I’m a bit too tired for a full reply, but just off the bat, I’d like to say if a single, emotional instance like Columbine will form your views on gun control, then it’s not a well reasoned view.
Ah, jacksen9, “if you ever pull it, use it”
?
Might want to modify that to make sure you never pull it before you ID the target as hostile. I have “pulled” a gun to go check on a strange noise at a rooftop skylight (years ago). It was a drunk college student. I am glad I did not shoot first, ask questions later.
Even when you are sure it is a robber, check anyway.
“Began to really consider” does not equal “form your views”.
I began to think about these issues after Columbine. BTW, Columbine was certainly more than “an emotional instance”. I am in the process of considering these issues. I recognize the fact that I live in a changing society. I believe it worthwhile to reconsider my opinions on the issues of the day. This is why I like hanging out here, tieing up bandwidth.
In addition, I appreciate the time and energy you have invested in this thread. Your pov is interesting. Sorry that you are tired. I am new at this so…was that a hint for me to go back to mundane pointless stuff? 
As for the “pull it, use it” rule. My dad gave me countless advice that I wisely and unwisely dismissed. I think that this bit of advice was his attempt to make me understand the gravity of taking up arms against another. I think it is reckless.
He once made me promise to never buy a Buick, but that would be another thread.
I’ve enjoyed this.
pv
I didn’t mean anything by the tired statement other than that I was tired… I’m just popping on here every once in a while to take a break from something I have to finish.
Regarding the “pull it, use it” rule - I’d imagine what he’s trying to say is that if you find yourself in a situation where there is a credible threat to your very life, then it’s no time to try to scare the other guy, or try to ‘shoot him in the leg’, or anything like that, but if you’ve recognized a credible threat to your life, you draw your weapon strictly with the intention of stopping that attacker with potentially lethal force.
That applies more to concealled carry situations than a bump in the night, though.
Ugh, sweet sleep soon…
In true Riboflavin style, presented without a cite. Of course, there is one, for example, The International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1999 (which I hope we can all accept as close to “unbiased”).
Therein, yes, you will find that in England and Wales (Table 1.3), there were 703K violent crimes. Divide by the population for England and Wales of almost 63 million (found here ) and that gives a 1.1% chance of being involved in a violent crime. Repeating for the US (1.43mil crimes divided by 287mil people ) and you come up with about a 0.5% chance of being involved in a violent crime.
However, I’d like to mention a few caveats that Ribo ([sub]in typical fashion[/sub]) didn’t mention:
[ul]
[li]Table 1.1 shows that the US gives a rate of 6.26 homicides per 100K people, versus a mere 1.45 homicides per 100K people for England and Wales.[/li][li]The very first page of the PDF says that “Absolute comparisons between the recorded crime levels in different countries may be misleading.” Yet notice note 8 on the bottom of page 3: “Since the definition of homicide is similar in most countries, absolute comparisons of rates are possible.” IOW, I (and the survey itself!) contend that my comparison of homicides is more valid than Ribo’s comparison of “violent crime.”[/li][li]Finally, my comparison is also more striking. To wit, you are a little over twice as likely to get “violent crimed” in E/W than in the US, but you’re over FOUR TIMES AS LIKELY to get killed in the US than you are in E/W. I’d rather get my wallet stolen than my brains splattered against a wall.[/li][/ul]
You can draw your own hypotheses as you see fit. If I can anticipate the pro-gun response, it’ll be that I haven’t demonstrated causation (and they might even try to deny a correlation). I tentatively counter with:
[ul]
[li]Such a demonstration would fill books, not posts[/li][li]IANA statistician, and am not attempting to do anything more than provide “food for thought” (and data, which has been sorely lacking in this thread)[/li][li]If you accept that there might be a correlation, what hypotheses do YOU draw that do not factor in guns to at least some extent?[/li][/ul]
Well, not only am I late for a meeting, I’ve also entered another gun debate, something I told myself I wouldn’t do. Hope you’re happy 
Quix