came running to my end of the pier.

He was running with a gun in his hand. I was stationary.
If I had my 9mm in my pocket he would be dead.

Turns out he was able to spend several seconds with his gun to my head
deciding whether I live or die. His choice.

Or you'd be dead because a drug dealer running around with a gun in his hand is unlikely to respond well to someone pulling a weapon out of their pocket.

His arms were flailing as he ran, I was stationary.
It would have been femptoseconds between raising my weapon
and reducing the threat to zero.

Give me an internet hug, I was traumatized.   

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 24, 2016, 04:30:04 PM

His arms were flailing as he ran, I was stationary.
It would have been femptoseconds between raising my weapon
and reducing the threat to zero.

Give me an internet hug, I was traumatized.   

How long do you think he'd have flailed for if he saw you pulling out a weapon? Best case scenario I'd give your odds as fifty-fifty.

I'm sorry for your trauma. I hope this helps.

You can make a kill shot in the dark at 45 ft while under pressure?  Yes, you are a bad ass. Or think you are a bad ass. One of the two. Probably the latter.

The key to self defense is not waiting until the odds are even.
He wouldn't have noticed anything until the pointy end of my weapon started flashing.

I would have dropped him while he was still running at me full speed.
45 feet or so. Not when he was on me and in control.

I'm no bad ass, just pragmatic.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 24, 2016, 05:27:17 PM

The key to self defense is not waiting until the odds are even.
He wouldn't have noticed anything until the pointy end of my weapon started flashing.

I would have dropped him while he was still running at me full speed.
45 feet or so. Not when he was on me and in control.

I'm no bad ass, just pragmatic.

Here's the thing: we're leaving behind alternative possibilities. If you were fishing you likely weren't keenly watching or eavesdropping, so for all you know the man running at you acted in self defence: the only reason you'd have to think otherwise would be when he had his gun pointed at your head. Hindsight's great, but at the time for all you knew you'd be shooting a scared innocent who was running because they were disturbed by having shot someone in self-defence.
But even if we grant you this incredible knowledge, Rama has the key point. Managing an accurate shot at 45 feet right at a running target after a quick draw doesn't strike me as exactly easy, especially in the dark. The time it'd take you would mark you as a threat to the person who decided already to go up and threaten you and had a gun in hand already. The odds weren't even to start with. Given that they evidently noticed you, you're banking on being able to draw and aim before they could just aim at a stationary target.

From 300 feet away I clearly understood . . .

One criminal wanted to pay $2000 for four pounds of marijuana.
The other criminal wanted to receive $3500.

Neither one was the Pope.

There was nothing ambiguous or confusing about what was happening.

He was clearly not coming to ask me how the fishing was going.

I'm not going to play a game of "what if".
I was there.

This happened over 18 years ago.
Unbelievably, overwhelmingly traumatic.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 25, 2016, 09:51:37 AM

From 300 feet away I clearly understood . . .

One criminal wanted to pay $2000 for four pounds of marijuana.
The other criminal wanted to receive $3500.

Neither one was the Pope.

There was nothing ambiguous or confusing about what was happening.

He was clearly not coming to ask me how the fishing was going.

I'm not going to play a game of "what if".
I was there.

This happened over 18 years ago.
Unbelievably, overwhelmingly traumatic.

No one's questioning how traumatic it was. Just seems like, even in such a rarer situation as that, a gun isn't going to help. Indeed, it'd probably increase the risk of you getting hurt.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 23, 2016, 06:51:31 PM

I didnt retract that. In fact here's an article on it.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html?m=1

While I will retract the "mass" in mass shootings the fact remains that there are shootings in Australia.

A dramatically reduced amount, sure. I'd class less people being shot in rarer shootings as a good change, wouldn't you?

Also, gun control's always been about long term change. A few people might have hung onto guns, and a few people might need to adjust, but you do inevitably see long-term change, and there's no notable increase typically. The robbery case is the only outlier, though the U-shapes curve at the peak would seem to imply other factors at work. Even so there's no gauge of success or damage related to those crimes: I'd guess a fair few were likely down to robbers hoping certain people still had guns and trying to steal them, or trying to make use of the guns they'd kept illegally. With no increase in homicide rate, seems pretty clear guns didn't help.

Quote

You're assuming that all cases of DGU (defensive gun use) was in response to burglaries. We have rapes, attempted murders, kidnappings, muggings, etc.

Typically kidnappings etc would take place at the home, but regardless home invasion was the primary example you gave, and was all your results seemed to refer to. Being attacked by someone walking down the street plainly doesn't offer much, because they'd inevitably out-draw you.

