A study of home invasions from the University of South Africa

[George]

Gun registration can do 2 things. 1 Tells the Govt when they are if they decide to confinscate. NYC demanded all "Assault weopans" be registered, & as soon as the deadline passed, decided to ban them. 2 It might give the Police a lead in a crime, if the legal owner was involved, but it won't prevent, nor solve, by its self, a crime.
The Wild West wasn't as Wild as the movies make it seem.
Crime inFla is down after "Must Issue" CCWs became the Law.
Scopes are used by a large # of hunters, espicially as the average age goes up. The number of Sniper attacks rank right up there with perps using body armor, still rare.

 

[MontyB]

I live in upstate NY. The police, on average, take about 20-25 minutes to get to my house. That's not good enough for me at all. I'd never entrust my safety to a police force that takes that long to respond and has about a 50% chance of solving a murder if I do get killed.

Lets do a bit of risk assessment here shall we:

What is the realistic chance you are going to get attacked in your home in "upstate NY":
- Multiple times daily?
- Once a day?
- Weekly?
- Monthly?
- Yearly?
- Every decade?
- Probably never? <-- I am guessing this is the real answer.

I can understand the desire to own a gun for sport, hunting, targets, etc. but I get very dubious about people's argument that they need a gun for "protection" when few if any people ever run into a situation where a gun is necessary.

 

[George]

Lets do a bit of risk assessment here shall we:

What is the realistic chance you are going to get attacked in your home in "upstate NY":
- Multiple times daily?
- Once a day?
- Weekly?
- Monthly?
- Yearly?
- Every decade?
- Probably never? <-- I am guessing this is the real answer.

I can understand the desire to own a gun for sport, hunting, targets, etc. but I get very dubious about people's argument that they need a gun for "protection" when few if any people ever run into a situation where a gun is necessary.

My Dad was a pilot in WWII, Korea, & Vietnam. He said "A gun is like a parachute, you'll probably never need one, but if you do, you need it real bad." and you can't run down to the gun shop, wait 3 days & run back to the house.

 

[MontyB]

And he is 100% correct but I am not sure you can equate WW2, Korea or Vietnam's survival requirements to "upstate NY".

 

[George]

And he is 100% correct but I am not sure you can equate WW2, Korea or Vietnam's survival requirements to "upstate NY".

Doesn't, just saying when he did his piloting! And the parachute comment is operational any time or place your flying, & so is the gun part of the comment.

 

[bulldogg]

This is more fun to watch than a cage full of drunk monkeys.

Gentlemen, yes I am using a loose definition, the simple fact of the matter is that private gun ownership is something that is in the mortar between the bricks that make up the essence of being American. The US owes its very existance to the private ownership of firearms. You cannot remove the right to bear arms without tampering with the very origins of the nation and what it means to be American. No one outside of the US will ever truly understand this. This does not make it right or the best option but it is so. To deny this right, constitutional amendment or not, would be tantamount to making a Saffa forego speaking Afrikaans, removing the monarchy from England or haggis from Scotland. Like this idea of owning firearms they are elements of a country which help to define the uniqueness and are rarely understood by those born and raised elsewhere. Short of civil war there will never be a ban on private gun ownership so long as the nation of the USA continues.

Likewise the concept of registering guns feels wrong. The government knowing about them feels like they are spying. Why? Because we have been taught the words of the founding fathers' justification for the 2nd amendment is to protect the liberty of citizens from an oppressive government. Our ownership of guns was meant to threaten the government. So when they ask us to register guns we own it is equivalent to the USSR during the cold war demanding the US tell them the details of all military hardware in the NATO arsenal. If you don't understand why this is threatening you are in denial methinks. The reality of the situation is that the military might of the US government is so overwhelming that even private ownership of automatic weapons would not pose a problem should they decide to be oppressive. What deters them now is the distastefulness to an American soldier of taking up arms against its own citizenry. But like I said at the outset, this is not about logic. It is about passions and feelings and these cannot be changed. To rail against them is the height of foolishness.

 

[5.56X45mm]

Lets do a bit of risk assessment here shall we:

What is the realistic chance you are going to get attacked in your home in "upstate NY":
- Multiple times daily?
- Once a day?
- Weekly?
- Monthly?
- Yearly?
- Every decade?
- Probably never? <-- I am guessing this is the real answer.

