Shooting incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, USA

[Virendra]

Idiotic reasoning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Written by the NRA.

Just take the case of the latest US school shooting, do you think it would have happened had the mother of the assailant not have an AR15 semi-automatic rifle in her house (where the deranged son lives)? And if that semi-automatic rifle is banned do you think the deranged killer in this case would have easily laid his hands on that kind of weapon? Of course there will always be the black market but it would certainly be harder to acquire semi-automatic weapons than having it freely available in gun stores.

Had the killer of the children in this case only been armed with hand guns the death toll would have been smaller.

So the point is that it is the availability that is the culprit here? If Guns are easily available, people would start shooting each other?
Obviously not. It is the man standing behind the Gun who makes the difference.
Guns are available in so many households in this planet. Kitchen knives etc have an even greater reach.
But then someone who is determined to mean harm, would lay his hands on a weapon any way. Be it legal or Black market.
Actually for a crime, criminal would try to avoid using the legally registered and traceable fire-arm, bullets for obvious reasons.
He'll prefer the hideous illegal ways. Who wants to expose himself to the System's eyes before committing a crime?
But I personally agree and have believed that for a civilian, semi-automatic handgun or a shotgun is enough for his/her defense.
By the way, this guy was not firing with an automatic rifle was he?
He had a .223 caliber rifle, two handguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
All these firearms are semiautomatic.
What increased the death toll is:
a) The time he was allowed to continue shooting
b) The ammo he had to continue shooting
He deliberately chose a School where he knew no one would fire back at him.
Once he had started, as usual it took some time before the first potential challenge to him (LEOs) appeared on the scene.
Eventually he shot himself.
As far as the Lanzas were concerned, the family just went through a divorce and the socially awkward son (had Asperger's) was mentally disturbed.
It would've been smarter to keep firearms away from that environment.

American law enforcement agencies cannot cover all places all the time so people were allowed to carry muskets or swords. But weapons now are different, they're many times more powerful and deadly. So I think the interpretation should be updated to adopt to changed times and should mean to include only at most handguns for purely defensive purposes/capabilities.

No law enforcement agencies anywhere can cover all places all the time. No Constitution or court in the world expects them to do so either.
One cannot sue the Govt. or Cops if they or their loved ones get robbed, raped or murdered. Why?
The State and its agencies are an organized mechanism to keep order against organized crime or external threats to the society as a whole.
They are a system and they have their limits. They will always have their limits, regardless of how good they become at their job.
What then about the random acts of violence that befall any individual without prior appointments any place any time?
Ultimately a man himself is responsible for his safety. No one else has the onus, no one else can do it for him.

By having over the counter guns, has the rapes gone less in the US?

Or say, murders?

If so, a gun in every corner is justified.

Sir, Gun control is never proved to have brought down crime in society. Statistics and research have been to the contrary only.
For recent example may I suggest reading this post - http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...authorized-defend-yourself-24.html#post633179

As said already in this thread and elsewhere, I do not support free flow of Guns.
I support background checks, licensing etc but they have to be completely fair, not the draconian implementations like we have here in India.
We cannot put the entire society on burner for one man's action. These deranged people have always existed among us and will continue to do so.
If we disarm ourselves, we only make their job easier.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[asianobserve]

The deranged son could have rammed a truck full of gasoline tanks into the school and set it alight. If someone wants to kill, he will find the means. What about the numerous rapes happening in India? What about that Punjab cop who was shot dead protecting his daughter? If all civilians had guns, many criminals would be dead already.

It's always two way bud! [well, let me add some extra exclamation marks for dramatization] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But how many are ramming trucks into American schools?????

