Quote Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly View Post
I do know though, that becoming stronger takes much work, as does becoming skilled in a martial art, while on the other hand when I fired a gun for the first time I was quite accurate despite having no training. It was a small caliber gun and I imagine easier than a larger one.

I do imagine just doing target practice the average first time shooter would probably be fairly accurate... i would say though its a little different if your getting shot at and have to make the shot to save your life... this would usually fall in the favour of the attacker (who you would imagine would be used to or more used to such pressure) or a person with significant training...

Its probably easier to get good with a gun than become strong or a martial arts expert but it still takes some time to learn what you may need to know to keep you alive in a shootout... and even then your potential attacker can still simply out train you or out gun you...

which is another point i wanted to make it could be argued that it unevens the playing field to the rich... or maybe not rich but the poor certainly can't afford the latest guns... they may have to make do with some old crappy pistol... whereas someone with a bit of money could get something a bit faster a bit more accurate .... a bit more lethal...

This i would say would work against ordaniry civilians more than criminals as you could say a gun would be a tool of a criminals trade so he would ensure he has the best tools to do his job whereas your ordaniry citizen has other worries outside of purchasing a good gun to combat criminals with...

Say it's a jealous ex-boyfriend breaking into his old girlfriends house with the intention of killing her. In hand to hand she will surely lose, but do you see how if they both have guns she has a much better chance? She can use surprise and concealment to much greater effect, when both have little use in hand to hand combat, unless she can somehow knock him out in one blow, which is unlikely.

From the sounds of your scenario it would be better for them to both have guns... im sure we could both come up with 100 scenario's where the other would have to admit it would be better to have them both armed or both unarmed.

I suppose in the situations where someone is determined to kill the other person i would rather the potential victim had a gun to defend themselves.... (in a deseted area where there aren't innocent bystanders to kill) but then in your average day to day crime i would rather people didn't have guns...

Imagine if when some kids went to mug an old lady she reaches for her piece... these kids just wanted to snatch her bag but now she's reaching for her gun so they panic go for thiers and thanks to having youth on thier side end up shooting the old lady before she can shoot them... though i also think a young mugger being shot would be tragic as well....

Now without guns the old lady might have had a nasty time of it as well, she could have got beaten up a bit or the youths could have simply snatched the bag and run... but regardless of the fact this little old lady is relatively defenseless its actually less dangerous for her to have a gun...

Edit: the little old lady is supposed to be an example of how guns would escalate ordaniry crimes rather than a scenario where we say guns or no guns is better...
The key difference between the two scenarios to me is this:

In the ex-girlfriend scenario, it is entirely possible that she has done nothing wrong. She can't be held responsible for her ex's actions. If guns are legal then she has the capability of defending herself if she wants to, to practice if she wants to, and the chance to at least try to deal with the pressure of the situation. She might not buy a gun, she might not practice with it, she might not remain calm enough under pressure to shoot straight, but she has the freedom that is a prerequisite for all of those things.

In the granny being mugged scenario, she broke the law by drawing her gun first. The law is fairly strict about when you are allowed to brandish your weapon. She had the freedom to not buy a gun, not carry a gun, and the poor decision was hers.

I don't think the issue is how many scenarios are beneficial to the person vs how many are harmful. I have seen statistics, though I don't know if they are reliable, that people who own guns are more likely to die in the event of a break in. Viewed from the top down (what appears to be your approach), this would indicate that owning guns causes deaths and therefore shouldn't be allowed (disputes about statistics aside, I don't want to go into the practicality of banning guns because that's been done to death and is fairly one-sided). But viewed on the individual level, the death someone who chooses to own a gun and chooses to use it when they're house is broken into is very different from the death of someone who was attacked and was not given the freedom to defend themselves with the necessary tools.