Well, that and by widening the data out to countries you greatly increase counfounding factors like differences in cultures.

The local data and historical data for specific areas provide the best info...

though anti-gun advocates aren't a fan of it because it's not flattering to their viewpoint.

To simplify for the sake of argument, let's take Star Trek. The home invader has his phaser set to kill, i have mine set to stun. I shoot first, he's unconscious, call the cops, he goes to jail. He shoots first, i die. No different than the scenario you're describing, except that it averts needless bloodshed.

Go for it.

I don't see how these guys come to their conclusions. They make it seem like criminals are honorable people that if you confront them they would excuse themselves and leave.

I mean a gun that disabled the criminal.

As it is, such guns don't really exist.  Most "Non Lethal" rounds in close quarters are lethal... and in many cases more lethal then regular rounds.

While the ones that aren't don't really have the stopping power required for self defense in all cases.

The closest thing there is are taser bullets.  Which I don't believe you can buy, and I think have a pretty high failure rate.

Yes, let me rush him with a bat while he pulls out his gun. That sounds like a fair fight. :P It's because I know that many criminals carry guns while commiting break-ins, so I have to be armed in a manner that puts me on par with them. If you thought somebody might be coming after you with a 9mm, would you go grab your billy club? I think I would pick the shotgun. Also, the argument 'use a taser' doesn't fly, because if he's wearing a thick coat or hoodie that won't even work.

For my part, i'm willing to admit that liberalizing gun laws can work in the short term, although it's not going to fix the ills at the root of it, which is what bothers me about the gun nuts. They seem more eager to be heroes than to actually solve problems.

Okay, an incapacitate type scenario. I'm for that. I just thought of something that knocks the weapon out of someones hand. So like a tazer cops have though if you miss you are fucked because those are one shot.

And i'm willing to admit it's an imperfect solution. As i said further up, we do have to be pragmatic, but we have to look for some solution for preventing gun crime other than "everyone buy a gun," and ideally killing someone just for breaking into your home shouldn't be justifiable (understanding that it is justifiable under self-defense), but ultimately a man shouldn't be killed for comitting a crime.

I believe it's justified for 2 reason. By breaking into your home the burglar shows no regard for you, your family, or your belongings. Also, though he may not intend to inflict harm on you that's something you can't possibly know. He has already shown he is willing to break the law and you can't possibly know how much further they are willing to go. By the time you find out it would be too late. I will agree that it is unfortunate if it were to occur but it is nessacary in my opinion. Let me also add that I wouldn't try to go for a fatal shot but would feel no remorse if it were.

Wow, you've got to be kidding me. That's some messed up belief system you've got there. Let's just hand the keys over to evil people and let them have their way.

EDIT: And on your second 'point' (I'm being generous by calling it a point), he's coming in with a handgun, I'm greeting him with a 12 guage shotgun loaded with home defense shot, in that case the intruder is most likely dead, my whole family is safe, and a horrible murder has been avoided, plus the perpetrator cannot kill anybody else (cops, other innocent people). Your scenario involves giving victory to the bad guy in every case.