I can understand the desire to own a gun for sport, hunting, targets, etc. but I get very dubious about people's argument that they need a gun for "protection" when few if any people ever run into a situation where a gun is necessary.

'Tis better to have and not need then need and not have.....

Your idea of probably never is dangerous and will lead you and your loved ones to harm and possible death. With your logic you shouldn't have a fire alarm and extinguisher because the chance of a fire is "Probably never". Wait until some dirtbag breaks into your house and threatens your wife, children, loved ones. Lets see how long you'll wait for the police. 3-5 minutes is a long time.......


Have you ever been through a major hurricane? What about a riot?

I work for city of 75,000 residents. My department is 130 officers. Please explain how we can service the needs of the community if another Hurricane Andrew hits.

Why do I mention this..... because the city I work for was destroyed by Hurricane Andrew back in 1992. We had rioting, looting, and gang warfare.... the majority of the citizenry that I have spoken to that I serve said that while my department was out in force they couldn't be everywhere and they defended themselves with a firearm.

What about the LA Riots? What about the Korean store owners that defended their businesses from roving gangs seeking to destroy and set those businesses ablaze? Where was the police to prevent the rioting, looting, and arson?

What about Reginald Denny when he was taken out of his truck and beaten on a street corner for being white? Where was the police for him?

What about the rioting that occurred in France recently?

Until you've been on the :cen: end of the stick you don't know how bad society can get.....

 

[pixiedustboo]

I have seen no proof of my government wanting to ban private ownership of firearms, but whatever.

Look and listen and you will.



Oh, and just as a side comment...My brother just bought a .45 Springfield.

 

[MontyB]

'Tis better to have and not need then need and not have.....

Your idea of probably never is dangerous and will lead you and your loved ones to harm and possible death. With your logic you shouldn't have a fire alarm and extinguisher because the chance of a fire is "Probably never". Wait until some dirtbag breaks into your house and threatens your wife, children, loved ones. Lets see how long you'll wait for the police. 3-5 minutes is a long time.......

Why don't you carry a parachute on a commercial flight, after all it will take the airline a lot longer to respond to a problem in flight than it will take the police to show up to a B&E and I am pretty sure the odds of dying in a plane crash are not that dissimilar to those of involved in a fatal home invasion.

Now on to the rest...
I don't own a fire extinguisher, I have a new house with a sprinkler system and in the end it would take the police at least 30 minutes to get to my place but here is the kicker, there is a 95%+ chance that the "dirtbag" kicking in my door or more than likely drunkenly falling through a window wont be armed with a gun because we don't hand them out to every moron in the country the day he hits 18.

Now here is something even "neater" since the "dirtbag" will almost certainly not be armed with firearm he is at a major disadvantage because he will have to deal with really pissed off woman armed with a golf club/baseball bat/[insert any number of easily picked up solid items here] and believe me she isn't afraid to use them (of course she could also use any one of the legally owned firearms as well), alternatively she could just get out of the house and wait for the police to sort out the intruder and insurance to sort out the mess.

 

[Bror Jace]

Rob Henderson: "Sorry, no... We're NOT for the banning of firearms... We're for the regulation and control of firearms... Just like you would register and practice with a vehicle, I think that weapons should be properly registered and routinely practiced with to ensure maximum safety.

Some guns, yes, I do think should be banned altogether. Like fully automatic rifles (which are already banned) and their like. I also believe there is no need for silencers or scopes for a self defense weapon (are you sure he's attacking you from 500 yards away?)."

See Rob, that's the problem. You are not for banning firearms ... but ARE for banning scopes and silencers. Well, with scopes, that's almost half the hunting and target rifles. Ban silencers? What about an elaborate flash hider? Could that be considered a silencer by some ignoramus gov't official? Of course it could.

Heck, why not just ban flash hiders outright? What use are they to a civilian? Some forms of "assault weapon" bans specifically mention flash hiders ... along with pistol grip stocks, black plastic stocks, folding stocks, large capacity magazines, semi-automatic action ... let's get rid of all those features too. They have no sporting applications. :m16shoot:

How about banning armor piercing ammunition? Sound reasonable, doesn't it? Does anyone think they really need to shoot through an armored car? OK, now let's define "armor piercing" as any bullet that can go through a bullet proof vest. To the average uninformed person out there that would seem perfectly reasonable. Of course that rules out about 100% center-fire rifle ammunition. Really? Well, we never intended for that to happen.