You'd have to rely either on short-range self-defence or pray a passer by comes by: and guns don't help the former, and aren't particularly needed in the latter either especially given if they shot a close-range attacker there's a fair chance they'd shoot you.

Quote

What alternatives? A stun gun is best used in offense to subdue someone or if your opponent is an 80 year old grandma beating you with a purse because you're taking too long in line. When your life is in danger you need lethal force. After this post I'll post a video explaining it better. Also here's Kleck's response.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

Typically your life is only in danger if it's someone with a gun coming after you. And seriously, read your sources, there was a rebuttal to Kleck's rebuttal: he did nothing but offer insults with very little substance, lied, and quoted out-of-date and questionable studies.

Quote

Our SWAT teams accross America our arming themselves with M4 and AR carbines because it penetrates less walls than pistol rounds. So howmowners have as much if not more reason to own such weaponry since they don't know how many intruders there are and there intentions. Also most homeowners don't have backup.

How, exactly, does that follow? Supposing a rare worst-case-scenario doesn't benefit anyone. And, of course, you're still ignoring the fact that homeowners who used guns to defend their homes don't have any advantage over those that don't.

Quote

Better him than me. I'm quote sure that even as slow grandma is she still can draw faster than hiding, calling the police, and explaining to them what's happening.

She can draw fine if she's in another room, sure, but she'd still need to be able to slowly sneak to where the burglar is and aim and fire. Much harder than staying in the same room and tapping three numbers.

Quote

I thought smuggling would entail that.

Smuggling is typically cross-border. There was no indication I could see of what definition that site used, so I assume the default.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Which happens mostly at gun free zones. There have been cases where would be mass shootings were thwarted by law abiding citizens who were armed.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/oregon-shooting-gun-laws-213222
Very rarely the case. Some lie (a lot of shooters seem to kill themselves), some work concurrently with the police, some get killed themselves in the attempt, some nearly kill the wrong person...

I'll com back with a link disproving that.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1-1.pdf/view
FBI report on active shooter incidents. Your link wasn't a disproof, it was a handful of anecdotes.
For the summary: 56.3% ended when the shooter killed themselves or fled. Generally though, only 40.6% ended before law enforcement arrived, and of those 23.1% were down to shooter-suicide, 13.1% ended when unarmed citizens intervened. 1.3% were ended down to off-duty police officers present.
Which leaves your grand claim of a good guy with a gun helping at a whopping 3.1% of cases. Unarmed citizens do better.

It's about what you'd expect, really. An armed civilian present is untrained generally, so if they pull out a gun they might miss, or might be too slow: after all the shooter's already present. if it's in a school-type setting with rooms and corridors then they'd have to navigate them and not shoot at just anyone passing by because it might be another civilian fleeing, but it might also be the shooter who could kill them on the spot.

You'd need split-second recognition and decision making which law enforcement take years to learn, and you don't pick up on the spot when it's convenient.

Real life doesn't work like that. And then of course even if said good guy doesn't get killed by the shooter, they're still someone running around waving a gun at a place there's known to be a shooter so they'd probably be shot themselves by some other supposed good-guy or law enforcement.

And even if logic isn't enough, the stats remain. Armed citizens don't help.

I would if it wasn't for the fact that Australia didn't had that big of a mass shooting problem to begin with.

As the stats show'd gun control didn't affected crime overall. It made it spiked and then through more police being hired (and more taxes to support the police) dwindled it down to more or less the same before the ban. An interesting point is that your ban only cut gun injuries from 13,000 to 7,000 and fatalities from around forty to I believe 29 according to wikepedia. So a number that wasn't all that high to begin with was cut by less than half. Another point is England was the most violent country in the EU before they left.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz0Z7pjqpJC

Which even in those cases the person was able to defend him/herself with a gun. I highly recomend reading John Lott's book "more guns, less crime". It's full of stories of people defending themselves with guns.

You haven't proved that guns are for the most part useless at close range.

You haven't demonstrated that they don't have an advantage.

As I said. I don't advocate sneaking around and hunting for the burglar. Stay put, have your gun ready, and call the police. If he storm in while you're calling then shoot.

Then please provide the correct stats of illegal guns.

Because armed citizens weren't there.

Do you have evidence of this happening at a large scale?
Actually here in my state it takes two semesters in the academy and a year of on the job training as an officer. And police shoot the wrong person more often than armed citizens. Mostly because the citizen is there and knows who the threat and who's not.
When has that happened?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 25, 2016, 01:36:24 PM

I would if it wasn't for the fact that Australia didn't had that big of a mass shooting problem to begin with.

