F430murci

I have already provided more then few instances where a potential tragedy was prevented by a legally armed individual. As for gun accidents happening, they are prevantable accidents. I also personally know people who died in car accidents. Should we ban cars too?

There are more then a few instances of guns preventing a violent crime. An FBI study shows that violent crime has dropped as gun ownership rises. And read this study also, it shows that it is definitely more then just 'a few'instances'.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

There have been so many instances where a potential gun massacre was prevented by someone who had a legal concealed carry handgun in those places you mentioned. Google it and you'll see. You don't know about them because the press always reports about a gun massacre but seldom about a prevented gun massacre by someone carrying a gun. And these people aren't law enforcement types, they're just normal people who carry their guns legally. The very same people the anti gun lobby are demonising.

Many?!? Sure you can find a few instances where guns were used to prevent a crime, and even fewer to prevent any type of "massacre". But most of us Americans do not need to use Google to recount deliberate or accidental instances of tragic fatalities involving guns. I can name two fatalties that I knew personally that died from just accidental gunfire, one a child.

What are you reading and citing? Haha, too funny.

300,000 violent crimes a year committed with guns. Aporoxiamtely 75,000 people shot each year. The Aurora Colorado shooting left several people paralzed including one on a venerator. It is not just about deaths caused by firearms unless you NRA pushers believe injured, maimed, disfigured or paralyzed don't count or have say. Then we also have how many family members of those 75,000 shot that are affected each year.

Your costs might be too low. Some of those schools have more than one building and certainly most Universities do. Now, figure in health insurance, and other related employment costs and it might be wise to get them a good life insurance policy.

Universities are already protected. So are a lot of schools in big cities.

Exactly, and did it help much in Va shootings. Seems like I recall cops being on scene in 3 minutes so I guess we need armed guards in every building just in case the barricade before shooting.

The NRA should pay for security as should gun manufacturers. Some lawyers should team up and file class action holding them responsible and maybe gun costs will exceedingly high and we can put these guys out of business.

Why doesn't the NRA take the common sense approach and offer to pay for security and back a ban of assault weapons. Perhaps also stop making certain ammo available and perhaps that will help. Too much money at stake. Corporate greed over population need.

Security, though is last resort to me because it really won't work and I don't want to see US seem like a millitary zone to my children. If guard in school, perp could just jump on a school bus, go into McDonalds after school where kids congregate or walk into a mall where we have mall cops making $ 8.00 an hour.

The only solution is to reduce availability of means by figuring out a long term plan to take guns away. Other measures are band aides over an abcess.

Does any here advocating armed guards in schools actually have children in US schools or are they just keep our guns at all costs people. I don't want my kids growing up in an environment where there are armed guards with assault weapons every where they go just so some good ole boys hang on to their rights to bear assault weapon rights.

Brother this morning who is FBI agent admitted that even he by himself may not be able to take down a whack job with body armor an AR-15 storming a school with just a pistol unless had a 5.70. FBI are trained to deal with situation with teams of four and sone old retired cop, which NRA, recommended with a pistol not going to stop someone like Lanza. Guys like Lanza are also on suicide mission so not car about risk and will just wear body armor or maybe go to mall or wait until kids getting out of school or even storm a school bus.

Point is, cannot protect everyone all the time and NRA proposal is empty and really only appeals to those buying into NRA belief system already. You don't fix problems by adding more of the problem.

And another. 4 dead, couple of troopers injured.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069042-four-killed-including-gunman-in-shooting-incident-in-pennsylvania-three-troopers-injured?lite

It is not always black and white. These child protection agencies like they have in USA and UK can be totally ruthless and can seem quite unjust at times.

What about situations where the wife remarries perhaps to an even wealthier person? I have heard instances in the UK where the child protection agency completely disregards the financial circumstances of the subsequent husband and still relentlessly pursues the father no matter how hard up he may be

Because the wealthier man doesn't have any financial responsibility to take care of another mans children, no matter how hard up he is,

A Father takes care of his own children and shouldn't expect another man to do it for him.

If the new man if the womans life isnt perepared to take on the woman and her kids maybe he shouldnt get involved.

You sound just like the guy who moved in with my brothers ex wife and his kids, a freeloader who thought he was onto a good thing, free house and no need to put his hand in his pocket.

Brother was being crucified by the draconian Australian system.

Phoned up his ex wife and said no more, as of tomorrow I am unemployed tell your new man to put his hand in his pocket.

Next day brother handed in his notice, end of payments.

Some bullshit lawyer showed up with wife and new man in tow, brother told them to shove it, if you have any problems address them to the UK goodbye.

