Here's a good debunking of the "UK banned guns and therefore crime..." Reason magazine propaganda that the gunnutters try to foist on folks. They tried the same thing with Aus. and it was debunked as well.

http://timlambert.org/2002/10/malcolm/

It's part of the fear mongering (Katrina! Rape! Home invasion!) which is odd considering the Kartina stuff was proven to be exaggerated at best and the fact that the national crime rate has dropped so precipitously over the past 10 years or so (here in NYC crime is at almost historic lows - 1970s levels). Anyway, if people want to legally have guns that's fine with me. I just think it makes common sense to regulate the weapons, register the owners and have laws that make sense depending on the region. (e.g. NYC vs. rural Kentucky). After that, people can do whatever they want, if they want to pretend that hiding in the woods and shooting unsuspecting animals is a "sport" or whatever else they want to do legally with them, more power to them .

It wasn't a "couple of stories", and yes, you are a bigot. Simply because you refuse to read the NO Times Picyaune's and others detailed accounts about Katrina related violence and want to rely on "tall tales told from abroad" is not my problem, but, it does seems to fit into your apparent "afraid of the underreported crimes committed by black bogeymen" worldview. Boo! LOL. Good luck with that.

I'm sure some of your best friends are black and I'm very sure that they certianly appreciate your courageous campaign to uncover the outrageous media conspiracy that results in the underreporting of the barbarous criminal activites of the black underclass. Uh huh. Well, at least you've got a gun...just in case some of your friends get out of hand....

How is your apparently former strict gun control thinking in conflict with you potentially buying a rifle? It's not. Since when does the "liberal" gun control stance mean you can't buy a gun? Silly muddle-headed liberal - You sure you're not an East Coast Elite or something?

As I said earlier, the usual stance is that restrictions should be different for different areas. It makes absolute sense that there should be stricter restrictions in a dense and heavily populated place like NYC as opposed to some of the rural areas some folks here are talking about. Although I remain bemused by the whole "protection" notion in the "boonies". If people want to have some fun and play weekend outdoorswomen and target shoot (which I think is challenging and interesting), that's cool, but, it would actually makes much more sense for someone who lived in a high crime area to buy a gun for protection rather than someone to purchase one based on the fear of a suburban/rural home invasion that's, at best, extremely unlikely to happen. Btw, if you think a rifle's gonna help you if SHTF, I suspect you're putting way too much faith in the weapon and your general ablities.

"Car accidents are also highly unlikely (how often do you get into one?) yet we wear seat belts and carry insurance. Also - what makes home invasions less likely? the probability, in the criminal's mind, that the owner is likely to be armed. Would you break into a random house somewhere in the sticks in Texas? Me neither."

The car accident thing is a terrible analogy. Besides, we are required to wear seat belts and carry insurance. I suppose you think we should be required to have guns too? "Home invasions", bka robbery, where the owner is home are unlikely, particluarly in the sticks, because they have proven to be so based on actual crime stats not your dubious mind reading. Also, where do people get this notion of criminals randomly wandering through the sticks looking for homes to invade? Your typical rural Texas town probably has a population of MAYBE a few thousand and a crime rate of next to zero. I'd be willing to bet you that the vast majority of crime committed in such towns are committed by locals as opposed to "outside" wandering criminals.

"I don't have the statistics before me, but in England burglaries/home invasions skyrocketed when all legal firearms were confiscated. There is a running joke there that English police neither stops crime, nor catches suspects, but that its whole purpose is to write a report happened for insurance claim purposes."

Of course you don't have the stats because the whole meme about England has been throughly debunked as I indicated (with link) to you in an earlier post.

"Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. Decent training, a cool head, and luck count. But the mere fact of owning a firearm in a vulnerable area makes homeowners feel more secure. There is a huge psychological difference between feeling like you at least have a chance to protect yourself vs. helplessness."

Well, everything "depends on the person". That's not saying much. You're "helpless" if you don't have a gun and live in a "vulnerable" area? Interesting, I didn't know that most of the people who live in major cities were helpless. I'm sure that's news to them. If that's so it's even more amazing how the crime rate has dropped so dramatically especially since most people in the cities aren't armed at all. For some reason though, I don't think you're talking about them when you say "vulnerable" area. Too many "dark and underclass" folks for your sensibilities.