Guns : A simple solution

[Benni88]

I don't understand how limiting the selection of lethal weapons to hand guns rather than anything else changes the dynamic of the problem in any way.

The problem with guns are that they are ridiculously easy to use, and being a tool which has been created expressly to incapacitate/kill, ridiculously easy to kill someone with.

The only way to decrease the number of deaths is to reduce the number of these items in circulation, i.e. make them illegal outright.

Having a gun may save a few individuals who are protecting their property/families etc, but how many guns which are originally bought for this purpose end up being used in crime?

You have armed police officers to deal with criminals holding weapons. People trained, prepared and liable for the consequences of using their lethal weapons.

It's not a case of Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun. It's about using your head.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Yeah. I don't see the point in civilians owning automatic weapons anyway. The only problem with this is if a civilian is unable to defend themselves against a criminal with an automatic weapon due to their weapon not being powerful enough, but the benefits probably outweigh the costs.

how about we ban knives? baseball bats? fists and feet? we can chop em off they are deadly weapons, there will always be sociopaths, psychos, and morons that will do heinous things, but condemning a whole society on the actions if a extreme minority like it is some epidemic. just grow u

we can argue that if people were allowed to carry that theater thing would never went down, or that the person that did it would have thought twice about the uncertainty of maybe half the theater was armed

or those armed burglers, if one neighborhood is a no guns zone, and another is armed to the teeth, which neighborhood would they burgle with impunity?

Because we can use knives to prepare food and baseball bats to prepare baseballs? If you argue slippery slope, I want to carry a bazooka with me everywhere. For defense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I do believe there should be a little harsher laws on gun's but things like assault rifles should be available but only with more severe licensing.

And a point that many people think the fully-automatic's are easy to get, the cheapest ,machine gun is around 4 thousand dollars, and the fact that there have been less then five accounts of legally owned machine guns being involved in murder.

Er...what? You think assault rifles should be subject to more restrictive licencing, but recognise they aren't easy to get hold of and more or less never used in crime?

Give us stricter laws but make sure the people who are safe to won are capable of getting what they want, make sure people with any criminal record or mental issues can't get guns or can only own very small calibers like 22.'s.

Define "mental issues" though. An awful lot is undiagnosed, and even when it is, there's no reason to asusme the person poses any greater threat to scoiety a lot of the time. They might have problems, just not with not killing people.

And .22 isn't that small, the AR-15 can take .223, for example.

Anyway, why are automatic weapons such a big deal anyway? I don't get it why semi-auto is okay and auto isn't. I don't see the difference and actually I think automatic weapons would be more effective for defense - no burglar will approach you if you first shoot 10 rounds in the (soft) ground.

Well...police have to be extensively trained before they are allowed to fire on full auto, there are substantial difficulties. Semi-automatic fire is much more controllable, and doesn't run the risk of emptying the magazine in one go.

I'm not talking about machine guns here, but I don't see why Glock 18 should be considered more dangerous than a semi-auto big-ass rifle.

Concealability. You also see laws about barrel length for rifles in lots of countries, if something is small enough for you to sneak it around, it's generally more restricted.

I think that people should stop buying guns, and start buying crossbows. Sure, they may not be as effective as firearms, but it's not the weapon that matters, it's how you use it. Also, crossbows are really awesome.

Unfortunately, in my country, the crossbow laws are a bit weird...some states have tighter crossbow restrictions than firearm restrictions. Supposedly it's because they cause unnecessary suffering to animals when hunting, though I've heard it's because they are much quieter than a gun, maybe something to do with people being able to make their own more easily.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

The simple way I'd put it would be: If it's military-surplus, you really don't need it.

Thats kind of deceiving. For instance, the two guns I want to own, a handgun and a rifle, are both military surplus.....but the rifle is 60 years old and the handgun is almost 90 years old.