BTW, trucks can easily be stopped by these devices -

 

[asianobserve]

If Guns are easily available, people would start shooting each other?
Regards,
Virendra

Your toeing the line of the American gun nuts: "guns are not the problems since those things do not shoot by themselves." To a certain degree this is true but this does not reflect the whole truth. I have posted earlier the ingredients for these school shootings: 1) school, 2) guns and 3) crazy shooter. Of the these ingredients you cannot do away with #1 and #3 since you cannot stop education and people from going crazy. What you can cut off is the ready supply of assault rifles (the favorite weapon used in these type of mass shootings). At least assault rifles should not be made available to just anyone off the shelf. I have not much opposition to hand guns, but for me ideally even this weapons should be tightly regulated. Of course it's different I guess in America were a lot of Christian white people have been feeling under siege since the American independence...

Of course the problem with gun control legislation in AMerica is how can you take back the millions of guns in private ownership...? ANother civil war? But hell who cares, just 20, 30, 40 dead children and adults from public places shootings a year wouldn't dent the US population (as what American gun nuts say, McDOnald's diet kill more AMericans each year). What's important is the profits of gun manufacturers and sellers...

 

[Virendra]

Your toeing the line of the American gun nuts: "guns are not the problems since those things do not shoot by themselves." To a certain degree this is true but this does not reflect the whole truth. I have posted earlier the ingredients for these school shootings: 1) school, 2) guns and 3) crazy shooter.

And I have already posted my response, won't repeat it. It seems you're not reading before posting.
I started posting here page 5 onwards, after reading all the previous posts.

At least assault rifles should not be made available to just anyone off the shelf. I have not much opposition to hand guns, but for me ideally even this weapons should be tightly regulated. Of course it's different I guess in America were a lot of Christian white people have been feeling under siege since the American independence...

And when did I say guns should be available off the shelf. Again, will you read my posts properly before likening me to Gun nuts?

Of course the problem with gun control legislation in AMerica is how can you take back the millions of guns in private ownership...? ANother civil war?

Question is, why do you want to take back Guns from the entire society and how do you think a disarmed society will be safe from crime, when crime didn't ever depend on legally obtained licensed firearms to take place?
I never supported issuing fire-arms without background check and due procedure.
Problem isn't more guns or less guns. Problem is - Guns present in wrong hands and absent from right hands.
Can we solve the "Guns present in wrong hands"? Until we do that, there's going to be the need of "Guns present in right hands" and I will continue advocating it.
Wherever the Guns are given by virtually no background check etc, ofcourse the Americans have to take note and bring in regulations.

Adam Lanzas can be anywhere in the society, even in the military barracks. We can't disarm the military can we?
Can be on the roads driving mad. We can't curtail public from driving can we ?

But hell who cares, just 20, 30, 40 dead children and adults from public places shootings a year wouldn't dent the US population (as what American gun nuts say, McDOnald's diet kill more AMericans each year). What's important is the profits of gun manufacturers and sellers...

Don't know which gun nut you're talking about and I don't care what the gun nut said.

I thought there was an answer to my one line question in the ten lines posted.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Ray]

When politicians speak of gun control at a time like this, what is meant is confiscation. The probability of confiscating millions of guns is remote, so after the usual posturing is achieved, nothing will be done.

I personally am no one to comment on another country's Constitutional right. I am sure it must have been thought out before being made a right.

Therefore, I am not commenting on holding of guns as a right of an individual.

What I am stating is as a caring human being.

I find the unending killing of helpless individuals, including the young, who are not carrying weapons, a bit too unnerving.

There are lunatics all over the world and they are dangerous.

They are more dangerous if they have an easy access to guns to include automatics and even military like weapons of great collective destruction.

These people could be your own and that is a spinechilling thought that one finds difficult to adjust to.

I am not too sure whether Americans find their constitution right overriding the mindless massacre of people. I don't know whether those who are losing their own children feel that the Constitution right is paramount over their children's lives.

I, for one, grieve for the innocent dead and grapple to know how to save innocents from further mayhem.

That is the answer I seek.

 

[Ray]

Guns are available in so many households in this planet. Kitchen knives etc have an even greater reach. [\QUOTE]

Valid point.

