btw - I would recommend a 12 gauge pump shotgun to get the suckers. A pistol is fine, but you can't miss with a 12 gauge, and it will make a bigger mess of their face and is sure to drop them with one hit. Plus a shotgun won't overpenetrate; bullets can go through a window or a wall and hit little suzie sleeping in bed next door. If they're armed with a handgun, you'll have the upperhand with the 12 ga.

Very good point I totally agree. Also you dont have to aim, which is hard for people to do if they dont like killing folks

Ever wonder what the phsycological impact on the householder is when they kill someone trying to burgle them? I don't think that much of the bravado being bandied around on here is going to stop that haunting you for the rest of your life.

Look at veterans from the various wars over the years, they've seen enough killing and bloodshed to affect them for the rest of their lives - and that was with a reasonable cause/reason (at least to them), is protecting your stuff worth that?

Can't say that I'd ever want to be in that position.

Paul.

Truth.

Look at veterans from the various wars over the years, they've seen enough killing and bloodshed to affect them for the rest of their lives

I have to disagree. Many many veterans I know have no qualms about what they have done or seen. I dare sat that most of the veterans that have a problem with what they have seen and done have been veterans that were fighting in the viet-cong. This was only an issue because they were fighting a terribly ruthless people in which not only able bodied men were doing the fighting, but also women and children. I have heard man horror stories of a 4 year old vietnamese child walking up to an american camp with a bomb strapped to its chest. What do you do? Shoot an infant? If it means protecting yourself, you have to. These are unfortunate situations that no man should ever have to deal with.

On another note, I personally carry a gun. I have never been threatened except once when I wasn't sure whether I was being threated or not. The situation was late one night when I was in downtown New Orleans. On my way home I saw a guy that was bleeding from the arm. I pulled over, let him in, and drove him to the hospital. Now, this guy was easily twice my size. (not hat, as I'm a skinny little guy) Needless to say, at two o'clock in the morning, If I were unarmed, I would never have let a stranger in my car. As it were, as soon as he got in, I pulled out my pistol and layed it on the seat to my left. This way, he knows I'm armed and is much less likely to try something he shouldn't. Odds are, he wouldn't have anyway, since as a rule, I have more faith in people than that. But the fact remains that there is still a chance that something COULD happen, and it's a risk that 99% of people are NOT willing to take. Ever wonder why you see so few hitchhikers any more? I doubt it's because people have better access to cars. It's just not worth the risk anymore.

In reply to:

---

Many many veterans I know have no qualms about what they have done or seen.

---

Whilst I can't argue with your experience with vererans, I don't believe that this is generally the case. I'll freely admit that I don't know a lot of War veterans, WW2 or otherwise, be certinaly the ones that I have spoken to, family members on the whole, appear fine, but a small amount of prompting brings back memories that are sheer horror. At least one memebr of my family had consistance and recurrant nightmares up until he died several years ago. That's nearly 50 years of nightmares, and he wasn't even one of the men who discovered the 'Final Solution' in Germany.

In reply to:

---

I dare say that most of the veterans that have a problem with what they have seen and done have been veterans that were fighting in the viet-cong.

---

This makes it sound like you think that WW2 was a walk in the park.

In reply to:

---

This was only an issue because they were fighting a terribly ruthless people in which not only able bodied men were doing the fighting, but also women and children. I have heard man horror stories of a 4 year old vietnamese child walking up to an american camp with a bomb strapped to its chest. What do you do? Shoot an infant? If it means protecting yourself, you have to. These are unfortunate situations that no man should ever have to deal with.

---

Which is really rather the point that I was making. I don't want to be in the situation to have to make that choice, although the chances of someone wanting to blow me up in a non-war situation is extremely small.

Having a gun in your hands just allows you to make life/death choices against other people - I don't want to *ever* be in a situtation where I can choose, or not, the life or death of another human. Not ever, not even in a court (thankfully the UK has no death sentences any more, except for High Treason and Piracy).

As for your story about the guy in the car - imagine you are him. And you are just wounded. You are hitchhiking because you are scared/injured (as he was)/whatever. I don't think that you pulling a gun on him stopped him attacking you, it probably just scared the crap out of him. I know that I'd have been scared stupid. I'm not convinced that if he was a nutter who was tricking you and wanted to kill/rape/whatever you, that the gun on thepassenger seat would have bothered him in the slightest.

