"When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

No thanks. Try to take my right of effective self-defense away (as the U.K. started doing in the '50s) and you won't like the consequences.

You know, I actually do like the consequences: crime rate a fraction of the US and only one school shooting ever.

Hah, but an embarrassing overall violent crime rate.

I'll take my much safer area plus my immediate means to self defense over your constables that are a hour out.

> but an embarrassing overall violent crime rate.

Violent crime in UK is much lower than in US. UK crime statistics are more robust than US crime stats.

In particular: The US uses a different definition of violent crime. The US doesn't bother to include a bunch of crime that the UK does include.

United Kingdom: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-s...

“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)

United States: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...

“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)

In the UK a push that results in no physical harm could be counted as a violent crime. That same push, resulting in the same lack of physical harm, would not be counted as a violent crime in the US.

> your constables that are a hour out.

That's weirdly wrong too.

No thanks, the police are too far away and I value my life more than one of a criminal.

If I need guns, I'll use the one on my hip.

You know, the one that the Supreme Court of the United States of America asserted that I have a right to keep.

This is the problem right here.

History has shown repeatedly that humans are prone to emotional responses. And people that were otherwise law abiding right until a moment of anger now have easy hip-level access to a 'thing' to act out their anger.

Take the case a couple years ago of the retired cop that shot a guy in the movie theatre during previews for throwing popcorn at him. (Guy called his baby sitter during previews, the retired cop yelled at him to be quiet, guy threw some popcorn back at the cop, retired cop shoots guy dead) If this retired cop, who was a law-abiding citizen his whole life and was professionally trained in firearm safety and usage couldn't control his anger during an argument about a guy using his cell phone, I don't see how the average American can be trusted.

And speaking of guns in movie theatres, there's the case of the guy who accidentally dropped his handgun under his seat during a kids movie and then left. Luckily the ushers found it and not a kid. Guy had the nerve to go back to the theatre and demand it back.

I don't see how the average American can be trusted to keep their gun safe.

What you also don't see is the 11 million plus with concealed carry licenses, and those in the states of Maine, Vermont, Arkansas, Kansas, Arizona, Wyoming, and Alaska who don't need a permit, abusing their guns in public to any serious degree. The Violence Policy center did their best in a paper titled "Concealed Carry Killers", and I and some other research minions helped Supreme Court cited scholar Clayton Cramer demolish it.

Pearl clutchers have warned us of "blood in the streets!" and "Dodge City!" every time a state switched to shall issue licensing. Well, there are now 45 shall issue states, holding more than 2/3rd of the population, and its never happened, history does not show what you claim. Sure, there are occasional bad incidents (the VPC paper did find a few) ... but if in this HN topic you're going to claim police are the acme of responsible gun use, we're not living in the same reality.

What if a crazed meth head is kicking in my front door and is holding a knife?

This isn't a hypothetical and happened to me 15 years ago. I yelled I had a gun and would shoot him if he came through. He kicked a few more times then ran away.

The cops didn't show up for 17 more minutes.

You obviously go into the fetal position and try and reason, hope he doesn't rape or kill you, your wife, kids.

His/her life matters, so you can't take it even if it means defending your own.

(Obviously sarcasm, but that's the thought process of these people)

Leave via the back door?

And abandon your kids?

One reason I bring this up is that a "duty to retreat" requirement manufactured by the Massachusetts courts was used to convict a man in the early '80s who wasn't willing to do that. There's a previous better known case were a woman was convicted because she didn't try to climb out of the high windows in her basement apartment.

How is it even possible for a jury to convict? The jury, judge and prosecutor's thought process are so foreign to me as to be another species.

That's what I though, but I read it in the unsympathetic Boston Globe as it proceeded, even they couldn't spin it into anything but a travesty. Well, to someone from outside the state.

Massachusetts is viciously anti-gun. Except, of course, towards the connected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_University_of_Alabama_in_...

I lived on the second story of a crappy apartment complex. There were no backdoors or fire escapes. And why should I have to grab my wife and run? What is it about this dangerous criminal invading my home that requires me to risk my wife's and my life over his? How is that just in any sense of the word?

You already risk you and your wife's lives by having a gun in the house.

How?

(Can't wait to see the study cited that considers suicide a "risk to you and your wife's lives")