Compare how many you can kill with a kitchen knife and an automatic weapon.

There lies the answer of a weapon, be it a kitchen knife or an automatic, in the hands of the deranged.

He had a .223 caliber rifle, two handguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
All these firearms are semiautomatic.
What increased the death toll is:
a) The time he was allowed to continue shooting
b) The ammo he had to continue shooting
He deliberately chose a School where he knew no one would fire back at him.
Once he had started, as usual it took some time before the first potential challenge to him (LEOs) appeared on the scene.
Eventually he shot himself.
As far as the Lanzas were concerned, the family just went through a divorce and the socially awkward son (had Asperger's) was mentally disturbed.
It would've been smarter to keep firearms away from that environment.

The mother was a gun freak and she was also a lunatic, in that she had stored up for an economic collapse!

Sir, Gun control is never proved to have brought down crime in society. Statistics and research have been to the contrary only.
For recent example may I suggest reading this post - http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...authorized-defend-yourself-24.html#post633179

As said already in this thread and elsewhere, I do not support free flow of Guns.
I support background checks, licensing etc but they have to be completely fair, not the draconian implementations like we have here in India.
We cannot put the entire society on burner for one man's action. These deranged people have always existed among us and will continue to do so.
If we disarm ourselves, we only make their job easier.

Regards,
Virendra

Statistics depends on the inputs put in. Therefore, statistics, is never right. It is merely used as an agenda to prove a point.

It has already been proved that the much hyped UN statistics that India suffers malnutrition worse the sub Saharan deserts is a contrived and agenda driven figure.

That much for statistics.

How many mass massacres, and that too against defenceless people and children, have occurred in countries where weapons cannot be bought over the counter?

You speak of India?

I had weapons allowed by Army Act to be held without Licence.

On retirement, I gave them to my unit as ' souvenirs' since I thought that I might use them in pique.

I have been brought up on Western comic books and I love the statement, 'Pardner, you are not welcome in these parts. Hightail it'.

So, I decided not to be the Fastest Gun in the East!

 

[Virendra]

I, for one, grieve for the innocent dead and grapple to know how to save innocents from further mayhem.

That is the answer I seek.

Sir in my humble opinion, the answer lies not in quick fix symptom treatments as many sentimentally reacting people tend to suggest after this tregedy. But it lies in a multi-pronged strategy.
Compared to India, the law and order situation in US much better. But there are social issues of family disorders, drug abuse, desensitization of kids/teens via TV and video game violence etc. One would be to accept and address this issue.
Secondly, wherever the Gun regulations are absent or miniscule, they have to be put in place. The easy breezy shop counter selling that is typical at some States is not a good idea. Sound background checks would go a great distance in pre-emption.
Thirdly, places prone to such massacres (like religious halls, Schools, movie halls) should be better equipped, better armed to deal with such contingencies.
Fourth, the Staff there such as Teachers etc. should be trained on how to ensure safety of the people / kids should anything happen. When we train for fire evcuations and bomb threats, we can do it for Gun shootouts as well. We should.
It may or may not save everyone. But it will surely reduce the damage.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Mass shootings are actually bad for gun control advocates - Salon.com

Idiotic reasoning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Written by the NRA.

.

The source of that article is Salon Magazine. No connection to NRA at all.

 

[Virendra]

Valid point.

Compare how many you can kill with a kitchen knife and an automatic weapon.

There lies the answer of a weapon, be it a kitchen knife or an automatic, in the hands of the deranged.

Well aware of the difference between lethality of a knife and a Gun Sir.
When I am standing in front of a manic hell bent to murder me and my family with his Gun, I see the difference between having a Gun to counter him and having a kitchen knife to counter him. The difference is huge.
My point was not to demonize Knives and glorify Guns. My point was - people use vehicles, roads, machines, kitchen knives everyday and they use them responsibly. Sometimes when the mishaps take place because of a few irresponsible; we don't trip and ban using all these things.