Net effect of having a gun in that situation, you scared an innocent man.

Well worth it.

Anyway, we're never going to agree on this issue - you stick with guns and Gun crime and I'll stay over here in Blighty with fewer guns and fewer gun deaths, thanks.

Cheers,

Paul.

I don't think that you pulling a gun on him stopped him attacking you

I don't think he said he pulled a gun on him, but rather just made the gun visible.

Having a gun in your hands just allows you to make life/death choices against other people - I don't want to *ever* be in a situtation where I can choose, or not, the life or death of another human.

Yeah, you just place that burden on a few brave people who work for the police. This is the same sort of hypocrasy with people who condemn hunting because of animal cruelty then they goto the supermarket to buy some fresh meat. You just don't want to get your hands dirty.

And by the way, I won't be making the life or death choice if someone breaks into my house. The thief will make that choice for himself.

Interesting thread. Talk is cheap. I don't know that anyone can really know how he or she might react in a hostile situation, until you've actually been there. I also live in Washington. I have a CWP. It was very easy to get. The only reason why I got one was so I wouldn't have to wait to pick up a handgun when I bought it. If I see a gun I like I can take it home right when I buy it. No waiting period. Needless to say I am a firearm buff. I am not going to go into detail on my collect but I have a few. Even though I have an arsenal at home I would NEVER choose to pick up a weapon unless my life or the lives of those in my home were at risk. I think you did the right thing by staying in your car and honking your horn. That was smart. I own nothing that is worth the life of another human being. There have been some comments in this thread that speak of pulling a weapon instead of being a pussy. I think they have it backwards. I have never been in a situation where the presence of a gun saved my life but I believe I have been in a situation where the presence of my brain did. Using deadly force is a last resort and should be used only if there is no other way to save your life and you had better be sure because you will have to live with your choice, forever. Exclusive of law enforcement, military, and those unfortunate few who find themselves in terrible situations the use of a firearm against another human being is simply not an option and should not be considered. In more cases than not the brandying of a weapon elevates the risk factor not the other way around. Well, thats my opinion and thats all it is, take it or leave it.

I don't think he said he pulled a gun on him, but rather just made the gun visible.

Bingo. I never pointed it anywhere near him, just made it known that I'd protect myself should the need arise. As to whether it would or wouldn't stop someone trying to harm me, I think in fact that it certainly would. It would me if I were going to try something. Ever wonder why there are so many crimes against women and the elderly? It's because criminals go for targets that are least likely to show resistance. If you WERE the nefarious type, who would YOU go after? Someone that looks frail or a biker type with a .45 hanging on his belt?

In reply to:

---

Yeah, you just place that burden on a few brave people who work for the police. This is the same sort of hypocrasy with people who condemn hunting because of animal cruelty then they goto the supermarket to buy some fresh meat. You just don't want to get your hands dirty.

---

Er, yeah. Precisely my point. I want the people who are trained in weapons handling, and understand the nature of the situations that they put themselves in to be responsible. Absolutely couldn't agree more.

Ask yourself this, who do you want to uphold the law in your country - the Police force (committed, trained experts in this stuff), or Joe Public? You seem to be advocating some sort of Anarchy.

The idea of people in the general public making that sort of choice scares me stupid. Most of the Joe Public I know have trouble driving properly, I don't want to know what sort of insane decisions they are going to make with a lethal weapon in their hand.

Can you really say that most/all/any of the people who own guns in the US are correctly and properly trained in both the usage of the weapon and have the mental faculties or training to cope with making the right choice when deciding wether or not to kill someone?

I also think that there is a world apart from hunting and the way that meat ends up in the shop. That's a absurd comparison.

In reply to:

---

And by the way, I won't be making the life or death choice if someone breaks into my house. The thief will make that choice for himself.

---

No, that's incorrect. Do you think that the thief WANTS to break into your house? They obviously feel that it's worth the risk for whatever reason. You are the one pointing a gun at them, you are the one deciding if they live or die. You have the choice.