What about a law that bans a gun that fires multiple projectiles with a single pull of the trigger? While sold as a rule against full-auto, it would also apply to all shotguns. Oops, gee, we didn't mean it that way ... but the law IS the law! Now hand over that Remington 870!

So what's left? The truth is not a whole heckuva lot. And that's the point. Bit by bit these ignorant fools will ban it all while swearing up and down they weren't trying to ban private gun ownership ... just the really bad stuff.

No Rob, you are NOT for banning You are just a reasonable guy the politicians will exploit to ban everything that goes bang. :roll:

 

[5.56X45mm]

Why don't you carry a parachute on a commercial flight, after all it will take the airline a lot longer to respond to a problem in flight than it will take the police to show up to a B&E and I am pretty sure the odds of dying in a plane crash are not that dissimilar to those of involved in a fatal home invasion.

Now on to the rest...
I don't own a fire extinguisher, I have a new house with a sprinkler system and in the end it would take the police at least 30 minutes to get to my place but here is the kicker, there is a 95%+ chance that the "dirtbag" kicking in my door or more than likely drunkenly falling through a window wont be armed with a gun because we don't hand them out to every moron in the country the day he hits 18.

Now here is something even "neater" since the "dirtbag" will almost certainly not be armed with firearm he is at a major disadvantage because he will have to deal with really pissed off woman armed with a golf club/baseball bat/[insert any number of easily picked up solid items here] and believe me she isn't afraid to use them (of course she could also use any one of the legally owned firearms as well), alternatively she could just get out of the house and wait for the police to sort out the intruder and insurance to sort out the mess.

Or you can just shoot the SOB because of Castle Doctrine and let the goblin bleed out.

The idea of a woman using a golf club is a nice idea..... what about multiple attackers? What about someone on PCP or LSD and they don't feel pain because of their drug induced haze? What about the career criminal that is released from jail because the District Attorney's Office offered him a plea deal because they're to damn lazy / jammed pack with criminals?

Yeah.... you can hope that it's some drunk idiot trying to get into your place..... but I don't place my safety in hope.

What to see an example of what I'm talking about?

 

[5.56X45mm]

Name: GABRIEL, RICHARD
Sex: M Race: B Eye: BRO
Weight: 160 Lbs DOB: 12/01/1982
Hair: BRO Height: 5' &nbsp10"

Booking Information
Jail Number: 090058993
IDS: 575691
Loc: PTDC
Date Booked: 07/12/2009
Time Booked: 13:29

Case(s) Information
Case Number: F09022919
Bond: $ 6000**
Comment Case: CT1.5000,CT2.ROR,CT3.1000
Charge: STALKING/AGGRAVATED/COURT ORDER
Charge: INJUNCTION VIOLATION/REPEAT/SEXUAL/DATE VIOLENCE
Remark: CS#: M0935378
Charge: RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO HIS PERSON

Warrant Case: F09022060
Desc: See remarks below
Bond: N/A **
Remarks: AGG STALK/DV INJ VIOL/RES W/O
Charge: STALKING/AGGRAVATED
Charge: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION
Charge: RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO HIS PERSON

Source is the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections. It's public info.

I've dealt with this jackass for the past two weekends. Violent, abusive, and willing harm others. We arrested him for the same thing twice...... Aggravated Stalking, Violation of a Domestic Violence Injunction, Repeat Sexual Offender, Resisting Without Violence.

He was released within two days the first time..... and went straight to the same home and tried to harm the person that placed the Injunction against him.... first time we had to deal with him we used chemical agents and tasers. Same with the second.....

He has stated that he wants to kill the person that filed the injunction and he is willing to do it..... from the time the victim called 911 to the time we arrived was 7 minutes..... a lot could happen in 7 minutes.

Like I said..... until you see how :cen: society can get even in the best nation in the world..... you don't understand. Life can get ugly pretty quick.

 

[MontyB]

In the end it we can both sit here citing scenario after unlikely scenario and there will never be agreement because we are looking at the same problem from opposite sides of the wall.

You in my opinion are an after the fact cure specialist arming people is the equivalent of closing the door after the horse has bolted you prefer to level the playing field by arming everyone and I prefer to leveling the playing field by arming only those sane enough to use them properly.

I do not want myself, my family or my friends living in a society where you cant look at anyone without them being afraid you are about to open up on them, I don't want road rage solved by gun fights, I don't want petty bar brawls requiring a SWAT team and most of all I don't want my kid realising that the easiest way to prevent being teased is to take the family 9mm to school.