Statistics depends on the inputs put in. Therefore, statistics, is never right. It is merely used as an agenda to prove a point.

It has already been proved that the much hyped UN statistics that India suffers malnutrition worse the sub Saharan deserts is a contrived and agenda driven figure.

Noted. I would rest my case by saying that neither sides could be proven decisively because we cannot rely on statistics.
By the way even the UN figure of 40 million fire-arms in India is standing on shaky legs. Also, most of the fire-arms (whatever the real number is) are illegal ones, produced and procured from black markets.

How many mass massacres, and that too against defenceless people and children, have occurred in countries where weapons cannot be bought over the counter?
Nazi massacre of Jews, Khmer rouge massacre of Cambodians and likewise, Armenian massacre in Turkey. Almost all of them had disarmament of the subject people as an integral part of the process/plan.
Why go far out. 26/11 death toll would be smaller if there was an armed citizenry.
Half a dozen men killed 163 people and wounded many others. How many armed citizens did they encounter? Zero
What did the people outside do when terrorists stormed Jewish Chabad center? They threw stones.
Yes our people were throwing stones at AK 47 wielding terrorists.
What did the bogged down photojournalist have to say about CST terminus killings on 26/11?
"I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back!"
What would be the result if even 5 of the 200 dead and wounded were armed and trained with semi automatic pistols?

You speak of India?

I had weapons allowed by Army Act to be held without Licence.

On retirement, I gave them to my unit as ' souvenirs' since I thought that I might use them in pique.

I have been brought up on Western comic books and I love the statement, 'Pardner, you are not welcome in these parts. Hightail it'.

So, I decided not to be the Fastest Gun in the East!

I would request you to yourself apply or have someone apply (just for the sake of it) for a fire-arm license in Delhi or Mumbai. The experience and the result would speak for me.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[s002wjh]

They may not be fully automatic yet they still possesses all the characterstics of military assault rifles. The only thing significant changed is their rate of fire but the bullet and everything else remain the same.

Five Assault Rifles You Can Pick up at Walmart [PHOTOS] | The Nation

if i plug in a high capacity magazine in a 45acp pistol, it has the same lethality as semi-auto rifl at short range. heck 22LR is the number 1 cause of death in US, not 223 or 45acp. ar might look like m4, but it still consider a semi-auto weapon.

 

[s002wjh]

those are not assault rifle, those are ar15, semi-auto version of m4. if you can buy a semi-auto pistol, why not a semi-auto rifle.

 

[s002wjh]

You can also buy the same military carbines

do you have any understanding of whats legal whats not, and difference between ar/m4? its call AR not m4. the difference is in the lower receiver trigger mechinism, one is semi the other has full auto. yes you can get full auto parts, but require register with atf($200), talk to local sheriff, cost about $20k.

the big difference between ar15 and other semi-auto firearm is it had a higher capactiy magazine, thats about it. CA limit the magazine to 10rd

 

[s002wjh]

look at virgina tech. the guy only had semi-auto pistol but the death toll is higher.

 

[s002wjh]

Your toeing the line of the American gun nuts: "guns are not the problems since those things do not shoot by themselves." To a certain degree this is true but this does not reflect the whole truth. I have posted earlier the ingredients for these school shootings: 1) school, 2) guns and 3) crazy shooter. Of the these ingredients you cannot do away with #1 and #3 since you cannot stop education and people from going crazy. What you can cut off is the ready supply of assault rifles (the favorite weapon used in these type of mass shootings). At least assault rifles should not be made available to just anyone off the shelf. I have not much opposition to hand guns, but for me ideally even this weapons should be tightly regulated. Of course it's different I guess in America were a lot of Christian white people have been feeling under siege since the American independence...

Of course the problem with gun control legislation in AMerica is how can you take back the millions of guns in private ownership...? ANother civil war? But hell who cares, just 20, 30, 40 dead children and adults from public places shootings a year wouldn't dent the US population (as what American gun nuts say, McDOnald's diet kill more AMericans each year). What's important is the profits of gun manufacturers and sellers...

