Not sure where this goes... (ETA: Gun ownership)
... but it seems that it might go here. Wouldn't you feel safer with a gun? Arctain

The number of guns is only one factor in gun crime statistics, though frequently one that goes hand in hand (whatever the cause-consequense direction is) with the primary one: the attitudes people in that country/region have about guns and carrying them.

I totally agree (but don't have time to post more now) but can I suggest the title of this thread gets changed to indicate the contents? It could get confusing. :)

Possibly, if the number of people around me that carried guns was not negligible. I haven't got the time to go checking statistics now, but I would be surprised if the picture painted in that article is true and honest. And, by the way, if we are to consider freedom to carry guns, even the results of accidents should be taken into consideration. If I had the time I would check the number of accidents per annum involving children each year, for example...

New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. Not sure about DC and Chicago, but New York now has a (comparatively) low murder rate. Philadelphia is much worse. Wikipedia says: As of 2005, New York City has the lowest crime rate among the ten largest cities in the United States. Since 1991, the city has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now much safer. Violent crime in the city has dropped by 75% in the last twelve years and the murder rate in 2005 was at its lowest level since 1963: there were 539 murders that year, for a murder rate of 6.58 per 100,000 people, compared to 2262 murders in 1990. Among the 182 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000, New York City ranked 136th in overall crime (with about the same crime rate as Boise, Idaho). Back to the article: One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain). Vermont (and this is a gross generalization, I know) is the land of eco-hippie, crunchy granola, liberal people, the sort who don't generally own guns. I'd be interested to know what the percentage of gun ownership is in VT, compared to other states. I'll bet it's quite low. over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Correlation does not equal causation. The rate of violent crime has dropped as economic circumstances have improved, which I think is a much more likely correlation. In NYC, the Wikipedia article says, it's also to do with the greatly increased police presence on the streets. In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; I've read this before, and it always comes as a surprise to me. At any rate, I certainly wouldn't feel safer with a gun. They terrify me.

Well I think his whole point is that if the average British criminal thought the person he was about to rob might be armed, or that he could be shot if he broke into someone's home, he might think twice. (I don't know if that's true, though.) Is it true that in the UK if you defend your home to the point of wounding or killing someone who tries to break in, that you'll be charged with a crime?

I don't like the idea that the same people that seem incapable of not taking a swing at someone annoying them, suddenly have legal access to handguns. Violence is there anyway and that's disturbing enough at times. Guns just add a serious lethal factor to that violence. Apart from thinking about the enteprising little kids that seem to be able to get their hands on anything that you think is safely hidden. Dutch law clearly states that self defence in whatever form (including defending ones goods) is allowed, within reason. Beating a burglar to near death is considered suspicious and you might end up having to explain yourself to a judge.

I've made my position on gun ownership clear before - it's not changed and I see no point in repeating it *smiles*

Imo, there's a difference between silently sneaking up on the bloke and breaking his skull with the basebaal bat or using the bat to keep the same bloke away from wives and/or kids. If you happen to break his skull then, I see acceptable self defence. Burglars are supposed to flee when house owners show up. Unless you block the only exit, making a lot of noise and yelling about calling the cops should prevent anything really nasty happening.