And yes I speak from a professional point of view on this , and the reality is that at times all that will stop violence is the threat of tactically superior violence.
Tell that to Ghandi who managed to get a superior armed force out of India with non-violence. Violence does not stop violence, it only escalates it. Has violence on violence stopped the violence in the Middle East? Or Afghanistan? It is only when people lay down their weapons that violence stops!
And sorry but the reality is that while " peace is not created at the end of a gun barrel" the paradox remains that at times the threat of lethal force can be a component of keeping the peace.
Astonishingly basic policing has been accomplished in quite a few countries without the use of firearms. Some places even go so far as to ban guns altogether with the statistics in lowered crime rates to prove it works.
Refer: Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, UK just off the top of my head.
An example , the states with the *least* murders and the *least* crime in this nation are those with the highest firearms ownership , this is an indisputable fact.
please show me these statistics because every other statistic in the world links gun ownership with higher violent crime rates. And more guns = more gun related deaths whether crime, suicide, or accidental.
Serious violent crime is not a problem for most residential communities in the United States. In the suburban areas where most Americans live, the homicide rate is comparable to Finland's (FBI, 1994: 191; Reiss and Roth, 1993: 52). Half of all American homicides occur in the 63 largest cities, which only house 16% of the U.S. population. Homicides in those cities are also highly concentrated, in a handful of communities marked by concentrated poverty, hypersegregation (Massey and Denton, 1993), family disruption and high gun density.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/wholedoc.htm
As regards you remark about " shoot to kill" , that is one of the most widely promulgated false constructs to ever come down the pike........you shoot to ***SURVIVE*** or to ensure the survival of others , of course this is speaking of civilian scenarios.
mere semantics my friend, mere semantics. In any case that isn't how I used the term. Here if you discharge your firearm and kill or injure an intruder, no matter how well armed, how many of them there were, or if he was in your blinking bedroom you are in serious trouble with the law! It just isn't worth the trouble to do it. Speaking to several people about it, the advice is, if you find yourself in that situation you had better be on good terms with the private security company who will respond LONG before the police will, who can take the body and dump it for you.
As I stated , not *everyone* should possess or carry a firearm , however disarming the populace completely only leaves the available firearms in the hands of the criminal elements that will utterly ignore any and all laws , and leaves the civilian at their "mercy"..........and many of them are fresh out of that commodity.
So despite your earlier assertion that 'every home should have one' you do agree that not every one is qualified to have one, requires extensive training to use one correctly ie you are in favour of gun control laws?
I'm sorry but I must disagree with your assessment of firearms , and no offense but you seem to be unaware that defense comes in *layers* , and the last layer is personal defensive measures. In my personal case any response from LE agencies is 45 minutes to an hour or more , therefore they ( any given criminal) have to get through my fences , then they have to get through the dogs , and you can well believe that I will have reached a weapon long , long prior to any gain of entrance to my domicile. Thus negating your commentary as regards " reaching for a weapon will get you killed" , and my neighbor are all quite similar. And yes my neighbors and I have a co-operative agreement , that said their response will NOT be an unarmed one , nor will mine if they call me in an emergency. Keep in mind that my nearest neighbor is miles away.
Aah the 'home as armed camp' scenario. If you choose to live behind your high fence (remind you of jail by any chance?) and dogs peering fearfully from your barred windows, gun in hand at the slightest noise outside, while every one else roams around freely that is your choice. I prefer not to so I live in a community without any walls, where my neighbours can be as nosy as they like, with regular patrols by both police and the neighbourhood watch (they both drive through at regular intervals).
Here people have spent millions on turning their homes into fortresses with razor wire, high fences, alarms, electric fences and and and - guess what. It doesn't keep them out. They still get robbed. There isn't a fence in the world that you can erect legally around your home that will keep a determined robber out. And putting up high walls isolates you from your neighbours. And as I said just creates a beautiful private space for criminals to operate behind unseen.
Latest developments in crime prevention through landscaping emphasizes that landscaping must create the idea that you are SEEN because this not only prevents crime but makes residents feel safe as well. Walkways must be well-lit and highly visible, houses must face each other, doors and windows and entrance ways must be open (ie not obscured by bushes etc) and visible. No places for people to lurk unseen in the shadows or hidden doors or windows for easy access without being seen.
Crime prevention is huge multi-facet thing involving communities, education programs, and effective policing but in terms of personal safety a gun just isn't the answer gun supporters make it out to be. If you have some one at your throat with a knife reaching for your gun is so NOT a clever idea. If some one has a knife at the throat of your loved one's again reaching for your gun is so not a good idea. Most crime is one of opportunity. Even if you are carrying a gun, you can't drive with it in your hand, so you stop at a light and some guy smashes your window and hauls you out the car - what use is your gun? If you are walking down the street and some guys jump out and mug you, what use is your gun? The ONLY time it is useful is if you have time to get it out and wave it about and the number of times that scenario plays out is far and few between. Most times, you are more likely to have your gun stolen along with your cash.
Anyway I think I have had my say, and expressed my feelings clearly enough.
and the country has strict fire-arm controls. People don't commit crimes with guns much in these countries - in Japan even the Yakuza avoid guns and co-operate with police on search and seizure. Personally I'd rather live in a country where a gun death rate of ELEVEN is a national crisis rather than one in which more than 800 people died from an accidental gun discharge alone.