Also, refer back to the original part of this thread, some people were talking about killing people in their house, no discussion, no thought, BAM. That's a really scary attitude.

IIRC, that d33zY, you were the one showing off your Uzi's in another thread as well, so I suspect that we'll just have to agree to differ.

Paul.

Ever wonder what the psychological impact on the householder is when they kill someone trying to burgle them?

Well, I can tell you the psychological impact it had on at least one person.

When I was younger I worked at a family-owned go-kart track out on the beach a couple of summers. I got to be good friends with the owners and towards the end of my second summer the owner related this story to me.

This occurred during the time that his wife was pregnant with their son, who is close to my age, putting these events around 1980. I don't remember the reason he told me, but they were going to have to make a large cash deposit the next day (money from the business) and it had to go home with them that night. This was several thousand dollars back in 1980, so quite a bit of money. His brother, concerned for his safety, loaned him his hand gun for the evening.

They were awoken that night by noises from downstairs. A group of men were attempting to break into the house. My boss got downstairs just as they got the back door open. He threw his weight against the door but since there were several of them on the other side he knew he was fighting a loosing battle. He hollered out "I have a gun! I'm going to shoot through the door!" They continued to push, so he unloaded his gun through the door. The burglars fled, all except one, who was lying dead in the doorway.

The cops came, he was taken downtown for questioning, but let go by the next morning. They said it was cut and dried self defense. The burglars had been armed with knives and at least the dead one had had drugs in his system.

My boss told me that to this day he can still see the kid's dead face staring up at him (the one he killed was about 17). He said he wasn't at all proud of what he had had to do. He never wanted to kill anyone.

"But my wife and yet to be born son were upstairs. I wasn't worried about the money, though undoubtedly that’s why they were there. I'm glad my brother loaned me that gun that day. I don't regret pulling that trigger. I'd do it again if I had to."

So yes, you may be haunted for the rest of your life, but how much more would you be haunted if your wife and kids were killed and you had done nothing about it?

In response to the case in point, a friend of mine caries his gun in a safe under the seat of his truck, it would have been well in place to be used. As far as the point that if he had had a gun he would have been dead, I think the point that most robberies aren’t armed ones is a valid one. More importantly however it has been hammered upon over and over (especially by d33zY) that if you have a gun you should be trained to use it. How many criminals do you know that get trained to use a gun? If he had had a gun and the proper training that day, I think he would be very much alive right now and possibly have more of his stuff.

Can't say that I'd ever want to be in that position.

Of course. Nobody ever wants to be in that position. But sometimes you don’t have a choice in the matter.

I think a lot of good points have been raised here. I admit that people that feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth scare me a bit (I do know many people who don’t feel a need to however, they just enjoy firearms). On the other hand, people who encourage us to just bend over and take it from the criminals frighten me much more.

I would own a gun except I currently live on a college campus where you can’t have any weapons.

I'm not trying to start a flame-war. Honest. phaigh, this is not a personal attack against you, I just happen to disagree with your ideas. I will do my best to discuss them in a civilized manner.

Yeah, you just place that burden on a few brave people who work for the police. This is the same sort of hypocrisy with people who condemn hunting because of animal cruelty then they go to the supermarket to buy some fresh meat. You just don't want to get your hands dirty.

Ask yourself this, who do you want to uphold the law in your country - the Police force (committed, trained experts in this stuff), or Joe Public? You seem to be advocating some sort of Anarchy.

Joe Public.

By "law in the country" I take you to mean "law of the country". Until every individual makes it his or her responsibility to uphold the law of the land (not their personal laws) there can be no peace, no effective government. No matter how many trained police you throw at it, it just isn't going to work.

By this I mean that every citizen should understand and follow the law themselves, and not stand idly by as others break it. This does not mean that Joe Public can use deadly force whenever he wants, this is why specific laws are set up detailing when and where he can use deadly force.

OTOH, I think the comparison of hunting is a poor one. The two situations are nothing alike; people buy their own food because not everybody has time to hunt.

And by the way, I won't be making the life or death choice if someone breaks into my house. The thief will make that choice for himself.

No, that's incorrect. Do you think that the thief WANTS to break into your house? They obviously feel that it's worth the risk for whatever reason. You are the one pointing a gun at them, you are the one deciding if they live or die. You have the choice.