Meet the M1 Garand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand]. US service rifle from WW2 and the beginning of Korea (where it was replaced by the M14 assualt rifle).
Rate of Fire: 56 rpm
Clip size: 8
Bullet size: .30-06 (a very common and VERY! powerful hunting round)
First built: 1940

And the handgun, A classic Colt .45 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911]
Rate of Fire: Over 200 rpm (I cant find an exact number)
Clip size: 7
Bullet size: .45 ACP (again, very common and very powerful round)
First Built: 1911

So according to you, I cant own either of those because they are military surplus.

OT: I actually used to be in the crowd that said "Ban full-autos", but not anymore. I found out that no legally owned full autos have been used in crime in the US since the 1930s, and the people who have the money to afford them today are not the people who would be robbing banks or sticking up houses. Also, For amount of guns, most of the Arsonal laws I have seen have to do with the amount of ammunition, not guns. For instance, you could own 10,000 guns with 1 bullet for each of them and not even get any second looks from the gov't. But if you own 1 gun with 10,000 bullets, that is going to set off warning bells. Which that personally makes much more sense to me.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

I don't understand how limiting the selection of lethal weapons to hand guns rather than anything else changes the dynamic of the problem in any way.

The problem with guns are that they are ridiculously easy to use, and being a tool which has been created expressly to incapacitate/kill, ridiculously easy to kill someone with.

The only way to decrease the number of deaths is to reduce the number of these items in circulation, i.e. make them illegal outright.

Having a gun may save a few individuals who are protecting their property/families etc, but how many guns which are originally bought for this purpose end up being used in crime?

You have armed police officers to deal with criminals holding weapons. People trained, prepared and liable for the consequences of using their lethal weapons.

It's not a case of Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun. It's about using your head.

Interesting that you mention the armed police-officer part. I recently overheard someone mention that there was a Supreme Court ruling a while back in regards to a case where a man and a woman were divorced, the man snatched the kids and called his ex-wife and threatened to kill the kids. The woman went to the police and the police essentially dragged their feet and did nothing. Later on, the man pulls up to the local police-station with the bodies of the three children in his truck....and opens fire on the station, whereupon he was shot and killed.

Naturally, the woman brought a case against the cops for not protecting her children. As I recall, it went to the Supreme Court, and essentially the court decided that the cops are NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT YOU.

Yeah, I....don't really understand how that works. I heard the story from someone I trust, though that doesn't make them an entirely credible source, but honestly in the world we share today I wouldn't be surprised if it were indeed true. If it is, and a cop is not obligated to protect you or your family...what do we have to fall back on? Reasoned discussion? Laying down quietly to die or be raped or whatever? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I'm literally asking: if law-enforcement is not obligated to protect you when you need it, but it's a terrible idea for you to have a gun, and the proverbial shit hits the fan....what do you do? If you are in that woman's place or a similar situation, what do you do?

EDIT: and yeah, I suppose my earlier statement about military surplus isn't exactly right. Mostly I said it to be reasonable. It is kind of worrisome that some unpleasant people can have AK-47s and such, so I get the concern of the anti-gun crowd. Again I just don't see a reason to own enough armaments for a SWAT team to use. It might be fun, and I suppose if I had all the money and time in the world to go out to a range and shoot the things and blow up targets, yeah I might have them. But I don't need an M-16. I just don't. I don't think there's a lot of other people who do either. If they WANT to have them, I guess that's fine. But I just don't see a logic.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.

Huh. That's interesting. I live in Ottawa and I would have said nearly the opposite to what you said. I've never even seen a gun all my life (I'm 22) and I cant remember the last time I heard about a gun crime in Ottawa.

So personally I'd say the gun control is working pretty well here.

 

[The Funslinger]

I could go with limited to handguns and/or rifles. Rifles being long-rifles and shotguns. You can keep your AR-15s and such. I have no need for them, and I think it'd work out just fine. Most hunters don't use such heavy hardware to my knowledge, again preferring rifles and shotguns. The simple way I'd put it would be: If it's military-surplus, you really don't need it. I guess they're fun to have around and all, but from a collection standpoint, I don't see the allure of 'tactical' stuff. Sorry kids, I don't think the Zombie Apocalypse is ever coming. There's no need for you to have enough arms for a SWAT team in your gun-safe. You wanna hunt, shoot targets at a range, or blow up some clays? Sounds good. But what are you really doing with your AK-47s and that other madness? I've begun to think it's just another e-peen thing.

