So, whilst looking up gun laws in Oregon - specifically, when lethal force IS authorised - I found this quote:
"You shouldn’t believe that a gun or other weapon is the best way to protect yourself."

So, I ask, what IS the best way to protect yourself?

Running? What if they run faster than you?
Hiding? What if they find you?
Simply not leaving your house? Robberies happen, and now you can't defend yourself from a worse crime, because you don't have a gun or don't want to use your gun.

With a gun, at least, if both parties have a gun, it's whoever: Has better aim, which can't be known.
Draws their gun first, which can't be known.
Who fires first, which can't be known.
A fair amount of factors go into it, whereas the others is just luck.
The gun doesn't matter, as long as it shoots a bullet. The gun can and will defend you, whereas running/hiding/barricading your house does not.

If you're an American, I implore you, go legally get a gun, go to a shooting range, legally practice it. Legally defend yourself, legally defend your family. You are safer WITH a gun and WITH the knowledge on how to use it.

How am I safer with a gun? The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. Suppose that this "robber" was actually your son coming home from a party. You pick up your gun and shoot your son to death because you thought he was a robber. Statistically, this is far more likely to happen than a robber actually breaking into your home. The best way to protect yourself is to call the police. The police are trained professionals who actually know how to use weapons and not some white trash loser who practices at a shooting range. If you want to do it, buy a gun. I don't care what you choose to do. I personally think guns are a dangerous thing to have in your home.

Baritron : My neighbor was repeatedly flogged by her boyfriend last night. When she called the police, she hid in her car. He punched the window out and dragged her through it. About 30 minutes later, the police from about A MILE away showed up and arrested him. When I was little, several doors were kicked in at the apartment complex I lived in. They busted in, took what they wanted and left. Not very much longer after that, someone much older than I was got in my face and threatened to put my head through a car window. Shortly thereafter, one of my closest friends was pulled into a van and robbed at gunpoint in front of me. Not long after that, there was a drive by about a mile from our apartment because the people in the car thought a random pedestrian had flashed the wrong gang sign. Since we've been down here, some drunken old pervert told me he was going to insert firecrackers into a very specific place and light them. In all but that last example, the police didn't show up until long after they were needed, and in that last one, they were called on me instead of the other way around.

To be fair, a whole lot of white trash losers are actually god tier with firearms, probably more so than a lot of police, no offense to them. I should know, I'm around white trash losers all the time lol. Their motto is protect and serve, but that really isn't their job description. More often than not, the police are there to take pictures, file paperwork and enforce revenue enhancing laws, and maybe stop something from happening if it just so happens to be right in front of them.

Simply put, statistics are complete BS. Does math suggest that the scenario you've described is more likely? Maybe. But let's differentiate between math and reality here. The fact of the matter is that, despite there allegedly being more danger to family members if a weapon is accessible, what you've described just doesn't happen very often at all. Far less often than a sane, honest citizen putting down a rapist, thief, etc. Real life examples and history are much more valuable than hypothesis and numbers.

There's really nothing dangerous about an inanimate object. What's dangerous are morons, with or without a weapon. If you're on the right side of a weapon, then it's only dangerous to moron. I mean, I carry a knife with me literally everywhere I go. Not out of paranoia, but just because it proves to be a good multi purpose tool. That doesn't make me a danger to everyone at the grocery store. In fact, it has the inverse effect. I'm a good guy with something that can be used as a means of lethal force. While I'm still gonna be disadvantaged against an attacker if all I have is a knife, if I somehow manage to use that tool effectively, I save several lives. Replace the knife with a little pocket .380 ACP, and I have an equalizer.

The police can't protect you when you need it, nor can anyone else. The only person that can effectively have your back when seconds matter is you, and you're up a creek without a paddle if you don't have something to level the playing field.

A lot of gun owners are typically very paranoid people who have ammo stockpiles as they await the zombie apocalypse. It's like they live in the wild west and think someone will challenge them to a duel the moment they walk out their door as they head out to grocery shop. If you want to live in fear so be it. As for me I just don't care. If you want to shoot me dead then shoot me, I won't be the one living the rest of my life behind bars or in guilt for killing someone. If you want to, then stock up on firearms and pray to god you don't make a mistake with it. Also pray that none of your family members use it to shoot up a school or use it to kill you over a disagreement over political parties at your family thanksgiving dinner. Also, watch out who you get involved with romantically, not every relationship ends well when a gun is involved. We will all be dead in 100 years anyway so your protection is only temporary.