I think it was averaging two every three years, which I'd class as a big problem compared to zero. Just because it doesn't compare to the US' absurd rate doesn't make it not a problem. How exactly is a flat reduction to zero not notable? We should've had a whole host if the rate wouldn't have altered.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds
Plus other crimes fell as well, and note "the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide."

Quote

As the stats show'd gun control didn't affected crime overall. It made it spiked and then through more police being hired (and more taxes to support the police) dwindled it down to more or less the same before the ban. An interesting point is that your ban only cut gun injuries from 13,000 to 7,000 and fatalities from around forty to I believe 29 according to wikepedia. So a number that wasn't all that high to begin with was cut by less than half. Another point is England was the most violent country in the EU before they left.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz0Z7pjqpJC

Already gone over how stats can be misleading, and the importance of long-term changes. you've mentioned police hiring before, i'd like to see a source on it: you may well be right but I haven't been able to find any specific instance of a major change in the number of police that correlates. And regardless, that's six thousand people who'd be rather relieved I think. How is that bad?

You've also already been told that the UK has a rather lax definition of violent crime etc. Comparing apples to oranges isn't going to manage much. Plus, seriously, the daily mail is a laughable source: just look at all their recommended stories down the right and tell me that looks like a serious, reliable publication.

Quote

Which even in those cases the person was able to defend him/herself with a gun. I highly recomend reading John Lott's book "more guns, less crime". It's full of stories of people defending themselves with guns.

You haven't proved that guns are for the most part useless at close range.

Are you being serious? Individual anecdotes are unreliable because a) they don't give any indication as to how successful they'd be without a gun, b) they're just one-off stories, c) on a contentious topic people will inevitably embellish. Guns aren't useless at close range, but they're unnecessary. You'd be better off using your keys.

Quote

You haven't demonstrated that they don't have an advantage.

Yes. I have. The stats hold despite your wilful disregard for them. People who used a gun had no advantage over those that did not. End of. A page of insults which misrepresents the people referred to is not a rebuttal.

Quote

As I said. I don't advocate sneaking around and hunting for the burglar. Stay put, have your gun ready, and call the police. If he storm in while you're calling then shoot.

Staying put isn't going to help if the burglar comes in with their gun raised.

With a phone in one hand and a gun in the other, they'd have the advantage. Hide under the bed or in the wardrobe (hiding have the highest rate of success). If they get close enough to open the wardrobe, punch them. A gun's obsolete.

Quote

Then please provide the correct stats of illegal guns.

How, exactly, is it meant to be possible to know the number of guns that are held without the government's knowledge?

Quote

Because armed citizens weren't there.

Given how prevalent guns are in America (I remember being there are pretty much everyone on the street seemed to be carrying one) do you seriously think that over multiple instances, with multiple people at each one, there was only ever even one person with a gun 3.1% of the time?

Quote

Do you have evidence of this happening at a large scale?
Actually here in my state it takes two semesters in the academy and a year of on the job training as an officer. And police shoot the wrong person more often than armed citizens. Mostly because the citizen is there and knows who the threat and who's not.
When has that happened?

Given how rarely a 'good guy with a gun' is of any use, what larger scale would be possible?
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/11/dallas-police-chief-debunks-conservative-medias-good-guy-gun-myth/211488
The civilian trying to help plainly something police mark as an issue: like you said, as they're not there they have no idea who's a threat.

Actually according to this link murder is still pretty much the same.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

And as the video and link debunking Vox pointed out suicide isn't due to guns.

It's not bad but its not enough to ban guns. More people die from cars. And my link was from an unbiased to left leaning source.

There are other sources but just look at the robbery rates. Yours is higher than ours.

Anyone taught in self defense are told to never give up the advantage. Sure. In SOME instances you can fight off the attacker rather than shooting him but why would I do that? The one who wins is the one who's more determined, stronger, or more fluent in martial arts. Like I said before the gun is the great equalizer and gives you the advantage.
Which link are you referring to?
First off it'll be even worse if she wasn't armed. Second, if she had her gun ready she would be able to fire first. Third, it doesn't matter who has the gun raised first. It's all about relation time. And speaking of being defenseless.
So grandma is going to have the strength to deliver a incapacitating blow? What vitamins is she taking? Excuse the sarcasm but I couldn't resist. If guns are obsolete then why are police and military uses them? At the same time if they're obsolete then why ban or restrict them? It seems that at one instances you're saying that guns are too powerful and dangerous for the general public and only trained professionals (which police aren't. They maybe around guns but that doesn't mean they train with them often) while on the other hand you're saying that guns aren't needed to protect life. Which is it? Also I found this story.

 http://www.ammoland.com/2016/07/armed-grandmother-scares-off-home-invaders/

All one needs to look at is the number of guns reported stolen.