Brother now is a fulltime student with no income, new man quickly moved on.

this is exactly the kind of situation I was alluding to. It is obvious that more and more fathers are drawing a line in the sand and are refusing to be pushed around by manipulative former wives in collusion with

unsympathetic child protection agency staff.

I think in USA and UK and maybe Australia the law regarding this issue as far as the rights of fathers versus the obligations imposed on them has become totally unbalanced.

At least in one US state though they've even formed an organisation called the National Fathers Resource Centre to make more fathers aware of their rights. I mean a legal system which says fathers must pay up whether or not they are given visitation rghts is simply unjust

Court will not deny father visitation rights unless domestic abuse or father is a drug addict and is high or drunk around children. Even then father can get supervised visitation, pass drugs screens, get act together and get back on unsupervised visitation fairly quickly.

Courts in US encourage fathers to be an active part of the childrens' lives. Fathers have to screw up really bad to get in the wrong side of this policy. I am afraid a lot of the stories you guys are hearing are from disenchanted spouses who booked from US and may not be quite so innocent.

Who the ex shacks up with does not matter. Your child obligation will be the same and I doubt very seriously any of these people are paying enough in child support to support two adults. If the money is not going to the children, then you should approach the judge and say kids are not getting fed, not getting clothes or whatever.

I am actually more on fathers' sides than anyone about fathers' rights, but we are not talking about those type of rights here. Every one keeps mentioning stories of jealous deadbeat dads more worried about what the ex is doing than their children and then they want to play victim. They are not the victims when they unilaterally turn their back in their children because they are all up in their ex's business.

I really don't mean to slam anyone because divorce sucks and hurts, but don't take it out on the kids or come on here saying it is okay to split on kids because system or ex wife sucks.

I pity anyone who can turn their back in their own children and brag about. Very selfish and damaging to the children unless of course dad is a dead beat violent alcoholic the children do not want to be around. But alas, that is damaging to children also not to have a connection or feel lived by their REAL father. Issues like this are the factors denigrating our society.

I never met my father as he deserted my mother when he found out she was pregnant. I do not have any awareness of damage to my physiology or emotional wellness. Mother never married. Unless their was abuse in the family, from my personal experience, I believe their is a lot of BS around the father/mother & poor little me dialogue in Western society;

Not making light of your situation, but do you not think it much harder on children that knew and lived with their dad to suddenly have their dad gone and not wanting to speak to them any more. Children feel abandoned and don't understand.

Even adopted kids will get that deep urge to make connection with biological parents.

Well I never hard the "deep urge" to try & locate my biological father (from my mother I knew his name and nationality). I came to the conclusion that as he had never contacted my mother or I, why bother. You know, the old exp<b></b>ression, "get a life" don't hang around like a wet blanket.

Not really speaking of your situation and have no idea what your life is like. Happy stable home with family and children or more isolated from family. I was also speaking of adopted. I know several adopted individuals with professional degrees and great families that sought out their biologicals. Makes me cringe as I worry it may go bad for them, but they have a great life. Just a missing price of the puzzle.

Nevertheless, you seemed to endorse walking away from your children as being acceptable. I personally view it as very selfish and damaging. I divorced after 17 years of marriage and it sucked. I still sucked it up and do the best I can to be a part if my girls' lives even though I have a wife, baby and family. Not about me. I now have college for two that will still set me back $50k a year after scholarships. That is my obligation, not ex wife's husbands.

So if you have 3 children, live with them for say 10-12 years, your wife leaves for another man and gets custody, you would then expect the other man to look after them? You would not financially support or take care of them at all?

Did it with 2 of mine actually, don't support them, don't see them, don't care about them, don't care what they think of me.

But I am looking after 2 of someone else's.

I pity anyone who can turn their back in their own children and brag about. Very selfish and damaging to the children unless of course dad is a dead beat violent alcoholic the children do not want to be around. But alas, that is damaging to children also not to have a connection or feel lived by their REAL father. Issues like this are the factors denigrating our society.

I never met my father as he deserted my mother when he found out she was pregnant. I do not have any awareness of damage to my physiology or emotional wellness. Mother never married. Unless their was abuse in the family, from my personal experience, I believe their is a lot of BS around the father/mother & poor little me dialogue in Western society;

Not making light of your situation, but do you not think it much harder on children that knew and lived with their dad to suddenly have their dad gone and not wanting to speak to them any more. Children feel abandoned and don't understand.

Even adopted kids will get that deep urge to make connection with biological parents.

rip Kunakorn Srisuwan

do they have the bullets that caused his death and if so can they prove 100% that they where fired from an army weapon and can say who fired the weapon using forensics if not they dont have a case . just having bullets from a similar weapon proves nothing and could have been discharched by anyone from anywhere in the vacinity .