You may think that having everyone locking themselves in their houses with a shotgun at the ready is a safe/polite society while I personally see that as the end of society.

 

[5.56X45mm]

In the end it we can both sit here citing scenario after unlikely scenario and there will never be agreement because we are looking at the same problem from opposite sides of the wall.

You in my opinion are an after the fact cure specialist arming people is the equivalent of closing the door after the horse has bolted you prefer to level the playing field by arming everyone and I prefer to leveling the playing field by arming only those sane enough to use them properly.

I do not want myself, my family or my friends living in a society where you cant look at anyone without them being afraid you are about to open up on them, I don't want road rage solved by gun fights, I don't want petty bar brawls requiring a SWAT team and most of all I don't want my kid realising that the easiest way to prevent being teased is to take the family 9mm to school.

You may think that having everyone locking themselves in their houses with a shotgun at the ready is a safe/polite society while I personally see that as the end of society.

Different between you and me is that I know that the genie can't be pt back into the bottle..... as such I deal with the problem. Criminals have access to arms. No matter what you do, you will not disarm them. Entire Divisions of Combat Troops have tried to disarm peasants in Europe during WWII.... didn't work. The entire arm of Federal Law Enforcement tried to get all of the alcohol off the streets in the 1920s and 1930s and failed....

Hell, the entire British Military tried to disarm a small number of terrorists in Ireland and failed.....

You cannot disarm them.... won't happen. Deal with it.... arm yourself and learn that help isn't around the corner and that cop being paid little to nothing isn't there to be your private bodyguard.

Criminals are evil and break the law.... hence laws designed to make it illegal to own and posses arms make no sense. They only harm the law abiding citizen.

Road Rage is a anger management issue.... The jackass is going to attack you with or without a firearm.... last time I checked a vehicle is a deadly weapon.

If your kids take a firearm to school then you failed on a number of issues.

You are blaming a object for a failure of parenting. You didn't teach your children morals. You didn't teach your kid how to act properly in society and lastly you failed as a parent for being in your kid's lives. It's not the gun that made the kid the crazy nut job.... it's your lack of parenting and failure of being involved in your kids' lives.

I learned at a very early age that the best way to win a fight is to walk away from one.... but my old man also thought me that if I can't walk away from it to kick the guy in the nuts and fight to win.

But hey.... you're a guy trying to get a Full-Auto STG44..... and yet you jumo my :cen: when I want to allow my fellow citizen to own the same pistol I carry on duty as a police officer.

 

[MontyB]

Different between you and me is that I know that the genie can't be pt back into the bottle..... as such I deal with the problem. Criminals have access to arms. No matter what you do, you will not disarm them. Entire Divisions of Combat Troops have tried to disarm peasants in Europe during WWII.... didn't work. The entire arm of Federal Law Enforcement tried to get all of the alcohol off the streets in the 1920s and 1930s and failed....

I disagree, for the most part the human race has defied thermodynamics laws and moved toward order rather than chaos, the genie may be out of the bottle but for a large proportion of the world it remains a well behaved genie and that is because of education and good law enforcement.

Criminals are evil and break the law.... hence laws designed to make it illegal to own and posses arms make no sense. They only harm the law abiding citizen.

Road Rage is a anger management issue.... The jackass is going to attack you with or without a firearm.... last time I checked a vehicle is a deadly weapon.

If your kids take a firearm to school then you failed on a number of issues.

Yet all these things happen, which would indicate that as firearms become more prevalent in society more people use them as weapon of preference.

You are blaming a object for a failure of parenting. You didn't teach your children morals. You didn't teach your kid how to act properly in society and lastly you failed as a parent for being in your kid's lives. It's not the gun that made the kid the crazy nut job.... it's your lack of parenting and failure of being involved in your kids' lives.

I have never blamed firearms for anything in my life I remain firmly in acceptance of the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which is why I remain absolutely convinced that firearms should not be banned or even classified as anything but a firearm however people need to be licensed to own firearms and that license should include safety training, maintenance and certification, after all it's people that are dangerous.

I learned at a very early age that the best way to win a fight is to walk away from one.... but my old man also thought me that if I can't walk away from it to kick the guy in the nuts and fight to win.

Weird the first thing I learned about winning a fight is that walking away just gets you hit in the back of the head.