Thing is, though, there are people out there who just appreciate them as technology and collect such things for a hobby.

It's no different from people that rebuild classic cars, etc. Yeah, you don't need a 1969 Chevrolet Impala sitting in your garage, never being used as your day to day transport, but if it's something you appreciate, it's sure nice to have one.

Thing is, that e-peen argument is applied to lots of things that aren't strictly 'necessary' or 'practical', and if you're running around in public showing something off, or using or using something impractical in an practical setting, yeah, you might just be compensating for something.

Anything else, and it's just one of those demeaning BS arguments used because there's no real comeback to it that doesn't make it look secretly true.

Sorry, that's just a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Pinkamena]

If they want to kill each other so much, let them have their fucking guns...

 

[Smithburg]

I remember reading something that was the only viable point to assault rifles. It said Handguns are to protect yourself, rifles are to protect your home, and assault rifles are to protect against your government. The idea was ever if we were invaded or our government ever got so corrupt we needed an uprising. It's a little paranoid but to say that it is totally impossible is just as foolish, anything can happen. Then again how much would a few assault rifles help if our government got to that point. They have tanks and missiles

 

[Benni88]

I don't understand how limiting the selection of lethal weapons to hand guns rather than anything else changes the dynamic of the problem in any way.

The problem with guns are that they are ridiculously easy to use, and being a tool which has been created expressly to incapacitate/kill, ridiculously easy to kill someone with.

The only way to decrease the number of deaths is to reduce the number of these items in circulation, i.e. make them illegal outright.

Having a gun may save a few individuals who are protecting their property/families etc, but how many guns which are originally bought for this purpose end up being used in crime?

You have armed police officers to deal with criminals holding weapons. People trained, prepared and liable for the consequences of using their lethal weapons.

It's not a case of Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun. It's about using your head.

Interesting that you mention the armed police-officer part. I recently overheard someone mention that there was a Supreme Court ruling a while back in regards to a case where a man and a woman were divorced, the man snatched the kids and called his ex-wife and threatened to kill the kids. The woman went to the police and the police essentially dragged their feet and did nothing. Later on, the man pulls up to the local police-station with the bodies of the three children in his truck....and opens fire on the station, whereupon he was shot and killed.

Naturally, the woman brought a case against the cops for not protecting her children. As I recall, it went to the Supreme Court, and essentially the court decided that the cops are NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT YOU.

Yeah, I....don't really understand how that works. I heard the story from someone I trust, though that doesn't make them an entirely credible source, but honestly in the world we share today I wouldn't be surprised if it were indeed true. If it is, and a cop is not obligated to protect you or your family...what do we have to fall back on? Reasoned discussion? Laying down quietly to die or be raped or whatever? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I'm literally asking: if law-enforcement is not obligated to protect you when you need it, but it's a terrible idea for you to have a gun, and the proverbial shit hits the fan....what do you do? If you are in that woman's place or a similar situation, what do you do?

I'll be honest dude, the mass majority of people paying taxes would expect that the Police force is ENTIRELY obligated to protect you. I'm not sure on the wording but isn't their a police motto in the states "to protect and to serve"? (Correct me if I got it wrong). Whether the police are doing their job correctly is a completely different matter. My argument is that if you have fewer guns, your police officers will be less drawn upon to deal with incidents involving them.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal to the public would solve the problem right away, but the first step is to reduce the number of them freely floating around society.

With regards to your question on what would you do if you were confronted in your own home by an armed assailant, I'd say a couple of things. First, how likely is it to happen? The recorded fear of crime is way higher than the actual incidence of crime. Fear of crime and the likelihood of it happening to you are two very different things.

Secondly, from what articles I could gather (most were a little out of date, I'm sure there's more recent research though), the presence of a gun in a home actually makes it more likely for the homeowner or one of their family members to be killed.