Perhaps angle if trajectory and damage from high velocity military grade weapon and type of bullet are basic forensic issues. Not saying report is correct, but I am implying that science and forensic technology available makes this a much easier determination than one may surmise.

It is not always black and white. These child protection agencies like they have in USA and UK can be totally ruthless and can seem quite unjust at times.

What about situations where the wife remarries perhaps to an even wealthier person? I have heard instances in the UK where the child protection agency completely disregards the financial circumstances of the subsequent husband and still relentlessly pursues the father no matter how hard up he may be

Because the wealthier man doesn't have any financial responsibility to take care of another mans children, no matter how hard up he is,

A Father takes care of his own children and shouldn't expect another man to do it for him.

like I said things are not always so black and white

And what if the father was not responsible for the breakup of a marriage? What is the wife had committed adultery and had simply decided to run off with a wealthier new guy? What if the wife denied proper visiting rights or access by the father to the children? Would he still deserve to be screwed?

Why would he not take care of his children and still try to be a part of their lives. Bad shit happens, but it is not childrens' fault he chose unwisely or if acted badly causing wife to split or have affair.

Did dude quiting his job and splitting over seas send backany money to his children while over seas. I tend to doubt it if he was ducking the system and using fake documents and an assumed identity. Sounds like he did nothing but duck out to other countries, purchase a business and make sure he took care of himself.

Candidly, it is up to the system to judge him not me. He had to mess up pretty bad though to become number 1 deadbeat dad and for US to go through trouble to extradite him.

1996-2012 is 16 years of unpaid child support for three kids Poor chap my foot, I feel sorry for this lowlife's kids - what a father to have been stuck with, he runs out on them and his responsiblities. Some people really should just not be allowed to have kids

Since there isn't further information, you shouldn't assume he "ran out on them". Sure, the kids are always USED in divorces in more ways than one to benefit the one seeking revenge and to ruin the other. People lie to the courts to benefit themselves and their wants and desires. So, yes, feel sorry for the kids because they are in the middle, but don't string this guy up without knowing all the facts and what the U.S courts do to people in divorces. It's outrageous.

Dude is a dead beat. Maybe your friend had a bad lawyer, was abusive or there are other factors we don't know about.

Child support in most states is calculated through a formula where you simply input both parents' income and number of days spent with each parent. No discretion. Out comes a number.

The problem arises when father does nit spend much time with kids. That will start increasing child support obligation if father does not have children at least 80 days a year. If time is split evenly, support get pretty dang low even if there is large disparity in the income.

Premarital assets stay in your name. A lot of states do split post marital assets 50/50 if parties cannot agree on disbursement.

Student loans are tricky and if he cosigned it us probably a legal obligation independent of divorce decree.

Child support can be a very low percentage if income for higher earners. The typical 80 day visitation with both parents low income $35k will be about $500.00 a month for father. More time equates less child support. Cannot really buy food for that. High income: $300k father and $30k mother with 2 children and 80 day a year visitation plan works out to about $2,200 a month. If time us spent evenly it drops to about $1,200 a month.

Father $50k and mother $30k with 80 day visitation for father and 2 children cone out to about $750 a month.

All of these are doable and guys should take care if childrenregardless if X left you to be with someone else. Not the children's fault you married her and had children with her.

He should look at the bright side. His kids should be 18 and no more child support owed.

Scumbag if you ask me. The amount may be higher than just a multiple of actual amount owed due to penalties, interests, attorneys' fees or just because he was a dirt ball and the Court stuck it to him.

Deon Sanders just got slapped for $ 10,500 a month in child support.

Who runs from their kids though?

"On Friday morning, she was finishing up her daily morning meeting with the class when gunman Adam Lanza began his rampage.

Her cousin, Fairfield County Police Officer James Wiltsie, said the family was told by authorities that Soto hurried the kids into a closet behind her, “trying to shield them from the spray of bullets.”"

http://usnews.nbcnew...-be-buried?lite

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

Well he was in the U.S. where we are authorized to defend ourselves. One guy came in, my mother recognized him and asked if he needed help, he said no and walked out. She became suspicious and alerted my step father, he moved to a different location, her plan was to lock the door and call the police but the door was pushed open by a gunmen with a shotgun, she happened to fall back out of the way and he got shot and my mother's hand got injured. The other 2 grabbed the guy and headed off to the city where he bled to death. Police didn't give the step father any problem, he surrendered his weapon, a .357 for the investigation, not arrested, and went with my mother for her medical attention. A couple of months later they called him to get his gun. The police believed the plan was to rob them and shoot them, as there were no other witnesses.

