Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Does having a gun in your house make you safer?

Asked by ETpro (34217 points ) April 2nd, 2013

First, let’s look at proof that you can use a firearm to defend yourself, your family and possessions from an attempted home invasion or finding and intruder or intruders already in your home. How often this occurs is tough to establish. There are a limited number of studies, and their methodology often suggests that they were designed to arrive at a particular answer by partisans on one or the other side of the gun safety debate. But a reasonably reliable measure comes from a 1982 study of male felons in 11 state prison systems. This study found that:
    •   34% reported that they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim,”
    •   40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun,”
    •   69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.”

In addition, if you watch the evening news for your local area or read the newspaper, chances are you’ve seen reports of home or store owners using a firearm to protect their life or property. I know I have seen numerous reports of this. Many years ago, I also personally repelled a would-be home invader with my M1 Carbine when he pushed open my front door. So I know from firsthand experience that having a firearm can provide home protection.

Now, how about proof that having a firearm nearby may present a danger to its owner or the owner’s loved ones. Again, I know from observing the news that some people with a firearm in their home end up with themselves or a family member getting shot with it, either when a criminal reaches it before they do, they accidentally discharge it, they are involved in domestic violence that escalates to the use of the firearm, or they hit a low point in their life and use the weapon on themselves to commit suicide.

Certainly, there are plenty of alternative ways to kill oneself, but studies do seem to suggest that those having easy access to a gun are more likely to kill themselves than those who don’t have one immediately available. Perhaps this is because other methods of committing suicide take more planning, or may seem more threatening due to the possibility of suffering before death, or failure leading to discovery and commitment to a mental hospital.

So we have two basic premises here. 1—A gun in your home can be used to protect you and/or your family member/s. 2—A gun in your home can be used to harm or kill you and/or your family member/s. And so the question, which is more likely to occur? “Does having a gun in your house make you safer, or less safe?” Certainly this has been studied. What do well conducted studies show?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

294 Answers

WestRiverrat's avatar

It really depends on the household. If the firearm(s) are properly stored and everyone in the household is properly trained, then I believe the household is safer.

If the firearm(s) are improperly stored and/or there is inadequate training in the household, then the household is less safe.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’m assuming you mean in the US. Have you ever considered the number of armed hunters in the woods in any given state during a fixed hunting season and looked at stats on accidental shootings? I just wanted to throw that out there for your consideration. I haven’t researched your question yet. I am sure it is a lot easier to research hunting licenses than it is overall gun ownership.

I saw a stat I haven’t confirmed that says 680 Americans were killed accidentally with guns between 2003 and 2007. Considering the number one cause of deaths in the home is from falls, 6000 a year, I don’t think accidental shootings in the home is a significant number.

Pachy's avatar

In a word, no, and knowing my neighbor has one makes me feel even less safe.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

I don’t think so. Mine are so inaccessible it would take too long to get to to repel a home invasion. I do that deliberately because I tend to sleepwalk. So I don’t think it makes me safer or less safe.

marinelife's avatar

Not according to statistics.

“But it is fair to say that personal firearms are much more commonly discharged in murder, suicide, and accident than they are in self-defense. That is a fact. Owning a gun does not make you or your loved ones safer. Indeed, a 2009 epidemiological study at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that people who possessed a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those who did not.”

Source

ucme's avatar

The only gun in our house is a nail-gun & that really hammers home the safety element associated with DIY home repairs.

RocketGuy's avatar

If a gun is properly stored, it would take too long to get out to protect yourself.

Another consideration: is breaking and entering a capital crime? Are you qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner?