They are rare in gun free zones.

And that rarely happens. Even if we are to be conservative using VCP guns are used in defense over a hundred times per day.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 27, 2016, 06:42:32 PM

Actually according to this link murder is still pretty much the same.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

And as the video and link debunking Vox pointed out suicide isn't due to guns.

Can't just ignore external influences. Plus if you look at those stats you can observe a much steeper decline beginning after guns were banned, it's just not as striking due to how little data is given on the post-ban incidents.
Something doesn't need to be entirely due to guns for guns to make it easier. It's a fair effort to commit suicide without a gun, and can be more easily prevented: a gun takes a five-second depressive spell and would nearly always succeed.

Quote

It's not bad but its not enough to ban guns. More people die from cars. And my link was from an unbiased to left leaning source.

Ok, please tell me you seriously didn't just claim the Daily Mail was left-leaning. And again, cars have a separate purpose that's actually useful: the sole purpose of guns is to shoot people, and you claim self-defence is a good use but there is no evidence of that.

Quote

There are other sources but just look at the robbery rates. Yours is higher than ours.

Better that than four times the murder rate.

Quote

Anyone taught in self defense are told to never give up the advantage. Sure. In SOME instances you can fight off the attacker rather than shooting him but why would I do that? The one who wins is the one who's more determined, stronger, or more fluent in martial arts. Like I said before the gun is the great equalizer and gives you the advantage.
Which link are you referring to?
First off it'll be even worse if she wasn't armed. Second, if she had her gun ready she would be able to fire first. Third, it doesn't matter who has the gun raised first. It's all about relation time. And speaking of being defenseless.
So grandma is going to have the strength to deliver a incapacitating blow? What vitamins is she taking? Excuse the sarcasm but I couldn't resist. If guns are obsolete then why are police and military uses them? At the same time if they're obsolete then why ban or restrict them? It seems that at one instances you're saying that guns are too powerful and dangerous for the general public and only trained professionals (which police aren't. They maybe around guns but that doesn't mean they train with them often) while on the other hand you're saying that guns aren't needed to protect life. Which is it? Also I found this story.

 http://www.ammoland.com/2016/07/armed-grandmother-scares-off-home-invaders/

Anecdotes don't trump stats. I'm not watching a long video because at this stage I'm not entirely sure you read your own sources; summarise and link to citations, otherwise it feels more like a waste of time.
If it's down to reaction time, how is an older person meant to have a faster one?

Hiding in a wardrobe gives you better chances than using a gun, the stats remain no matter how much you'd like to ignore them.

Sure, some people might struggle more, but typically they're the same people who'd struggle just as much if faced with someone with a gun, whether or not they were themselves armed. Plus this isn't a movie, I'm not proposing a fair fight. Hide, you won't get hurt. if they find you, you have the element of surprise if you're careful, and a baseball bat or something.

Comes down to more than just generic fighting skills.
Link reminder, once again:
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/defensive-gun-use-armed-with-reason-hemenway/

Quote

All one needs to look at is the number of guns reported stolen.

Except that's only how it works in the US, as I pointed out before. in the UK the main source of guns would be overseas smuggling because they're far from as common here. No way to gauge that.

Quote

They are rare in gun free zones.

Which is where a grand total of 13% of shootings occur
https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/
So you'd still expect more than 3.1% of settings to have a lone gun present.

Quote

And that rarely happens. Even if we are to be conservative using VCP guns are used in defense over a hundred times per day.

It rarely happens because guns are next to never used to prevent such shootings. But sure, ok, let's hear your reasoning. The police arrive on the scene where they know there's been gunfire, they don't have any real description of the shooter, and they see someone running down the hallway holding a gun. How would they tell the difference?
Bear in mind if they take so much as a second to ask, they could well get shot if it is the shooter.
And again, claiming guns can be used in defence is meaningless when far more mundane objects have been statistically observed to do the exact same job just as well. (See: above stats again, and the FBI stats, demonstrating that in the cases of home invasion and mass shootings unarmed citizens do as well if not better than their gun-toting counterparts. You're running out of ground to stand on).

New Zealand experienced the same decline and compared to Australia they have lax gun laws. Did you watched the videos yet?

