As I pointed out late last year, the UK has a higher rate of violent crime than the United States does. Meanwhile, violent crime dropped over an extended period in the United States in spite of the expiration of the "assault weapons" ban in 2004 and the proliferation of concealed carry. I would say there is some sort of negative effect in the UK if its violent crime rate is higher than that of the US, even if we assume it didn't stem form burglary. Furthermore, you only mention burglary-related deaths. While I am only scratching the surface here due to time constraints, in the US, an estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred per year between 2003 and 2007. Out of those 3.7 million burglaries, people in a home were victims of a violent crime in 266,560 of them. Those may not be deaths, but I feel that the occurrence of violent crime makes it reasonable to have methods of home defense. Again, I have only scratched the surface of things due to time constraints, but amusingly enough, a CDC study commissioned by Obama himself (hardly a pro-gun guy) only served to largely reinforce the contentions of opponents of stringent gun control. Generally speaking, it was found that the defensive use of firearms by victims is just as common as their offensive use by criminals. Even if we assume that most burglars are "rational minded enough" to retreat as you say, there are still some who do kidnap and kill, even after alerting the occupant. Additionally, in my previous post, I clearly implied that I would be the one backed into the corner in the event of an assailant breaching my bedroom door. There are people who would need to arm themselves (those with children in other rooms of the home) and seek out the assailant, but a single guy like me is not one of them. A criminal confined to my living room stealing a television or game console covered by renter's insurance is dealing with me talking to the authorities on the phone (after I have my gun loaded and ready, of course) in my bedroom. However, if the bedroom door is breached, I am backed into a corner, and the gun does the talking. It is ludicrous to imply that a firearm can only be used as an offensive weapon when my plan of defensive action in the home is clearly one of a last resort (no shots would be fired as long as the criminal stayed away from the bedroom). Furthermore, when it comes to the use of concealed carry for self-defense outside of the home, Minnesota (my home state) law dictates that four "pillars" must be met before one can legally use lethal force on self-defense: 1. You must be a reluctant participant in the conflict. 2. You must have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. 3. If there is a reasonable method of retreat, you must retreat. 4. No lesser force will do to stop the threat. Even if one legitimately uses a concealed firearm in self-defense, it is still possible to end up in court. Even in the event of being found innocent, one could look at spending US $15K-$20K+ on legal fees (I personally would prefer to avoid using an overworked public defender that may only have as little as seven minutes to dedicate to studying my case) around where I live. I certainly have no intention of dealing with that unless it is a matter of choosing between that and my life. In my hands, a firearm is purely a defensive weapon. A can of mace requires one to get very close to the target. Additionally, things like glasses on an assailant can interfere with the effectiveness of the mace being delivered. Wind can also be a problem if one is in a defensive scenario outside of the home. A Taser is essentially a one shot weapon. If you miss the target, you are in a lot of trouble. The same is true if the target's clothing is thick enough to prevent the probe from penetrating skin (let alone reaching it). Mace and Tasers also put one at an extreme disadvantage if there are multiple assailants (that's never an ideal scenario, but a firearm does better to tilt the odds in your favor). You mentioned that bean bag ammunition and such are not ideal. Such things are often used by police when they operate in teams, particularly against targets that are often poorly armed, if at all, e.g. rioters. And even the officer with the nonlethal ammunition is typically backed up by officers with lethal ammunition. In addition to coming off as somewhat contradictory to what you have said before, if we realize that such things are unlikely to happen anytime soon, it's useful to have a firearm(s) for defense in case one ends up being targeted in a violent criminal act. I am going to need to see some clear evidence that such a firearm is primarily designed to make the user "feel like a trained operative ready for a military engagement." It may be marketed as a defensive shotgun, but that only means it is useful for one to have in case someone violent breaks into the home. Your concern, like the 1994-2004 ban on "assault weapons," also seems to have a good deal of emphasis on "cosmetics." For instance, there are tactical shotguns similar in function with a far less "aggressive" appearance: Shotguns like that are also commonly used for sporting purposes as well (targets, 3 gun, etc.), and my Vepr 12 is no exception there. How big is this "quadrant" of gun owners of which you speak? Not every gun owner, even those with "scary" looking weapons, is a bloodthirsty George Zimmerman (he would be serving a long sentence if it weren't for institutionalized racism; he shot his way out of a fight he started) type itching for a fight. I haven't had time to extensively dissect the methodology behind the 2.5 million figure, but the CDC study I mentioned above says that defensive uses are a "common occurrence," although the number itself is disputed. The general estimates range from 500,000 to 3 million. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the actual number is even smaller than the lower estimate, we still have people defending themselves from violent criminals in some cases coupled with the fact that there is no conclusive evidence linking civilian firearm ownership to violent crime. I don't have any pony-related designs on any of my guns. Perhaps I should start with something simple, like 1911 grips?
Plus, Unicorns have force fields, a fast Pegasi could dodge a bullet, and Earth ponies are so damn tough that I'm not sure a bullet would stop one.
I dunno, ponifying guns sounds like exactly the thing that needs to be happening. It'll be super cringe, yes, but some people are into that sort of thing.
Oh for *squee!*'s sake. If you really want to leave because you don't like a new character for reasons that are beyond logic, then please, by all means, LEAVE. So long, see ya, buh-bye, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. But please, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, SHUT UP ABOUT IT. Good god, man. You're turning into another Kwark.
Would there be much of a difference? It isn't uncommon for me to wear nail polish (I am a guy) and pony T-shirts in public. Granted, if I ever did "ponify" a firearm, it would probably be something like a grip or handguard that can be removed. I haven't been doing much lately, but I have been spending a bit more time walking as of late.