Just wanted to add that my step father wasn't happy about shooting the guy, but until he died he never felt he had any other choice under the circumtances. If you feel it was vigilante justice, that would be your problem, as I said, the legal system there certainly didn't have a problem with his actions.

I have worked in the Court system and brother is an FBI agent. Truth is, very few robberies end up in shooting deaths due to felony murder laws being graded as 1st Degree Murder and felony murder is death elgible. A clerk pulling a gun to defend themselves will be more likely to get themselves shot than if they just handed over the little bit of money. Money is not worth risking a life.

If the robber did not shoot when shot or immediately upon entering, I highly doubt he would have ever shot. Armed robbery is a Class B, but seven to 15 years is a lot better than life without parole, execution or death.

Your parents defended themselves with a .357 so obviously no need for an assault weapon or a pistol with a greater than 10 shot clip. I am cool with a .357 for personal protection inside a store even though most people will leikly just end up dead when trying to use it when they would have been alive if they just handed over the cash. That is there choice.

Better tact may be to put a sign on the door saying "Have Gun, Will Use."

Your idea of the sign will guarantee one thing. The bad guys WILL come in shooting.

That belies common sense and reality. The shooting of one typically happens when things go wrong or badly during a hold up. There is rarely ever any intention to actually kill someone for cash register money. Again, that is felony murder and typically the guys robbing stores know more about the grades of crimes than a business man.

Some dude wanting to rob someone for cash register money will be detered by knowledge that the onwer has a gun. The reality is in most small communities, EVERYONE knows if store owner keeps a gun. Same in most cities. Going in guns a blazing for cash register money may be television show stuff, but is not reality.

Even armored car and bank heist rarely result in shooting or execution of witnesses unless something goes wrong because criminals know that just went from small time 2 or 3 years actually served to life without parole.

I believe Foreign Minister = Secretary of State.

Haha, it's called not letting details, facts or substance over form get into the way of the conspiracy da jour.

Must be miserable sitting around stewing over all of the government oppression and unchecked US government conspiracies keeping the little man down, . . . or someone down I suppose, in the US.

You liberals seem to be the ones stewing over keeping the little man down. You're the ones trying to tax the rich out of existence.

What does bother me is somebody posting about the US and not even knowing the title of the person they are posting about. Next thing you know he will be calling Obama the King...or Queen.

Haha, the rich is not the little man and the tax issue potentially impacts me probably worse than anyone participating in this thread.

"You liberals" is a little broad. I am typically conservative except on issues of abortion and I guess gun control which should be a bipartisan issue based on common sense. Bush and his administration did me in on Republican party based largely on financial and mortgage crisis issues to which I am somewhat an insider.

I didn't care for either candidate so I didn't vote for someone I didn't believe in just to align with a party.

My current stance is simply disagreement with you conspiracy guys running around bad mouthing the country or those in power simply because you are not getting your way or you are afraid of losing something. Too much selfishness and entitlement in the US.

I also think we should stay the hell out of national security issues. There are many checks and balances and the government is doing what they perceive best which will not and should not be always be predicated upon popularity. Hard to believe you guys go on and on about this given all of the controversies surrounding Bush and national security issues.

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

Well he was in the U.S. where we are authorized to defend ourselves. One guy came in, my mother recognized him and asked if he needed help, he said no and walked out. She became suspicious and alerted my step father, he moved to a different location, her plan was to lock the door and call the police but the door was pushed open by a gunmen with a shotgun, she happened to fall back out of the way and he got shot and my mother's hand got injured. The other 2 grabbed the guy and headed off to the city where he bled to death. Police didn't give the step father any problem, he surrendered his weapon, a .357 for the investigation, not arrested, and went with my mother for her medical attention. A couple of months later they called him to get his gun. The police believed the plan was to rob them and shoot them, as there were no other witnesses.

Just wanted to add that my step father wasn't happy about shooting the guy, but until he died he never felt he had any other choice under the circumtances. If you feel it was vigilante justice, that would be your problem, as I said, the legal system there certainly didn't have a problem with his actions.

I have worked in the Court system and brother is an FBI agent. Truth is, very few robberies end up in shooting deaths due to felony murder laws being graded as 1st Degree Murder and felony murder is death elgible. A clerk pulling a gun to defend themselves will be more likely to get themselves shot than if they just handed over the little bit of money. Money is not worth risking a life.

If the robber did not shoot when shot or immediately upon entering, I highly doubt he would have ever shot. Armed robbery is a Class B, but seven to 15 years is a lot better than life without parole, execution or death.