First of all despite there use for transportation they still kill more than guns. Second, guns are used for target practice, hunting, protection from tyranny, and self defense and stats have shown that they are useful in that case and you haven't shown that they could've defended themselves by other means in the majority of the time.

A gun is quicker and requires less force to operate it. Plus you'll need a good amount of space to deliver a incapacitating blow with a bat and last I check the closet does give you that option.

Which have been debunked. Also that's an anti gun site. I lost the link but I'll post it after this.

For one thing it rarely happens. When the Dallas shooting took place there was an open carrier in the region and the only thing that happened was he got detained. As to how to tell the difference, those who carry are taught to put the gun down once the threat is subdued. Announce that you're a CCW holder.

. . . exactly what would you do if someone with a gun finds you in the closet?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 28, 2016, 03:42:07 PM

New Zealand experienced the same decline and compared to Australia they have lax gun laws. Did you watched the videos yet?

Like I said, I'm not watching long videos. I'm happy to read links. Speaking of links:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand
"The regulation of guns in New Zealand is categorised as restrictive." Not as strict is Australia, sure, but hardly lax.
I'd point out that due to the close relationship between New Zealand and Australia, it's likely gun laws in one place would affect the other: it'd limit smuggling, for example.

Quote

First of all despite there use for transportation they still kill more than guns. Second, guns are used for target practice, hunting, protection from tyranny, and self defense and stats have shown that they are useful in that case and you haven't shown that they could've defended themselves by other means in the majority of the time.

Target practise is hardly as beneficial as getting to work, hunting is questionable as any kind of benefit, we've already gone over how if a government turns tyrannical guns wouldn't help you, and the self-defence stats are clear.
You've provided anecdotes, not stats, and actual stats did directly show that those without a gun could defend themselves just as well as those that did. Why is this so hard to understand, seriously?

Quote

A gun is quicker and requires less force to operate it. Plus you'll need a good amount of space to deliver a incapacitating blow with a bat and last I check the closet does give you that option.

Doesn't need to be incapacitating. Simple forwards-thrust would likely scare off your typical intruder, and would certainly do damage and push them back. There's your space.

Quote

Which have been debunked. Also that's an anti gun site. I lost the link but I'll post it after this.

Anti-gun site, sure, but at least it gives its source. Sure, everytown was misleading in a few respects, primarily in that it was broader in its definition of mass shooting, but I'd point out that shootings in general are just as relevant. The source of your link made a few false claims (for example: it said they relied on news reports to gauge whether it was a gun-free zone, but if you look at their source you see they were fairly careful. Springfield, MO, 11/15/14 they, for example, specifically called up the motel in question to ensure there were no prohibitions against guns). Plus they complained that referring to police being armed doesn't make fire-arms legal: ignoring the fact that as far as I can tell the only time that happened were in situations where the victims and typically the people nearby were police, so that was all that was required.
Even if you did the worst case scenario, you get far more than 8% in gun-free zones.
You might also find Tucson, AZ, 1/8/11 of interest: "An armed bystander, Joe Zamudio, mistook someone else as the shooter and prepared to fire on him before he was stopped by other bystanders." One of the issues I've pointed out previously.
Plus if we're comparing rebuttals:
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/
The source of your article comes from someone who doesn't count as a shooting an event where someone was committing another crime at the time (such as armed robbery), and limits the shootings referred to improperly, among other errors. The 92% statistic remains thoroughly unsupported.

Quote

For one thing it rarely happens. When the Dallas shooting took place there was an open carrier in the region and the only thing that happened was he got detained. As to how to tell the difference, those who carry are taught to put the gun down once the threat is subdued. Announce that you're a CCW holder.

It rarely happens: that's my exact point. The situation where people in the scene get a gun and try to help the police is so rare, of course you're not going to get odd situations. Note that you still got one detained, demonstrating a mistake can be made; open carry doesn't mean holding and wielding it though.
Plus, how would they know the threat was subdued? There's every chance they haven't made it to the shooter yet, for example. They should still be holding their gun aloft: and in a case where there's a mass shooter, how often do you think the police would let them get a sentence out when they're brandishing a gun? And for that matter, why would the police take them at their word given the shooter could say the exact same?

As I said before. Even conservative estimates say that people defend themselves 118 times a day. That's more than how many murders there are by more than 5 times.

Still, compared to Australia New Zealand is less more laced. And btw Australia has as much if not more guns now than it did before the ban. Once you have 30 minutes to spare please watch at least one of them.

Anecdotes don't trump the stats given that the stats typically take those anecdotes into consideration.

Stats just document winners and losers.