Originally Posted by Holotor

Before they fire? I don't know this as a fact but rapists wouldn't want to rape a dead person unless they're just fully messed up in the head..

What I meant was that they'd be busy groping or whatever and wouldn't pay attention to your hand reaching inside of your pocket to get a small bottle of pepper spray. Also, you don't 'lock and load' a spray cannister, just squeeze it.

Originally Posted by Redundant

You two focus on one scenario too much. I suggest you try and generalize reasonably more. :P

Originally Posted by Redundant

Gun violence is essentially very dangerous. A criminal will have an initial advantage due to several factors. Surprise effect, planning and so forth. A criminal can be armed more easily when guns are not prohibited.
Gun violence can be avoided by getting rid of guns. Obviously not all acts of violence are commited with a gun, but reducing gun violence should be something to strive for.

Originally Posted by Redundant

Melee weapons are similar, but cannot be put into the same category as guns, as they are essentially omnipresent. They are also far away from being as lethal and they mostly serve purposes other than violence. Knives, for example, are mainly used as tools, not as weapons.

Some of the difference in the levels of legal ownership between handgun and longarm users might be explained by the reason detainees owned their respective firearms. Four in 10 police detainees who owned a longarm did so primarily for hunting/recreational purposes, which is a legitimate reason for some longarm firearm ownership in Australia. In contrast, 55 percent of detainees who owned handguns did so mostly for protection and self-defence reasons, which is not a valid reason for firearm ownership. However, around three in 10 longarm owners cited protection as the main reason they owned a rifle or shotgun. Research from the United States and United Kingdom highlighted the acquisition of firearms - often handguns - for protection purposes, particularly among people involved in the drug trade and similarly violent criminal associations (Hales, Lewis & Silverstone 2006; Lizotte et al. 2000).

A further 13 percent of police detainees who owned a handgun admitted use in criminal activity as the main reason they owned a handgun, compared with nine percent of longarm owners. Only two percent of both handgun and longarm owners possessed their chosen firearm for gang-related purposes.

Originally Posted by Redundant

You are right, I should have been more precise.
I do not believe that it's a civilian's job to enforce laws. I do think that defending yourself against a criminal with violence should be the least of all options. The best thing you can do is 1. run away 2. call the police 3. stay out savely.
When those options are not available to you you may fight back, but to do that you do not need a loaded gun, you can use tools that you can improvise with other tools you can find around your house (yes, I realize that that sounds somewhat ignorant, but considering the potential dangers of owning a gun it seems more ignorant to me to arm people who never received proper training).
Guns have the potential to help both the criminals and the victims, leading to a vicious circle.
Therefore I am in favour of a prohibition if that can be enforced, as stated in my first post.

Originally Posted by Redundant

When those options are not available to you you may fight back, but to do that you do not need a loaded gun

Originally Posted by Oracle

How a criminal gets a weapon is besides the point. Whether or not they get one easily or not is besides the point.

If the question is whether guns or any sort of weapon is a good form of self-defense, it doesn't matter what the assailant has, but whether the rate of successful self-defense increases based on the availability of weapons to the defendant.


And all evidence seems to say that an increased availability of weapons for "self-defense" results in more homicides, more assaults, and less actual safety. Stand your ground laws in the U.S. resulted in an increased rate of homicides of 10% in states with those laws. States with lower gun ownership also have lower rates of homicide.

Of course, this then begs the question of whether it's an increase of guns causing more crime, or an increase of crime causing more people to buy guns, or some other factor that increases both. However, current evidence points towards an increase in guns creates an increase of crimes. As an example, women in states with more guns are almost 5 times more likely to be killed with a firearm than in states with less guns. Again, you can argue that more guns means a higher likelihood of being shot, but going even more precise, a woman is 6 times more likely to be shot by a person in a relationship with her, than a random stranger. A woman is 7 times more likely to be killed by her partner if her partner has a firearm. The availability of a firearm significantly increases the odds of being shot.

In addition, evidence also shows that ownership of weapons, particularly firearms, by victims has increased odds of the victim being seriously injured or killed. There's around a 400% chance increase in being shot during an assault if you carry a firearm for self-defense. There's around a 400% chance increase of being killed during an assault when you carry a firearm. Is it because people who are at greater risk carry firearms, or because you carry the firearm that you're at greater risk? Again, this requires more evidence, but it's highly likely that both play a factor. When an assailant perceives you as more threatening, they will either increase the severity of the attack to incapacitate you, or flee. And since firearms have a decent range, and the laws in America justify shooting somebody in the back if they attacked you as legitimate self-defense, the criminal has only one option if they discover a gun on their victim. They have to subdue the victim, or risk getting shot. Often, they will shoot their victim with the victim's own gun because of this.


So really, all evidence points towards firearms, and weapons through relatedness, being ineffectual, and often detrimental, to self-defense. At best, it's just correlation, with an increase of weapons being correlated with increased crime. Although it's highly unlikely it's that simple. At worst, an increase of weapons increases the severity and quantity of crime. Which is noticeable with current evidence.