1. assault rifle is not available in your local walmart, only semi-auto rifle.
2. the only way to stop it is, NO civilian has any guns, problem with that is the rabbit is already out of the hat, there are too many guys, and people is not gonna stand by and allow government to confiscate all their pistol/rifle etc. the bad guy is gonna keep the guns hidden while the good guy don't have guns to defend them
semi auto handgun has the same Lethality as semi-auto rifle within 150ft or less, and its easier to conceal, can fire with one hand, so 2 gun for both hand. look at virgina tech, the guy kill more people with pistol than newtown event.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

@s002wjh

At one time you could also buy mini-guns
or gatling guns if you had the money.

Dillon Aero: M134 Gatling Gun, Miniguns, M134 Gun Systems, Naval Mounts, Helicopter Mounts, Vehicle Mounts

!st Model 1862 Gatling Gun For Sale - Price Reduced!

If you spend enough money and customize rifles you can have a better rifle than the military.
These carbines are military carbines and the rounds are also military rounds so what is the
difference?? not much. I have fired military and civilian rifles and i can tell you some civilians have
better rifles than the military.

 

[s002wjh]

@s002wjh

At one time you could also buy mini-guns
or gatling guns if you had the money.

Dillon Aero: M134 Gatling Gun, Miniguns, M134 Gun Systems, Naval Mounts, Helicopter Mounts, Vehicle Mounts

!st Model 1862 Gatling Gun For Sale - Price Reduced!

If you spend enough money and customize rifles you can have a better rifle than the military.
These carbines are military carbines and the rounds are also military rounds so what is the
difference?? not much. I have fired military and civilian rifles and i can tell you some civilians have
better rifles than the military.

a hunter rifle has more powerful catridge than 223/5.56 nato round. the difference is one is full auto the other is semi-auto, similar to any other semi-auto rilfe outthere. 223 is 20 caliber bullet, most hunter use 308,30-60 which is a more powerfull bullet, more leathal and more range. 9mm hollow point just as lethal as 223 in short range. handgun is easier to conceal too.

you can spend money to add sights, stock etc mostly for aesthetic purpose but it does not change the functionality of the semi-auto, its still a semi-auto weapon. you cannot modify the internal trigger mechnism into a full auto legally

 

[LETHALFORCE]

In the past many retiring military took their rifles with them.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

 

[Energon]

Why go far out. 26/11 death toll would be smaller if there was an armed citizenry.
Half a dozen men killed 163 people and wounded many others. How many armed citizens did they encounter? Zero
What did the people outside do when terrorists stormed Jewish Chabad center? They threw stones.
Yes our people were throwing stones at AK 47 wielding terrorists.
What did the bogged down photojournalist have to say about CST terminus killings on 26/11?
"I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back!"
What would be the result if even 5 of the 200 dead and wounded were armed and trained with semi automatic pistols?



I would request you to yourself apply or have someone apply (just for the sake of it) for a fire-arm license in Delhi or Mumbai. The experience and the result would speak for me.

Regards,
Virendra

The reason 26/11 was such a mess wasn't due to the absence of an armed citizenry, it was due to the absence of an adequately armed and trained police force and a non existent protective mechanism to ensure safety of citizens. Indian cities are densely packed and chaotic to the point where even traffic rules mean nothing. The idea of armed citizens getting into firefights with 10 gunmen while a slew of other citizens and animals run around in the crossfire would be exponentially disastrous. If anything women in Delhi should be allowed to arm themselves, however I doubt that would solve the problem because at the end of the day the root cause of danger isn't the lack of personal firearms but rather the utter lack of law and order.