I think this is mostly covered in the example I posted above. However, YES, it WAS the choice of the thief. What he WANTS is irrelevant, I'm sure he didn't want to (actually I'm not sure, but that’s another discussion). The point of the matter is that the choice still lies with the thief.

you are the one deciding if they live or die.

Let’s turn this around. Suppose I said "You are the one deciding if you and the people you love live or die." What is The Right Thing To Do then? Should you and your family die because obviously the thief didn't want to break into your home, so he should get to do what he wants?

I'm sorry; the choice lies with the thief.

Ask yourself this, who do you want to uphold the law in your country - the Police force (committed, trained experts in this stuff), or Joe Public? You seem to be advocating some sort of Anarchy.

It's not anarchy, but it's the natural right of every man to defend his own life, family, and property.

Can you really say that most/all/any of the people who own guns in the US are correctly and properly trained in both the usage of the weapon and have the mental faculties or training to cope with making the right choice when deciding wether or not to kill someone?

It's not rocket science learning how to operate a gun. However, of course there will be people who can't handle a gun a safely or make the best decisions, but it's a guaranteed right for anyone to own a weapon here unless they abuse that right. People make bad decisions in all aspects of life. That's why we have hobos, drug addicts, and theives, which is also why Joe Average needs a piece to protect his shit.

The divisions here aren't so much about guns as they are about a wider philosophy. Gun rights are all about empowering individuals and giving individuals basic rights. The other side is all about empowering an elite few to rule over and protect the rest. I bet 90% of all the anti-gun people here also want higher taxes, bigger government, and ideally a socialist system of goverment. On the other hand, like Thoreau, I feel that the government that governs least is the best government.

Do you think that the thief WANTS to break into your house?

What, are most theives being forced against their will to rob someone?

They obviously feel that it's worth the risk for whatever reason.

That's their choice.

You are the one pointing a gun at them, you are the one deciding if they live or die. You have the choice.

It's the criminal's choice to commit a crime. It's the criminal's choice to put up a fight when someone tries to stop them. It's my right to fight back, to the death if necessary, rather than be a victim. By your logic, it was the Allies' fault that WWII occured. After all, it was the US's choice to fight back. It was the NL's and Britain's and France's choices to fight the germans (well maybe not france). They should have just given the Axis what they wanted and everything would have been ok. No war, but no justice either.

Would you say that a police officer has the right to kill if attacked? If so, then what is the difference between a man with a badge and Carl the fucking brick layer? Oh yeah, the cop is properly trained on how to operate the gun. I forgot the average person is too dumb to figure out how to work a slide, trigger, and safety.

There are laws against misusing firearms, just as there are laws on everything else. Laws don't stop dishonest people. Outlawing guns only disarms the law-abiding citizens. Let me put it this way........ Let's say 1% of the population consists of criminals. Let's also say that being armed with a gun makes a person ten times more "powerful". Let's also say that the ratio of the "power" of honest people to the "power" of dishonest people is a direct correlation to a crime rate. If guns are banned, then that 99% honest will be disarmed. Let's say the 1% criminals remains armed, making them ten times as strong. So the "power ratio" will be 99:10. Let's say the criminals are mostly disarmed as well. the power ratio will then be 99:1. Now, let's say everyone and their mama is armed to the teeth. The ratio will be 999:10, or simplified to 99:1. Obviously, the objective is to arm as many honest people as possible and disarm as many criminals as possible, so the ratio can get closer to 999:1. More guns equals less crime.

I'm going off on wild tangents, but I'm tired. I doubt anyone managed to read this far and stay awake, and if you did, you probably skipped the middle to just read the last few sentences, you bastard.

you were the one showing off your Uzi's in another thread as well

It's not an Uzi, although I would like one.

Thanks for the story and your comments. It was very insightful. I wish I had the patience and state of mind to state things so eloquently. You basically just said what I'm trying to say.

Yes, all good points, I can clearly see that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, so I'm going to let this lie right here, but I have one final parting question...

In reply to:

---

More guns equals less crime.

---

Why is it then that the US has the highest Gun Death total in the world then?