I can see both sides of the argument. I live in a country where guns are banned from public use, and its never a law I've felt needs to change. Guns cause more death than they prevent. A lot of accidental deaths result from people simply not being responsible enough particularly in the US and wide spread gun access (being able to buy them in convenient stores) make it much easier for would be criminals to get them. Statistics support this since most people who perform gun related crimes get them through straw purchase sales (getting them from someone else who obtained them legally).

At the same time I wouldn't necessarily be for banning all guns from public use throughout the US.. Due to the apparent gun culture there is already a lot of guns in circulation. In some worse off areas in the countries they can actually be a valid means of defense and a complete ban could end up hurting those who try to be law abiding citizens since the existing large sum of guns would just give rise to a black market. This is strictly based on the specific case of the US though, I agree with a ban on guns in principle since liberal gun laws is a major factor in why there is a problem in the first place. It's not a very sustainable option in the long term. More gun control with stricter requirements and forbidding people from having anything but specific types of handguns (with special exception if you have certain occupations) seem like the best compromise.

m0ssb3rg935 :  "statistics are complete BS" I don't really understand your argument here? Something along the lines of statistics are numbers therefore they don't matter, except they're composed based on actual events. That seems a lot more objective than historical accounts which can vary based on source and be twisted through the historian's bias, or real life examples which often refer only to a specific isolated incident giving a poor representation of society at large. WIth a statistical investigation any deficiencies that might give rise to skewed result are typically clear for everyone to see meaning it would be much harder to skew the results.

 Aside from that, the point that there's nothing dangerous about an inanimate object would be something I could understand if said object didn't give people power over life and death with the push of a trigger. They pose a serious risk factor through making it so much easier for someone to commit a crime through a lapse in judgement (which just about any human being can be prone to). Landmines and Nuclear Bombs are inanimate objects that technically pose little danger without human involvement but that doesn't mean everyone should have easy access to them. It's a slippery slope since people may be prone to acting prematurely even if trying to be "the good guy" and is a questionable way of handling it since in most isolated incidents there are non violent ways to resolve a situation. That's without taking into account the whole aspect of morality being subjective. Someone may think they're being a good guy by shooting someone who threatened a person close to them for example, but that hardly makes it the right thing to do.

I am a huge advocate of self defense... of course. The method you use for that, is up to you. With one exception, keep it legal. Guns are highly effective, but they have a certain permanence... but so do knives, ropes, whatever you decide to "pack." If it comes to the, "me or him" scenario... I'd much rather it be me. I won't go around attacking people, nor will I go for killing innocent people, but one issue, is whatever he is stealing worth my life? If you believe he isn't going to kill, is it worth my $50 in my wallet? Not really, if I act inappropriate to the situation, I compromise my life, and the lives of possible bystanders. But this is all only partially the issue. 

It's hard to statistically show prevention... you can't really measure the "amount" you prevented anything... a product can effect it, but you can't prove that it directly prevented anything... The TSA, has not really showed how many bombs it's prevented, and the same goes for a gun... How many people tried something, when a gun was showed, and then decided to back off? We don't entirely know. Do you really want to fill out a long police report, and possibly have someone investigate you for showing a weapon? Not really. 

Also, about Police... they don't prevent crime, they solve it... in post. They usually arrive to a crime scene, not at the scene when a crime is being committed, and that, my friends, is an issue. They almost never arrive at a time and therefore you need those preventative measures you can't measure. You either need a gun, someone who knows some kind of martial art, or be REALLY fit. If you want to outrun a criminal, you better do better than a 7 minute mile, just sayin. If you're going to hide, you better be the best hide and seek player in the world, especially if you're going to bet you're life on it. 

But, I can understand peoples problems with guns, and that's fine. I have my belief, you have yours. It's okay.

I am seriously glad I do not live in Oregon.

There is nothing wrong with using a gun to defend yourself or your property. There is an old saying,"God made man,Smith and Wesson made them equal." People are going to have varying degrees of ability but a gun can make it a more level playing field. Now,I know there are many people on Vizzed that are anti gun. That is your right. But if someone breaks into your house,is armed with a gun and is demanding everything you have,do you honestly believe the police will arrive in time to save you? I would rather have the option to defend myself and have a better chance of surviving the encounter,than wait for the police to show up to stop him.