Owning a gun and the sense of power it might instil in you, along with anecdotal evidence of people who have protected their homes against criminals would make you believe that it is safer to have a gun in your home just in case. When in fact it just makes it more likely that you'll hurt someone you know or yourself.

 

[IndomitableSam]

Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.

Huh. That's interesting. I live in Ottawa and I would have said nearly the opposite to what you said. I've never even seen a gun all my life (I'm 22) and I cant remember the last time I heard about a gun crime in Ottawa.

So personally I'd say the gun control is working pretty well here.

I live in Winnipeg - that probably says it all. And then some.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Somehow the less ignorant bit about hunting is missing from your argument. If I think animal torture, abuse and other assorted cruelty is wrong anywhere on the path from pig to bacon or from cow to steak.

I think legal hunting is a splendid thing, and also something worthwhile for kids and most able-bodied and mentally sane folks.

"A rifle" is very generous of you, but it's equivalent to allowing the golf player "A bent stick" or the chess player "one piece of his/her choice". Hunting is one of the most down-to earth, holistic and honest experiences these days, and if you're deciding on going all theoretical and mostly emotional about it, we're just not able to discuss this thing properly. You can get your sausage or tofu brick from the supermarket, and that's ok. An actual, proper opinion involves getting smart about the subject of choice. That's not available at the supermarket.

 

[McNinja]

I've been seeing way to many threads about this lately.
So I want to draw a conclusion here from what I've seen

People pro guns say :
We want to defend ourselves.
Weapons protect as much as they attack.
When we sell the guns we know who owns them(meaning crime should be easier to detect).
Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Any solid arguments to add here I will consider but none will change the outcome of the discussion.

People anti guns say :
Guns should not be freely available
Guns cause death
Civilians do not need assault rifles
Guns are nothing but tools of destruction (they serve no other purpose)

Any solid arguments to add here I will consider but none will change the outcome of the discussion.

The moot point here seems to be : I want to protect vs I don't want people to get hurt.

I think the conclusion should be its absurd to own anything other than a handgun unless you're a licensed huntsman which should allow you a rifle, or a soldier which should allow you any weapon you've been trained to use as long as you're on duty.

My point being : Banning all guns just like banning all drugs and all alcohol only leads to people obtaining them illegaly and overpowering people with ease who wouldn't ever dream of stepping into that world.
Gun sales to civilians should be limited to handguns. Well documented,Well registered and fairly supplied.

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

Sure you may love guns but even you mister gun nut should be able to accept the fact that there is no god damn good reason for you to be harboring an arsenal unless the zombie apocalypse breaks out, and that'd be a damn shoddy argument in court.

NO. You fail to understand that when firearms are registered, those will be the first targets should our government go to shit. The no one will have any guns except for the police, and the US will become a police state.

It's naive and ignorant people who think registering firearms will actually make the country safer. Oh, and you know what? People get illegal weapons, from assault rifles to missile launchers EVERY DAMN DAY. Only selling handguns will do fuck all to stop assault rifles or other weapons being used in crime, and drug lords and gangs will still get their weapons illegally.

Congratulations, you have solved none of the problems.

Oh, and magazines, not clips. At least try to learn the proper terminology when attempting to solve a problem. A magazine contains the ammo, a clip helps load the ammo and is usually only a metal strip or circular round holder (for revolvers).

 

[Sight Unseen]

Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.

Huh. That's interesting. I live in Ottawa and I would have said nearly the opposite to what you said. I've never even seen a gun all my life (I'm 22) and I cant remember the last time I heard about a gun crime in Ottawa.

So personally I'd say the gun control is working pretty well here.

I live in Winnipeg - that probably says it all. And then some.

Ah. My deepest sympathies to you, that sucks lol.

 

[IndomitableSam]

Ah. My deepest sympathies to you, that sucks lol.

It's like a black hole - you can never leave. I want to, but I have a really good job here so ... I'm stuck. Thankfully I've always lived in the "better" parts of town, but I've seen things even there. And heard guns many times. Never seen a shooting, thankfully.

