What are the figures on Americans killed by terrorists vs Americans killed by each other (both as 'whoops, the kid got hold of my gun and ate it/killed his friends' and deliberately) each years, I wonder? What is the proportion of innocents killed by guns as opposed to actual criminals/aggressors killed in self-defence scenarios, as opposed to the 'stand your ground' rubbish which is clearly nothing to do with self-defence and everything to do with insecure gun-freaks just wanting to shoot someone and feel like a big man? The gun lobby sells gun ownership as the ultimate and necessary in self-defence, but I wonder if it's not exactly the reverse of what is touted. Doesn't owning a gun usually make you statistically far more likely to be killed by a gun (usually your own) than a non gun-owner? Aren't one's kids more likely to be shot if their parents own a gun? What are the stats on domenstic violence ending in murder with regard to gun ownership in those households?
See, here's the thing about the whole 'safe gun ownership/self-defence argument that gets trotted out every time some idiot child finds daddy's gun and heads off to slaughter 27 of his classmates' (which happens outside the USA, there have been several instances of this in Finland over the past couple of years): we are constantly told the responsible way to keep a gun is locked up (maybe parts locked up seperately), with ammunition locked up elsewhere and the keys hidden away from interested eyes. Putting aside for a moment that any child worth their salt knows where everything is in their own house (I certainly did) and can probably get access to it if they're sneaky enough, consider this:
In the event one needs to 'defend' oneself, how exactly does this 'gun locked up safely' thing actually work? Does one get prior written notice of every home invasion/sudden appearance of an aggressor, have time to then locate the keys, visit the various rooms where everything is kept, unlock the strong boxes, assemble and load the gun then head of to confront Mr. Aggressor, who then allows one to take clear aim and fire in an open space, assuring no innocent is caught in the crossfire, via ricochet or just due to one's bad aim (apparently everyone has perfect, steady and true aim in emergencies as opposed to fear, panic or the violence of the situation ending in one shottong oneself, one's kids or the walls)? I know people who've woken up with an intruder already in their bedrooms. Clearly in this situation one would need a loaded gun right to hand for a gun to be any use whatsoever in self-defence. How does THAT jibe with 'safe, responsible' gun ownership, oh gun freaks?
Seriously, in reality, how many times is one going to get a situation that allows for perfect gun ownership as touted by the 'gun don't kill people' set as opposed to the messy reality of actual events, that usually take place totally unexpectedly, in inconvenient places (like crowds where one simply cannot shoot, or in rooms containing one's own family) and in time frames that barely allow for the blinking of an eye? Have any of you ever been the victim of violence? I have and let me tell you, when someone comes up and hits you on the head from behind, seventy big fucking guns right to hand will be no fucking good to you as you're already on the floor seeing stars and the attacker - who you never saw coming - has already gone. It seems to me that in reality, a home-owner who takes real care to store guns 'safely' is realistically never going to be in the position to use them safely (as in, not making things worse or shooting the wrong person) when push comes to shove and neither are people in most other common violent scenarios. It's like people in my country who carry knives - they're usually the ones who get stabbed. They don't realistically provide protection, although those who carry them think they do, even when they're carted to hosital with their intestines hanging out.