Willravel:
I can understand and respect your personal position that you are unable to make life and death decisions when faced with a threat to your life. However, many of us don't share your lack of confidence and are strongly in favor of being responsible for our own well being. It is not appropriate to introduce a firearm into every (or even most) situations, and often it is innapropriate to have one on your person. However, there are also situations where access to a firearm may very well be a useful deterrent and/or means of defense and I don't see how you can make the decision of whether or not to carry for anybody but yourself (and I am not looking for an absurdist reply to this either).
I personally don't think there is anything morally, ethically, or socially unacceptable or wrong with killing. Of course, I believe there is a big difference between killing and murder. If somone is presenting a threat to my life I really have no compassion for them. I am going to do whatever is safest for me and those in my company. If handing over my wallet will end the encounter, then I will do that. But if I am not sure what the bad guys intentions are, and I get the opportunity, then I will do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.
In order to pick accurate quotes I browsed the brady campaign websight:
www.bradycampaign.org and in their faq found this little gem:
"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]"
I am sure these data are 'technically' correct, since this figure has been kicking around for a while and they probably would have had to remove it were it false. However, notice how carefully phrased it is. They mention a gun kept in the home, which covers more or less all personally owned firearms. But they never say that all of the figures that follow occur in the home. So if you are a crack head with a gun who shoots an innocent bystander while robbing a convenience store, you get to be included in the statistic.
Also, the bad guy doesn't have to 'use' the gun for it to be counted as a 'criminal assault,' while for it to be tallied in favor of self defense the firearm must not only be fired, but cause injury or death. So if a mugger points a gun at you, and you cause him to flee by drawing your weapon: Tally one for the bad guys, zero for the good guys.
Unintentional Shooting, of what? A person? I don't think they bothered to qualify that because they are actually counting 'unintentional discharges' Which, while idiotic, usually don't hurt anyone, though they certainly have the potential.
The suicide figure (which comprises fully half of the incidents) is also misleading. Of course guns are often used in suicide. If you have (seriously) decided to kill yourself you are probably going to choose a method that is both easy and effective. The right tool for the job, so to speak, and that is a firearm. If you took firearms out of the equation most of those people would probably find other ways to kill themselves.
As I mentioned briefly above, the gun has to be used to "injure or kill in self defense" in order to be counted. It has already been mentioned that the situation usually does not escalate beyond presentation of a weapon by the potential victim, which is not considered, even though it's pretty much the ideal outcome. Also, if the homeowner shoots and misses, and the bad guy flees, it doesn't get counted either. Nor are shootings to prevent rape or sexual assault, kidnapping, etc.
The Brady Campaign espouses "Reasonable Gun Control" but it's actions and misleading propaganda imply a very different agenda.
more:
"When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion
crimes.[10]"
The implication here, of course, is that your gun won't help you stop a home invasion robbery.
However, this stat isn't referring to just gun owners. Since most people either don't own firearms or store them in the brady approved manner (locked up, unloaded, and useless), of course they aren't using guns for self defense.
Also, if someone is going to deliberately invade someones home while they are inside, odds are they are going to pick someone who they think won't be a threat. I.e. some pacifist over Billy Bob with a "Guns don't kill people...." sign in his yard.
Most home invasions don't escalate to the point where deadly force becomes necessary, which further dilutes this statistic. If a guy breaks into a house to rape a woman and hears her working the action of a shotgun, what percentage of the time do you think he is going to leave? (hint: probably more than 2).
Lastly, the quote doesn't say "...fewer than two percent of home invasions" but rather "...fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes." If someone breaks into a house, steals something, and assaults the owner he has just committed several 'home invasion crimes' during the same home invasion.