You see once upon a time we in the United States had a similar problem in the frontier areas where the implementation of law and order was inadequate as was the footprint of a representative government. Ironically this was the closest we ever came to resembling the "ideal" of today's American right . Except in reality this scenario sucked, chaos reigned supreme and lots of people got screwed in spite of being armed to the teeth. This is exactly why a conscious decision was made to create a large scale standardized public safety mechanism through a responsible and responsive police force that was directly accountable to the people who had entrusted them with their safety. People were realistic enough to understand that firearm related confrontations are absolutely nothing like what we see on TV, there are no armed tough guys going around taking out the bad guys, in reality its more like 50 cops apprehending one armed perpetrator through a highly organized process involving a lot of communication and preparation. We also eventually realized that in order to meet the challenges of real life we could not rely upon armed militias and instead needed a highly organized and proficient centralized military guided by a series of checks and balances.

I'm by no means a pot smoking hippie pacifist; and as a pragmatist I'm well aware that a complete ban on weapons is unfeasible I also have no problem with people wanting to keep a handgun in the confines of their home even though they are more likely to hurt themselves with it as opposed to averting a home invasion. However I do think that the gun debate as a whole should be grounded in reality. This notion that "guns guarantee your freedom" is asinine, (in fact all rhetorical drivel from the American right prefaced with the word "freedom" is a load of crap). Most pro gun arguments are based on ludicrous doomsday scenarios and hypothetical situations (most of which would probably turn out better without the use of firearms anyways). This is exactly the kind of delusional nonsense that fueled Nancy Lanza's justification for keeping a large cache of guns in her house where she was raising an ostensibly troubled child. We'll all be better off by admitting that Nancy Lanza loved guns for the same reason why so many Americans love guns... because it's a lot of fun to shoot at stuff. I too admit that firing a gun is exhilarating.

 

[Virendra]

The reason 26/11 was such a mess wasn't due to the absence of an armed citizenry, it was due to the absence of an adequately armed and trained police force and a non existent protective mechanism to ensure safety of citizens. Indian cities are densely packed and chaotic to the point where even traffic rules mean nothing. The idea of armed citizens getting into firefights with 10 gunmen while a slew of other citizens and animals run around in the crossfire would be exponentially disastrous. If anything women in Delhi should be allowed to arm themselves,

The more well planned a city is or the law and order is; the less the people would suffer and lesser would be the need to arm themselves.
However arming in self defense isn't a matter of need. It is a matter of rights.
Citizenry is not supposed to charge aggressively at the terrorists. If you can shoot to save your life, that is enough.
But when 5 armed men can kill 163 and injure so many others, I'd say 5 legally (semi-auto) armed, trained and in practice citizen would have taken them down early and with minimal collateral if at all. We would be looking at a much smaller tally by all means.
I am not the supporter of a 'Guns free for all' season. I support reasonable reach to fire-arms for responsible and law abiding citizenry, after they've :
1. No history in crime
2. Have no history in physical/mental illness.
3. Trained for responsible, accurate use of fire-arms
4. Passed 21 yrs of age
1, 2 and 4 above are stated in the Arms Act 1959
I also favor an assessment of practice before renewal of licenses.
However, the reality of licensing (and consequently the self protection) in India is very different.
You can get a license without a rhyme if you have influence with the issuing authority or Cops.
But you will also be denied a license without a rhyme or reason if you do not have any influence.
Ridiculous riders like 'assessment of threat to life' have been added via MHA ordinance without even amending the Act. Totally in-constitutional.
How can someone else asses the threat to my life, when they cannot promise protection to me and when a random act of violence could befall anyone anywhere anytime. There are no appointments sought for that.
We can go on adding the if and buts. But the fact is, Guns can protect a society if the society behaves well with them.
Switzerland has for centuries been a solid example of what kind of societies and Gun cultures are needed in the present day.

however I doubt that would solve the problem because at the end of the day the root cause of danger isn't the lack of personal firearms but rather the utter lack of law and order.