But hey.... you're a guy trying to get a Full-Auto STG44..... and yet you jumo my :cen: when I want to allow my fellow citizen to own the same pistol I carry on duty as a police officer.

Trying?
I have two of them, well 1.5 to be honest.
But then I have had to jump through hoops to prove to the local police that I am not a raving lunatic who plans to open up on my local school because I got a traffic ticket.

 

[A Can of Man]

You know, 5.56 has a lot of valid points and I think ultimately the differences in views from 5.56 and MontyB is the societies in which you two live.
In the US, it's just more dangerous than being in New Zealand. So the sense of danger that people feel is different.
And seriously, what's the ultimate difference in firearm policy that you two have? 5.56 wants there to be no papertrail to show whether or not an individual owns a certain weapon or not. MontyB thinks they should all be registered.
Hasn't anyone thought about a general mental health evaluation that could be included with obtaining a driver's license? In other words, if you are sane enough to drive, you should be cleared sane enough to own a firearm.
That way you prevent raging lunatics from legally owning firearms and you also keep firearm ownership confidential.

Don't know about what you mean by walking away just gets you hit in the back of the head Monty. Unless you live in a very bad neighborhood. Most fights can be avoided by walking away. But every now and then there's this one you just can't back out of. Otherwise I'd be getting into fights every other day. Just had a major incident a few weeks back that could have gotten real ugly. Wife told me to calm down and walk away and we're all the better for it. I don't have to deal with those cvnts, they don't have to go to hospital and I don't have to go to prison.

 

[MontyB]

You know, 5.56 has a lot of valid points and I think ultimately the differences in views from 5.56 and MontyB is the societies in which you two live.
In the US, it's just more dangerous than being in New Zealand. So the sense of danger that people feel is different.

The funny thing is I haven't noticed that about the USA either and I have lived in some pretty dodgy parts (not the worst obviously) of the place.

This bleak world that you guys keep painting is something I just haven't been able to find outside of a few isolated pockets. For the most part suburban and rural America is no different to New Zealand, Australia or most other parts of the world.

And seriously, what's the ultimate difference in firearm policy that you two have? 5.56 wants there to be no papertrail to show whether or not an individual owns a certain weapon or not. MontyB thinks they should all be registered.

You are misquoting me I think owners should be registered/licensed, if you are deemed sane enough to own one firearm you are sane enough to own them all.

I can see advantages to firearms registration in that it reduces the transfer of legally purchased weapons to criminals by making an individual responsible for a particular weapon but outside that I am not a great supporter of the idea.

Don't know about what you mean by walking away just gets you hit in the back of the head Monty. Unless you live in a very bad neighborhood. Most fights can be avoided by walking away. But every now and then there's this one you just can't back out of. Otherwise I'd be getting into fights every other day. Just had a major incident a few weeks back that could have gotten real ugly. Wife told me to calm down and walk away and we're all the better for it. I don't have to deal with those cvnts, they don't have to go to hospital and I don't have to go to prison.

His quote was:
"I learned at a very early age that the best way to win a fight is to walk away from one.... but my old man also thought me that if I can't walk away from it to kick the guy in the nuts and fight to win."

Walking away is the best way to avoid a fight, the best way to win a fight is to beat the crap out of the opponent before he does it to you and walking away in the middle of one will only get you hit in the back of the head.

 

[BritinBritain]

I can't verify what you quote, nor can I say what theoutcome would have been if gun control was introduced.

I can dig up statistics like you quoted too, however they just don't hold water, as similar figures have been quoted and disproved by the pro gun lobby, the past Federal president of which (Gary Fleetwood) is more than just an aquaintance of mine. I was not happy about it either as I am a firearms advocate also. But then again we never had people walking around armed in public either nor did we have the resultant high death rate from gun crime.

Whatever you say, or whatever figures you dig up, you still can't argue against the fact that disarming the Wild West led to a more civilised culture and it needs to happen again.

The stats I quoted regarding Oz was from offical Government statistics, therefore they must have some credibility.

The only thing that any form of disarming does is disarm the law abiding, criminals will still get illegal guns.