In the UK we have, on average around 100 deaths to guns per year.

In the US that number is in the region of 10,000 deaths to guns per year.

(Numbers remembered from Bowling for Columbine).

?

Paul.

PS:

In reply to:

---

I'm going off on wild tangents, but I'm tired. I doubt anyone managed to read this far and stay awake, and if you did, you probably skipped the middle to just read the last few sentences, you bastard.

---

Thanks for the first laugh I've had in this thread...

Of course if you lived in Kennesaw Georgia you would be required to own a gun.
http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

There are some very interesting statistics as well from a more applicable case study:
http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx

And of course you could search google

I can clearly see that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, so I'm going to let this lie right here, but I have one final parting question...

Couple points on that:

1. When you take their difference in population into account the number of people killed is a percent of a percent. The difference isn't nearly so great either.
2. You would also need to look at the number of people killed by weapons other than guns.
3. You would also need to look at why the people were killed, specificly in relation to the crime rate. It could be that alot of criminals are being killed by guns in America because of situations like the one I described.
4. I would be more interested in seeing the number of violent murders comitted with some sort of weapon. I think this would bring the numbers much closer.
5. I don't agree with d33zY's statment above. Edit: Show me more statistics like the one above and I might though.
   

Not exactly answering your question, I know, just trying to point out that the scope of it is much bigger than your pointing out.

On that note I'm going to step down for the night and let a few others take up the discussion.

"Let’s turn this around. Suppose I said "You are the one deciding if you and the people you love live or die." What is The Right Thing To Do then? Should you and your family die because obviously the thief didn't want to break into your home, so he should get to do what he wants? "

You have some good points. However, I don't believe the premise of this thread was if you should protect yourself in a life threatening situation. I think it has already been established in this thread that most of us believe that home robbers generally are not armed. Do you feel that you are morally justified to use deadly force on an unarmed man? There are so many unknowns in these situations. Maybe the guy is totally down and out and stealing for food. I'm not saying he made the right choice not everyone is running on all 8 cylinders. Maybe the guy is just drunk and mistakenly walked into the wrong house (this has happened). Regardless of what I'm seeing here I can not believe that any of you would do this. The members of this board are just to smart to think that thier material possesions are worth a life.

yes, but its the unknowns that will get you killed. it really is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
if some guy busts through my door i will yell at him to get out, i dont care if hes drunk, drugged, down on his luck and needing to take a [censored], whatever. if i have clearly made it a point that he is not wanted in my residence and he decides to ignore it, im letting something else do the talking. and he wont feel good. i dont care what his story is.
true, maybe afterwards i will feel bad, regret it, or whatever. but that will not change the fact that i considered what i was doing to be right at the time. none of us can afford to live in the past and dwell on mistakes.

Outlawing guns only disarms the law-abiding citizens.

I'd just like to point out that you're the first person in this thread to bring up the subject of outlawing guns.

this book is considered to be the most comprehensive study on the relation of gun control to crime. I would read it before you just automatically assume that more guns are the cause of crime.



This is from the NRA website, regarding gun control vs crime rate:

Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's murder rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders--and all firearm murders--in the city were committed with handguns.1

Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and murders with handguns continued to rise. Its registration system in place, Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982, and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related murders doubled.2

California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989 and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual murder rate has averaged 32% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends, yet for the last decade its murder rate has averaged 44% higher than the rate for the rest of the country, and its robbery rate has averaged highest among the states.

The overall murder rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership--California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C.--is 8% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New York City Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the mid-1990s, New York City's violent crime rate was among the highest of U.S. cities.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating to firearms nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the national murder rate averaged 50% higher during the five years after the law, 75% higher during the next five years, and 81% higher during the five years after that.

Unfortunately, that's because many of us that wish to retain the right to carry a firearm are feeling the ability to do so slipping away. Since I feel that it is my right, as per our constitution, to own a gun I'm willing to fight tooth and nail against anybody that wants to take away my right to do so. For that matter I'm pretty well willing to fight anybody when I feel ANY of my rights begin to slip, and believe me, they're starting to slip ever and ever faster in this country.