 

[TheMann]

Okay, first off:

Personally, I'm more perplexed by the idea of banning rifles, but not handguns. And, the usual "clips are not magazines".

Yes! Thank you! You know, call me pedantic but this grates on my nerves so much for some weird reason. Movies, TV shows and games get this wrong all the freaking time. That metal box thingy filled with rounds that's slapped into a firearm to load it? That's a magazine!!! [http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/sacil/4-Magazine-for-n30-shot-5.jpg] A clip [http://cdn1.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/bgprod/AMM-249.jpg] is a metal strip used to bind ammunition in order to make loading magazines easier, so you don't have to insert one round at a time, which is a pain in the ass.[footnote]Okay, well there are some exceptions, like the M1 Garand, where the entire clip is completely inserted into an internal en bloc magazine, but you get the idea.[/footnote] Ugh, anyway...

And you might not think there is any reason for the "gun nut" to own an arsenal, but thankfully that's not how America works -- we don't outlaw things because we don't see a reason for people to have them. If that "gun nut" isn't doing anything wrong with those weapons (that is, nearly all "gun nuts") then the law has no business telling him he "doesn't need it."

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. It seems like some people don't seem to grasp the concept of how personal freedoms work in the U.S., especially with things like firearm ownership. While someone else might not be able to fathom why I would possibly need an AR-15 rifle with a 30 rd., or hell even an 100 rd. magazine, that isn't nor should it be the business of others. As a person who has no record of violent crime, my reasons for why I feel I need such a weapon are my own and I don't have to justify that to anyone else or even the government to an extent. Laws restricting firearms have never reduced violence here. The states with the strictest firearm regulation still have the highest violent crime rates. These things may work in other nations but have been completely ineffectual here (there's a fairly logical reason for this), and the majority of Americans are rightfully unwilling accept false promises of safety in exchange for their personal liberties.

 

[senordesol]

I'll be honest dude, the mass majority of people paying taxes would expect that the Police force is ENTIRELY obligated to protect you. I'm not sure on the wording but isn't their a police motto in the states "to protect and to serve"? (Correct me if I got it wrong). Whether the police are doing their job correctly is a completely different matter. My argument is that if you have fewer guns, your police officers will be less drawn upon to deal with incidents involving them.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal to the public would solve the problem right away, but the first step is to reduce the number of them freely floating around society.

With regards to your question on what would you do if you were confronted in your own home by an armed assailant, I'd say a couple of things. First, how likely is it to happen? The recorded fear of crime is way higher than the actual incidence of crime. Fear of crime and the likelihood of it happening to you are two very different things.

Secondly, from what articles I could gather (most were a little out of date, I'm sure there's more recent research though), the presence of a gun in a home actually makes it more likely for the homeowner or one of their family members to be killed.

Owning a gun and the sense of power it might instil in you, along with anecdotal evidence of people who have protected their homes against criminals would make you believe that it is safer to have a gun in your home just in case. When in fact it just makes it more likely that you'll hurt someone you know or yourself.

The police motto is not a contract. The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders. That's it.

Also, there are several hundred thousand to over two million -depending on source- DGUs (That's defensive gun uses) per year, downwards of 10% result in shots fired. http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

Yes you are more at risk of an accidental shooting in the home if you own a firearm, but 'more' is a relative term. There are 80M gun owners and somewhere between 1,000 - 2,000 fatal shooting accidents per year (meaning you have a 0.0000125% - 0.000025% chance of an accidental shooting if you own a firearm in a given year and at worst a 0.0025% chance in 100 years). You've got a better chance of being killed by a doctor than your own weapon.

 

[uberDoward]

If it doesn't trouble one too terribly much, might I suggest looking into the history of the United States, specifically HOW WE GOT STARTED?

We, the people, overthrew our (then) legal government. We didn't do it by filing forms, we didn't do it via chain emails, we didn't do it by requesting a formal split.

We did it with fire and steel.