Kropotkin's avatar

I imagine that this is one of those questions that when posed to gun owners, many will claim it makes them safer, and that the statistics suggest otherwise it’s because other gun owners just aren’t responsible or competent enough.

rojo's avatar

I would like to point out that here in Texas a DA, who was armed and supposedly vigilant after one of his assistant DA’s was murdered a couple of months ago, was gunned down in his house. In this particular case having a gun in the house and on your person did not save him or his wife. That having been said, I am glad he was able to own a firearm.
Info on attack for liberals
Info on attack for conservatives

KNOWITALL's avatar

Ours make me feel safer. They are in a locked case in a locked room, and we have no children. I have one in the hall closet if my husband is out of town overnight, and yes I do know how to use it safely, and use the safety.

poisonedantidote's avatar

Some people argue it is safer, others argue it is not. I think though, everyone would be able to agree, that it does make you more dangerous. An armed person by default is more dangerous, if that is true, then by default you must also be more of a danger to yourself.

With that said, I am not a fan of guns, but the way it is worded, specifically “your house”, I think I would argue that due to the advantage of knowing the layout of my house, owning a gun would make me safer. However, I will stipulate, only because of the way things are at the moment, in that I don’t have kids, and my girlfriend is away, so if I hear someone clattering around in the shadows, I know its safe to shoot them, knowing its an intruder for sure.

I don’t really like guns, and in most cases I think they are a danger. However, my anti authoritarian side does find the 2nd amendment of the US constitution to be a good thing, I like the idea of the government being scared of the people.

I think, allowing people to have guns, is the best way to go. The problem is, most of the people who own them, are not quite as smart as those who wrote the constitution. They get in the hands of gangs and what not, and are not really safe of good in most owners hands.

Once we ascend to Star-Trek levels of social ethics and responsibility, then allowing people to carry weapons will finally work.

tom_g's avatar

I don’t know. Not to derail, but I’m not sure a hard answer to your question would resolve this debate. It could be that for some people in certain circumstances, they are more safe with a gun in the house. For others, it could decrease their safety. But is this really the question that our attitudes are hinging on?

When defending gun ownership, sometimes stats are brought up to attempt show that more people are killed while picking up a bar of soap or eating a steak than by their own guns. But stats don’t really fly in this scenario because we don’t really live like this. We don’t act based on statistical chances of dying. We hug our children, feed them organic yogurt, then throw them in a car and drive them all over – despite the actual risk that they will be severely injured or killed in an auto accident. And I’m not really advocating that we live in a way that is strictly risk-averse. Rather, it might not be entirely honest for anyone to be throwing stats around in an attempt to justify their position on gun ownership.

As mentioned recently in another thread, we know that people who have an enlarged amygdala tend to lean right/conservative. An increased level of fear might lead them to see owning guns in the house as something that makes perfect sense, just like locking your door at night or wearing a seatbelt while driving. But to someone who doesn’t have this heightened sense of fear, the entire gun issue may seem to be insane gun lust and apocalyptic fantasy fetish. So, the question is – where do the stats come in here? What role would stats be able to play in this scenario? I don’t see them as having any utility because each “side” is using them to justify their own conclusions.

I will acknowledge right now that if the data stated unequivocally that having a gun in the house would make me safer, I would not own a gun. Period. Is this a rational decision? I’m not sure. Do we act rationally? We all think we do, but I would argue that none of us do. We needn’t go beyond our use of this fine site to dismiss the notion that we are rational actors.

So, what then would stop me from buying a gun? I don’t like them. I don’t hunt, and I don’t see a need to own one. I wouldn’t want to live in a town/state/country in which it was a risk for me to not own a gun. I would see this as a failed state, and would have to move on. If people around me started getting murdered in their homes because they didn’t own a gun, I would leave. There are plenty of things I can come up with to make my family safer. But I can reject those because I would be giving up too much.

livelaughlove21's avatar

One of my old high school teachers, a Republican US History teacher, posted something on Facebook recently revealing that he doesn’t know how a gun might make him safe when all that’s separating that bullet from his daughter’s room is drywall.

My mother in law and her cop boyfriend have a collection of semi-automatic weapons at their house, and I certainly don’t feel more safe at their house compared to my own gun-free home.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@RocketGuy If you have a good quick access gun safe you can safely store your home defense firearm and quickly access it too.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Well, it makes me feel personally safer, especially when my husband is working out of town. My kids don’t even know we own one and it’s too high up for them to see, so I don’t worry about that part.