In other words, when people start talking about "never having a need for a gun" I, too, skip immediately to the assumption that said people would just as soon see them outlawed. Besides, since when are guns the only thing that criminals use to kill, rape, and steal? What's next, hunting knives? Kitchen Knives? Rope? People with big hands? I mean really, it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as with a gun, unless you run up on someone with a gun.

On another tangent, never in the history of mankind has one group of people harming another group ever been stopped by anything short of more violence.

I think Martin Luther King and Gandhi would be interested in your theories.

In all honesty, I've thought about it a good deal, and I don't think that banning firearms would work in the US where it might work in other countries. There are significant geographical and cultural differences that mean it wouldn't work.

At the same time, I cannot come up with any good reason for anyone to own a fully automatic firearm.

Well, for one, the ability for the populace to be able to overthrow the government if the need should ever arise. Granted, an Uzi will do little against a missile, but if there were enough people upset that an actual overthrow were possible, I'd rather have a full auto than a sharp stick. Besides, what's the point in banning them? As long as the police and military can get them, so could any crook. Not to mention, automatic rifles are very very rarely used in an actual crime. (Except in the movies) Pistols are MUCH easier to conceal and they can kill you just as dead.

Don't get me wrong, I have very little use for an automatic, but if I ever do, I'd like to think I could get one. Besides, automatics are MUCH more difficult to handle unless you've been trained. I'd just as soon go up against a random thug with a machine gun as one with a .45. Believe me, I've shot a few auto's, and it is NOTHING like the video games. I know what to expect and I STILL can't keep the thing level. Even on three round bursts. The first shot may hit the target, but the rest are in the big dirt pile behind it.

Well, for one, the ability for the populace to be able to overthrow the government if the need should ever arise.

If that's your best answer, I really think you've just made Bitt's point. If it ever comes to that needing to overthrow the government, I doubt gun laws are going to be much of an issue.

While I think people should have the right to own guns here, I have no problem with restricting what guns people can own, and I certainly have no problem with a waiting period or other measures that promote safe and informed use of firearms.

> I mean really, it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as with a gun

You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right?

When we had a special forces training officer here at work for reference for the game i'm working on, he told us that stats for knife wounds vs. gun wounds. It was some really surprising number... WAY more people die from knife wounds than gun inflicted wounds... according to him at least. Who knows what the real stats are. He said he'd rather a knife than a gun in close quarters. But he did seem a little whacko.

Well, they say charge a gun and run from a knife.

For that matter I'm pretty well willing to fight anybody when I feel ANY of my rights begin to slip, and believe me, they're starting to slip ever and ever faster in this country.

Agreed. The current administration has been running a bit wild, eh?

--Dan.

>>> I mean really, it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as with a gun

>>You're kidding, right?

Knives vs Firearms:
Actually, knives, on the whole, are deadlier than guns. They produce wounds with massive blood loss. Very hard to stop that kind of thing. Guns on the other hand, are deadly, but only if a vital organ is hit. Heart, lungs, cns, major artery. Most other places you get an injury that can be survived.

I would point out that in the US carrying a conceiled gun is a misdameaner, while a conceiled deadly knife is a felony.

fact mode off now.

It is ludicrous that people are actually arguing this. I mean completely insane. Yeah, you grab a knife and I grab a gun and let us see who is more likely to survive. I am sure the armed forces of the world will bow to your superior logic and get rid of guns and equip all their armies with knives from now on because they are so much more effective.

> They produce wounds with massive blood loss.

Yeah, that makes complete sense. A clean knife wound that goes a couple of inches into your body will produce more blood loss than hole bored entirely through your body by a fragmenting shell is it richochets around your body and leaves a big gaping exit wound on the other side.

I think your "fact mode" is a little faulty. Time Magazine, for instance, states that bullet wounds are 7 times more likely to be be fatal as knife wounds ( http://www.time.com/time/reports/heroes/dropguns3.html ). Not to mention it is a LOT harder to inflict them.

Edit: You know, the funny thing is that I am not nearly as anti-gun as I appear sometimes on here. It just that the silly arguments that some pro-gun people spout are just so insane and illogical it drives me nuts, and the macho posturing that you frequently see associated with the pro-gun camp is also very annoying to me. There are plenty of good arguments on the pro-gun side, but this is not one of them.