That's why the Founding Fathers put in the Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the citizens of the United States are armed to keep the government in check, and if necessary to replace the government should that need ever (and pray it never needs) be replaced.

Also, while it may be misattributed, the quote still rings true - "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

You want good gun control? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Kennesaw, GA REQUIRES every household to own a gun. Is it the wild west? No, Kennesaw has had their crime rate drop over 50% since passing that ordinance.

How do you explain that?

 

[LetalisK]

I think the conclusion should be its absurd to own anything other than a handgun unless you're a licensed huntsman which should allow you a rifle, or a soldier which should allow you any weapon you've been trained to use as long as you're on duty.

My point being : Banning all guns just like banning all drugs and all alcohol only leads to people obtaining them illegaly and overpowering people with ease who wouldn't ever dream of stepping into that world.
Gun sales to civilians should be limited to handguns. Well documented,Well registered and fairly supplied.

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

Sure you may love guns but even you mister gun nut should be able to accept the fact that there is no god damn good reason for you to be harboring an arsenal unless the zombie apocalypse breaks out, and that'd be a damn shoddy argument in court.

The bolded part is where this argument, and similar arguments like it, come to a screeching halt and become a 10 car pile up on the free way. So-called "assault weapons" have never been the problem. They make up an incredibly small minority of gun-related deaths. The overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths come from handguns. Those are the problem and it is handguns that should be heavily regulated first.

 

[Benni88]

I'll be honest dude, the mass majority of people paying taxes would expect that the Police force is ENTIRELY obligated to protect you. I'm not sure on the wording but isn't their a police motto in the states "to protect and to serve"? (Correct me if I got it wrong). Whether the police are doing their job correctly is a completely different matter. My argument is that if you have fewer guns, your police officers will be less drawn upon to deal with incidents involving them.

I'm not saying that making guns illegal to the public would solve the problem right away, but the first step is to reduce the number of them freely floating around society.

With regards to your question on what would you do if you were confronted in your own home by an armed assailant, I'd say a couple of things. First, how likely is it to happen? The recorded fear of crime is way higher than the actual incidence of crime. Fear of crime and the likelihood of it happening to you are two very different things.

Secondly, from what articles I could gather (most were a little out of date, I'm sure there's more recent research though), the presence of a gun in a home actually makes it more likely for the homeowner or one of their family members to be killed.

Owning a gun and the sense of power it might instil in you, along with anecdotal evidence of people who have protected their homes against criminals would make you believe that it is safer to have a gun in your home just in case. When in fact it just makes it more likely that you'll hurt someone you know or yourself.

The police motto is not a contract. The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders. That's it.

Also, there are several hundred thousand to over two million -depending on source- DGUs (That's defensive gun uses) per year, downwards of 10% result in shots fired. http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

Yes you are more at risk of an accidental shooting in the home if you own a firearm, but 'more' is a relative term. There are 80M gun owners and somewhere between 1,000 - 2,000 fatal shooting accidents per year (meaning you have a 0.0000125% - 0.000025% chance of an accidental shooting if you own a firearm in a given year and at worst a 0.0025% chance in 100 years). You've got a better chance of being killed by a doctor than your own weapon.

I didn't say it was a contract, but I did say that it was reasonable to expect them to intervene/help if you were under attack in your own home. "The police exist to investigate crime and apprehend the offenders." I'm pretty sure that under this is also, prevent criminals who're in the act.

As to the number of guns in your statistic, that's downright scary. First and foremost, GunSafe is not a recognized educational establishment. It's hardly research from a respected source is it? "(Gunsafe: Connecticut residents committed to the preservation of the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense.)". Also, it not the recorded loss of life that most worries me, it's what the guns can go on to do if they leave the possession of the purchaser.

From a personal angle, I perceive that the legality of guns in America is responsible for tragedies such as the one the week before last. I can remember 4 or 5 massacres off the top of my head that occurred in the U.S., whereas I can only remember one of a similar scale in my home country (UK). And its not a matter of population size, as the UK has a much denser population than the states. The only difference I can see is that guns are legal to own in America.