If the other dude/dudette keeps him from leaving the room there is a struggle. If d/dette is very strong, there is threat of deadly harm as well as ability to wrestle the deadly weapon away. We don't know.

Just sayin'

Well no, he left the room to get his gun.

If there is not immediate deadly harm, he should dial 911 at that point.

If there is immediate deadly harm, he should come out shooting.

You made the same basic comment with the Amish killer too, but I think you mentioned a ball peen hammer.

Guns are in a completely different league from other weapons like knives and hammers.

Sure, there will always be violent crime if guns don't exist, but I think there will be far far less of it. I can be easily killed by a gun, but the only way you can kill me with a knife is if you can outrun me or if you surprise me. And in both cases you have to overpower me as well. Criminals know this, and are less likely to risk getting in a struggle with someone. They are lazy cowards.

Criminals are emboldened because they have guns. Take the guns out of the equation, and there will be far far less violent crime.

Yep, sorry, stand corrected...:redface:

My story was not meant to be case-specific. I just wanted to illustrate that even if you are a law abiding citizen (he was), know guns (he did), are using your gun to protect your home (he was), and your assailant is unarmed (he was), you can still get killed. And you can still get killed with your own gun. There are many many many situations that would be resolved much more favorably if there were no guns involved.

Hopefully this will clear up the story. Let's call my friend's brother "Sven", and the TV "Pat". When Sven found out that Pat was a guy, Sven asked him to leave. Pat refused. They scuffled. Sven broke away and ran to his bedroom, opened the drawer to get his gun, not knowing that Pat had followed him. Just as Sven grabbed his gun, Pat hit him on the back of the head, stunning Sven momentarily. Pat got the gun away from Sven, and shot him dead.

Yup!

On the matter of clarity, Spexx, that's an awful lot of detail and only the survivor lived to tell the tale. All we really know is there is a TV in the bedroom, and a dead guy with a knot on his head and shot with his own gun. The details are left to the defense lawyer. But I take your point.

You need better evidence than "I think". And "guns don't exist" is not part of the state space; it's a fantasy. There'd be less drug crime if drugs didn't exist.

OK. Lets do a trial ban on guns and collect some data.

And you can use precisely the same argument to discount UT's claim that if you remove guns there would be the same level of violent crime. There's no evidence to back that up either.

In Sven's case, the gun didn't have much to do with the lethality of the situation. As soon as Pat refused to leave, (gender inspecific pronoun) went from invited guest to trespasser. Sven made his first critical mistake here. His life wasn't in danger yet, so lethal force wasn't warranted. If Pat refused to leave, Sven should have. The first line of defense is removing yourself from danger. Alcohol, embarrassment, and machismo turned it into a fistfight and whatever escalated from there. If no guns had been present, there's still an excellent chance that someone would've died, or at least been raped. Death wasn't automatic because of the gun, either. I've seen someone with more than 30 wounds from 9mm pistols, and only 4 were lethal.

Guns do make killers more efficient, I don't think that can or should be denied.

Unfortunately, if guns are banned and we're reduced to knives and hammers it changes the dynamic to: I'm stronger, I'll do my worst. The weak lose the option of a level playing field. With guns, there is more equality. I don't live in a place that my personal safety is threatened by thugs but if I were a woman in a rough town, I'd have to consider the conceal carry option.

No, let's not. There's been plenty of places with gun bans, and I don't consider any of them to be successes.

"Trial ban" indeed. This is why the Constitution is difficult to amend, to keep bright boys with clever social experiment ideas from playing with it. And as I said, "no guns" is a fantasy...you simply want to disarm me to give yourself a warm fuzzy liberal moment, and I won't stand for it.

Read: I will shoot you right in your tree-hugging face!

No, a 9mm isn't exactly a hand cannon. I carry a 9mm because it's light and concealable and was cheap. I envy Gwennie her Kimber Pro-Carry.

Of course, poor marksmanship makes any firearm less effective.