Quote Originally Posted by Trixie View Post
Nope. Unlike what NRA tries to sell, there is direct correlation. Look at countries where guns are absolutely forbidden, like Japan and Singapore - lowest crime rates in the world. Next, ex-Soviet zone (where people had difficult access to guns) - in most places (where mafia does not have access to, say, a corrupted police official) violent crime rates are small. Admittedly, where they had access to corrupt police is was higher, but still not that bad, and things are steadily improving since 1991. After that, comes most European Union states (medium access, medium to low crime rate), then US (high access, high crime rate, a big % of population behind the bars) and finally states (usually failed) where you can own guns freely - Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Afghan, etc. Guess what crime rates they have?
That is taking a lot of situations well out of context though. Sure Singapore has a lower crime rate and doesn't have access to guns, but it is also illegal there to litter and can get huge fines and jail for it. And as for the last countries, I don't think its really legal to own guns in most of them either, but there really isn't any one to enforce those laws. The fact that they are generally controlled by local gangs is why they have the levels of violence they do, not because the normal citizen does or does not have access to guns.

Even in the USA things change a lot from one place to the next. When I lived in Phoenix I don't think I knew anyone that had a gun. Where I live now I don't know anyone who doesn't own a gun or 3. Guess which one has more crime and more violent crime? It isn't where I live now.


As for killing wild animals without cause or a license... The Game and Fish seem to be a lot more aggressive about that sort of thing then the police are about various crimes. In fact the Game and Fish have more rights then the police do when it comes to searching people. If you shoot a wild animal in self defense you had better be able to show you were in imminent danger. Even in the case of them attacking livestock, with the exception of coyotes, you have to call the Game and Fish to have the wild animal dealt with and can't shoot them on your own. (legally at least, people do though because there is just too much space for the G&F to patrol)

Although even in terms of self defense of yourself and your house, even if no one had guns that wouldn't stop someone from breaking in. And at that point any confrontation between home owner and burglar would probably go to the advantage of the burglar. Guns in this case give the advantage to the homeowner because the homeowner has the advantage of initiative and cover. If all you had to defend yourself was a knife or bat you have to give up your cover and give ample warning time to the burglar that you are acting against them. Then it comes down to who is better at using a knife or bat or unarmed and I'm going to guess that 99% of the time the burglar is going to have had more practice and is more comfortable with their weapon then the homeowner.
Someone who makes a (partial) living at robbing others is going to have a lot more experience dealing with those situations and is going to have the advantage in any situation where both parties are aware of the other.

The original poster would probably have a good advantage since he has went through basic training and was a soldier for a while. However that is not going to be the case for most people.