Which brings us back to square one. Who is the most vulnerable when law and order is in a mess?
And how would these most vulnerable commoners save themselves, while the State travels (if at all) the long road to recovery of law and order?
There will always be the good people and the bad people. There will always be crime.
Man lives in a society because society leads to the production of security. When you aren't safe even goin by the accord of society and its institutions; more and more pressure of self-protection starts falling back on the individual himself (where it principally belongs).

You see once upon a time we in the United States had a similar problem in the frontier areas where the implementation of law and order was inadequate as was the footprint of a representative government. Ironically this was the closest we ever came to resembling the "ideal" of today's American right . Except in reality this scenario sucked, chaos reigned supreme and lots of people got screwed in spite of being armed to the teeth. This is exactly why a conscious decision was made to create a large scale standardized public safety mechanism through a responsible and responsive police force that was directly accountable to the people who had entrusted them with their safety. People were realistic enough to understand that firearm related confrontations are absolutely nothing like what we see on TV, there are no armed tough guys going around taking out the bad guys, in reality its more like 50 cops apprehending one armed perpetrator through a highly organized process involving a lot of communication and preparation. We also eventually realized that in order to meet the challenges of real life we could not rely upon armed militias and instead needed a highly organized and proficient centralized military guided by a series of checks and balances.

Organized crime and macro level challenges are always best left to Organized deterrence (State) and macro level measures.
Individual right to self-protection against personal threats and random acts of violence is a different game. State can't run as my bodyguard.
However good it may become, a State is just a system, a mechanism. It will have its limitations.

I'm by no means a pot smoking hippie pacifist; and as a pragmatist I'm well aware that a complete ban on weapons is unfeasible I also have no problem with people wanting to keep a handgun in the confines of their home even though they are more likely to hurt themselves with it as opposed to averting a home invasion.

Training on safe use of a Gun is no rocket science. Cops are people from among us and we don't even need to train as heavy because our need is only to save ourselves ans what is ours.
The occasional accidents that arise, happen when people without awareness of safe use would lay hands on the Gun.
Need is not to ban guns (ironically bans work only on the ones who go by the law) but to cultivate a better Gun culture, an aware society.

However I do think that the gun debate as a whole should be grounded in reality. This notion that "guns guarantee your freedom" is asinine, (in fact all rhetorical drivel from the American right prefaced with the word "freedom" is a load of crap).

The days of Gun guaranteeing freedom are gone if they ever were around. I'm not arguing on that level.

Most pro gun arguments are based on ludicrous doomsday scenarios and hypothetical situations (most of which would probably turn out better without the use of firearms anyways).

May be, I don't know what you read. But I know what I speak of.

This is exactly the kind of delusional nonsense that fueled Nancy Lanza's justification for keeping a large cache of guns in her house where she was raising an ostensibly troubled child.

Having a socially awkward, mental case son after a divorce, taking him to shooting range and keeping firearms in easy reach. She brought it on herself and cost many other lives. That is not how you own Guns in a family. That is how you invite death.
I can cite umpteen number of cases where armed citizenry save theirs and their love ones lives; even saved Cops from criminals.
Sadly, they don't make big news. The number of crimes avoided/aborted due to legal fire-arms presence also does not make news.

We'll all be better off by admitting that Nancy Lanza loved guns for the same reason why so many Americans love guns... because it's a lot of fun to shoot at stuff.

I don't know about Americans reasons and to be honest I think reasons of loving gun and needing guns are two different things.
One may despise someone's reason for loving guns as 'loony' and 'hot headed'. But reason for needing Guns aren't as filmy.

I too admit that firing a gun is exhilarating.

It is a good, exhilarating sport. They say sex and martial arts are also exhilarating I'm optimistic on that.

I wish I could take you to Gun license application here in India. You would understand where I come from.
In case you want, these are other relevant threads for more reading :
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/politics-society/24591-you-authorized-defend-yourself-24.html
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/americas/39339-gun-control-laws-america-debate-6.html

Regards,
Virendra