Your parents defended themselves with a .357 so obviously no need for an assault weapon or a pistol with a greater than 10 shot clip. I am cool with a .357 for personal protection inside a store even though most people will leikly just end up dead when trying to use it when they would have been alive if they just handed over the cash. That is there choice.

Better tact may be to put a sign on the door saying "Have Gun, Will Use."

Interesting article on this shooting.

"But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It’s not politics. It’s logistics."

"But not all guns are equal. I’ve gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing."

Police said Lanza only shot one person with a hand gun, himself.

"When asked whether the handguns were used in any of the killings, the only person whom Vance identified as having been shot with either handgun was the shooter."

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/12/connecticut_school_shooting_semi_automatic_weapons_and_other_high_speed.html

Poor Lad, wonder what his (ex) GF is thinking now....

Perhaps relief. Binge drinkers /alcoholics are not the ideal partners in life. If she left, she may have just had enough, In any case, it's not her problem.

Pretty harsh speculation if you have zero knowledge about the deceased or his situation.

I believe Foreign Minister = Secretary of State.

Haha, it's called not letting details, facts or substance over form get into the way of the conspiracy da jour.

Must be miserable sitting around stewing over all of the government oppression and unchecked US government conspiracies keeping the little man down, . . . or someone down I suppose, in the US.

Another very interesting and informative piece by the NY Times http://www.nytimes.c...-work.html?_r=0

This is the bit I find most interesting, still think tougher gun laws won't mean less gun deaths?

'Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)

Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906

US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960

America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.

Still think tougher gun laws would not reduce deaths.

Switzerland: one of the highest gun ownership percentages in the world. All males are required to own a sig550 assault rifle for military service. When the military service is over, they are entitled to keep the guns:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

Mexico has gun laws much more restrictive than the United States. Result? Mexicans keep guns illegally, and the death rate is higher than the U.S.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/mexico-as-an-example-that-tighter-gun-co

Pleas don't talk about Mexico if you have zero clue about their issues. It is not about laws in Mexico, it is about complete inability to enforce and, therefore, zero enforcement of the laws.

Mexico is in a drug war and Narcos control over half of the country. A majority of Mexican states have no law enforcement or government. They are either controlled by Narcos or they are literally killed and no one steps in to replace local police, DAs, judges or Governers because they and their families will be tortured and killed and no one can stop it.

Mexican border patrol is controlled by Narcos so they can take weapons or whatever they wish into Mexico with impunity. Border patrol or local cops that resist are not only killed, but their entire families are kidnapped, tortured, killed and dismembered for public display as examples. So, Mexican border patrol turn the other way and are paid hansomly.

Narcos are armed to the teeth with fully auto assault rifles, RPGs, 50 cal, 60 cal machine guns, 50 cal sniper, tank-like vehicles and any weapon they want. There is absolutely no law enforcement regarding importation of weapons as they control or are the law.

The vast majority of homicides in Mexico are Narco on Narco related to control of four primary trade routes. Very little violence is directed to non-Narco Mexicans and they intentionally keep it that way to try and win public opinion or favor. Zetas always say they are simply killing CDG and Sinola Cartel members responsible for kidnap and tortures in their Narco banners found with bodies hanging from bridges or body parts found in vehicles.

Using Mexico as an example shows no comprehension of Mexico or gun issues faced by either nation.

There is zero law or zero enforcement to stop Narcos from getting whatever weapons they desire. Judges, DAs, and police are tied up and beat with baseball bats before being dismembered if they attempt to stand up to Narcos or enforce any laws.

90 percent of murders in Mexico are not investigated so why do you think there is something like gun enforcement?

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

"[T]he gun s an icon for democracy and personal empowerment. For example, some moviegoers claimed they could have “taken out” Holmes if only they had a gun, although additional people firing guns in a dark theater probably would have increased rather than decreased casualties and injuries."

"A U.S. survey found that guns in the home are more likely to be used by men to intimidate women than against strangers. Indeed, other weapons (e.g., baseball bats, knives) were more commonly used than guns in self-defense against strangers."

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

Yep putting more guns on the street us working well. If you need an AR-15 to protect your family you might need glasses.

Home invasions typically occur during day when no one is home or at night while one is asleep. Are you going to sleep with your AR-15? Chances are you will be waking up looking down the barrel of your own gun. Or perhaps the only reason you got robbed is because they knew you had an AR and they came to get it. Not that many deaths each related to home invasions.

There are more accidental discharge and children deaths in homes due to guns than there are home intruders shot each year by homeowners combined with homeowners killed during home invasion. I would rather protect the children.