Disarming citizens in the UK hasnt lead to a more civilized society, in some parts of UK inercities, its almost to the point of total lawness. Police refuse to go into certain area's of London, Manchester and other big cities. A few years ago (1987) Manchester police asked the London Metropolitan Police for assistence to gather intel on illegal firearms. The London Met come up with figures that scared the crap out of everyone, their figures came up with that around 2500 illegal firearms were being imported into Greater Manchester area each and every week. Quite how they came up with those figures I have no idea. Northern Ireland, despite selective fire weapons, grenades, RPG's, Semtex so forth being illegal the IRA got everything they wanted. Northern Ireland for many years was certainly not a civilized country despite an almost complete ban on firearms, and many cases it still isnt today.

We frequently have scenario's in South africa where criminals go after soft targets, like the infirm or the elderly they will not go after those who can fight back because they are cowards at heart.

I for one would love to live somewhere with no crime whatsoever and the only need for a firearm is for sport or hunting. I dislike carrying a firearm for defence, but the crime situation in South Africa at present its too dangerous not too.

I have used my 45 twice, once was to stop an attack on my person by a criminal, the mere sight of the gun sent him running, the second time was to carry out a citizens arrest on two gang bangers who attempted to break into the house next door. The cops arrived two hours later, when they were searched both were carrying knives.

 

[A Can of Man]

Avoiding is winning if your objective is to get from A to B without incident.

His quote was:
"I learned at a very early age that the best way to win a fight is to walk away from one.... but my old man also thought me that if I can't walk away from it to kick the guy in the nuts and fight to win."

Walking away is the best way to avoid a fight, the best way to win a fight is to beat the crap out of the opponent before he does it to you and walking away in the middle of one will only get you hit in the back of the head.

As for the dangerous part of the world...
5.56 is obviously not chasing ghosts when he goes to work.
Me, I wasn't dreaming when I saw dudes getting beaten up by cops in Indonesia and the stories about the one guy who was handcuffed to a railing and then kneecapped is probably true as well. The gangs stealing care packages given out for zakat. Or that Australian woman who was murdered while running in the morning. These are just the ones I know about. Then there was 1998 which was a completely different ball game with mass lootings, mass murdering of ethnic Chinese (and you know, it's easy to mistake me for a Chinese guy), bits of the city was on fire and you could hear gunshots as well. Wasn't imagining that.
Then there was 9/11 where I was in DC for, then tha Anthrax attacks, the place I went to learn Krav Maga was in a lousy neighborhood which occasionally was in the news for a gang related murder (only occasionally because crime had dropped), then we had those two "Beltway Snipers" who killed 11 people and wounded I think three or something. I was in DC for that as well.
I'm just talking about the stuff I was there for.
Actually one morning when I was staying in NY, I woke up to hear a gunshot and some dude screaming. Great way to start the day.

 

[MontyB]

Avoiding is winning if your objective is to get from A to B without incident.



As for the dangerous part of the world...
5.56 is obviously not chasing ghosts when he goes to work.

No but if you spend your life in a sewer the world becomes a shitty place.

Me, I wasn't dreaming when I saw dudes getting beaten up by cops in Indonesia and the stories about the one guy who was handcuffed to a railing and then kneecapped is probably true as well. The gangs stealing care packages given out for zakat. Or that Australian woman who was murdered while running in the morning. These are just the ones I know about. Then there was 1998 which was a completely different ball game with mass lootings, mass murdering of ethnic Chinese (and you know, it's easy to mistake me for a Chinese guy), bits of the city was on fire and you could hear gunshots as well. Wasn't imagining that.
Then there was 9/11 where I was in DC for, then tha Anthrax attacks, the place I went to learn Krav Maga was in a lousy neighborhood which occasionally was in the news for a gang related murder (only occasionally because crime had dropped), then we had those two "Beltway Snipers" who killed 11 people and wounded I think three or something. I was in DC for that as well.

No you werent imagining it but so what?
I am not going to make light of these events but its a big world and in the words of Forest Gump "Sometimes **** happens". For as much as our LEO's seem to love telling us how they can't be everywhere at once so we should arm ourselves to the teeth and do their job for them not one of the issues you have mentioned would have been made better had there been a gun on the scene, in fact in a couple of those cases it would have made life worse.

I'm just talking about the stuff I was there for.
Actually one morning when I was staying in NY, I woke up to hear a gunshot and some dude screaming. Great way to start the day.

The first apparment I had in Phoenix had gun fire every night (friends even refused to visit) yet oddly enough it still rates as the most enjoyable place I have ever lived primarily because it was inhabited by the weirdest bunch of losers and misfits you have ever run into.