Gun ownership as a defence against crime is a stupid idea.

A gun is not a defensive weapon. It can only be used to intimidate or inflict harm, neither of which are defensive and both of which are just as likely to provoke an attack as they are to prevent one.
Cellphones, Whistles, protective clothing, Dogs, Insurance, running away, turning the other cheek - all of these are defensive and are just as effective if not more so and far less likely to provoke an attack.
If you must insist on "the best defence is a good offence" then pepper spray, nightsticks, tasers, knuckle dusters, even knives would be just as effective intimidation in most situations and are less likely to result in serious harm to either side.

The idea that MORE weapons in the hands of MORE people means safer streets is laughable.
And make no mistake, a gun is no longer a tool when its being used against a person. It's a weapon.

I would think the whole thing was just amusing if I didn't have to go over there so often for work!

nzlockie: I guess it's more of "what feels right". I feel safer with a glock in my hand then with my knife. Why? Because if someone broke into my house I'd rather call 911 and shoot the intruder then hide in the closet with my knife hoping they don't have a gun themselves.

Most of the things you listed are yes effective, as long as the person who is trying to harm you doesn't have a gun himself, dude, try defending yourself with a whistle against someone who has a gun.

Pinkie: Ah, the old pointiest stick argument. "Just in case somebody pokes me with a pointy stick, I need to get myself an even pointier stick so I feel safe knowing that I can stab people before they stab me."

It's amazing how much dumber that argument sounds when you talk about something that isn't guns.

admin: Yep. I'd rather feel safe then hide under my bed.

Pinkie: But you've got to admit the argument can be applied to ANYTHING. "I feel safer driving a tank to work" ... "I feel safer if I have an orbiting space station with a ray gun that can destroy the earth in seconds... etc"

Exactly. The pointier stick argument never ends. There is ALWAYS a pointier stick and it is usually in the hands of the criminals. Tighter gun control in NZ means that 99% of criminals don't need to carry lethal weapons while they are working. If the general populace arm themselves and show a willingness to execute then crime doesn't stop. The Criminals just strike first and harder.

I work in Security and I see this kind of paranoia a lot. I have to always remind people, it's not personal!
Unless you've done something really bad, the people breaking into your house are not hunting YOU - they just want some stuff. It's not even YOUR stuff they want!
If you hide, make noise, run away, politely invite them to help themselves... they will usually just leave.
On the other hand, if YOU attack THEM - what do you think will happen? Of course they are going to fight back!

People's paranoia gets massively fuelled by the media, including TVs and Movies. We are taught that all criminals want to hurt us, rape our women and force us to moisturise. That does happen sometimes, but not enough to force me to have to KILL someone who might just want my TV.

nzlockie: What do you mean by, "It's not even YOUR stuff they want!"

As in, they just want stuff. They are not specifically shopping for YOUR stuff, they'd be quite fine with your neighbor's instead.
There's nothing personal about it.

The #1 guide to avoiding breakins to simply to make YOUR house look less inviting than your neighbor's. They're in the trade they're in because they don't like hard work.

nzlockie: Best security advice ever. Please excuse me while I go smash my neighbor's windows in...

While you're at it, another nice trick is to put the big boxes that come with your shiny new toys outside somebody else's house for rubbish collection.

You also want to make a special effort to build positive elations with the neighbours across the street. They are the best ones to watch your house, not the ones on either side.

Avoid shrubs, bushes and trees that obscure the front of your house and put "beware the dog" signs near the entry to the driveway.

Its pretty basic really. Just saying.

admin: Yep, it can. That's why it is so great.

nzlockie: My house isn't inviting. Yay me. ^^

nzlockie: That's what we do! Except the boxes, I still don't thin we've recycled our wii box.

And not the dog. Our family is known for our hatred of animals.

Pinkie: You don't actually have to have a dog. Just the signs.
It is well known that the two single deterants to criminals are electricity and dogs.Even if they suspect the signs are fake, if they have a choice between a house where there MIGHT be a dog and one where there definately isn't, they'll take the other house.

nzlockie: *biggest

Pinkie: Some puppies are cute though. I have serious cynophobia and even I think so.

nzlockie: So, if guns aren't bad, or good, why are you so opposed to people having them?

Firstly, I'm from an agricultural country, I say this because I want you to understand that I don't hate guns, or fear them or anything like that. Guns are mostly seen as tools here, and it is very rare that you'll ever find someone owning a handgun for that very reason. They're almost always shotguns or rifles.

I'm not even against people wanting to own them - if they are using them for sport or work. It's when the public want to own them as a weapon that I get concerned.

I've already stated that I don't see WHY they would need to own such a weapon, but the downsides to owning them basically circle around accidental death and injury. This covers things from kids playing with loaded weapons to mentally unstable people doing themselves or others harm to mentally stable but extremely scared/paranoid people occidentally shooting someone.

A decent case could be made that feeling like you NEED to own a gun in order to feel safe could actually lead to higher levels of distrust and paranoia.

It concerns me that the simplicity of discharging a firearm to cause harm to another, as opposed to having to get up close and personal would lead to an increase in murders and serious harm where the same situation in NZ would lead to name calling and crying, and maybe a fist fight or bat fight.

It's basic maths. More guns equals more gun related injuries. And since there are stats that "prove" both sides of the argument, one can only conclude that any effect guns have on reducing crime are so localised and minute as to be irrelevant.

I personally know 2 locksmiths in the last year who were killed on the job in the US. I don't know a single one that has even been threatened with a gun in NZ or even Australia.
When I go and do an eviction or a repo job here, I know I could be hit or have the dog sicced on me, maybe even stabbed - but it never even crosses my mind that i could be killed. That wouldn't be true if I was to work in the US.

nzlockie: That's tragic with the locksmith deaths. Are locksmiths particularly at risk in some way (like bank tellers or taxi drivers), or is it just a general thing? I've never heard of something like bank robbers particularly targeting locksmiths at gunpoint to get them to open vaults or the like, but I suppose it might happen somewhere.