I do know that having a gun in my home is better for any douchebag who tries to break in. I’ll kill him quickly with a gun. Without a gun, I’d have to slowly eviscerate him with my butcher’s knife.

glacial's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate “My kids don’t even know we own one and it’s too high up for them to see, so I don’t worry about that part.”

You realize that kids generally know a lot more about what goes on in their house than their parents know they do, right?

gasman's avatar

I remember seeing, in the 1980s, an article published in New England Journal of Medicine (i.e., a scientific study) suggesting that people are more likely to be killed or injured by their own weapon than to thwart an attack. This implies it’s better to not have a gun in your house. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control), a federal agency, also began looking at the public safety of guns as a cause of morbidity and mortality in the American population, but the political right pretty much killed off the notion that firearms are a legitimate public health issue of interest to government.

flutherother's avatar

I would as soon have a poisonous snake in my house as have a gun.

LuckyGuy's avatar

I have no children living with me. I live in a safe area and do not fear crime. However, I do have guns in the house. I store almost all of them in a locked gun safe. However, a .22 rifle and a handgun are as readily accessible as my tool box. The handgun goes out with me when I am alone in the woods or in a dicey neighborhood in another city. The rifle is used a couple of times a week for different reasons. They are tools.
I fear my table saw and pruning chainsaw much more than the guns. I treat them all with respect.

gorillapaws's avatar

Variables to consider: Does owning a gun make a violent conflict more likely? In other words in household A with a gun and an armed burglar may be much more likely to turn into a firefight with stray bullets hitting unintended targets. In household B without the gun, they may be less likely to try to resist and may escape without anyone firing any shots at all. How does that factor into the equation? Does a gun make the homeowner braver than he should be—after all the burglars could be much better armed them him, or there could be more than one that could flank him? In some situations, avoiding conflict is a much safer solution (even if you’re armed).

How often is a firearm used against it’s owners?

Is a firearm the only deterrent to burglary? I have a lovable golden retriever, but he barks like a rabid attack dog whenever a stranger shows up at the door. How well does a large dog deter burglars compared to a gun? What about other weapons? Would a drawn bow and arrow, or crossbow have also chased off the same burglar @ETpro? What about a baseball bat? a Katana? a butcher knife? Would that same guy have run away? What if @ETpro was a woman?

I think it’s an interesting question, that you’ve asked. I suspect that the ultimate answer is that there is a huge psychological imbalance between the protection gun owners THINK they have, and what their gun ACTUALLY gives them (statistically speaking). I have no data to back this up, except that it’s really common for people’s beliefs to be out of sync with reality in certain areas—especially when there is marketing involved (e.g. the salad you think is the healthy choice at that restaurant has more saturated fat than the double cheeseburger).

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws In some ways, you do make a good point. I know at least three people that have been robbed BECAUSE they have guns, nice ones. Reasoning is that criminals can quickly turn guns into cash at a pawn shop, or with drug dealers or people of that ilk who will ‘trade.’

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@glacial Even when my kids have found something strange while snooping in my closet, under my bed, etc… they’ve openly asked me about it. That why I had to explain to my oldest, when she was 9, what condoms are. They know we have guns locked in my father-in-law’s safe across town (for hunting) but they don’t know about the two here. And they’re both the type of kids that would say something if they knew.

keobooks's avatar

We had a rifle in our house. We got broken into and it got stolen. We collected the insurance for it, but used the money for something else. I don’t feel any more or less safe without it.

RocketGuy's avatar

How many jellies here have needed a gun to shoot a bad guy?

I am almost 50, and have lived in a developing country and in LA – scary places to some people. I have never needed a gun.

Some people talk like they live in Somalia or something.

josie's avatar

General anesthetic can remove you from the agony of major surgery. It can also kill you.

Guns can be used by their owners to repel intruders, but in moments of passion or incidents of carelessness they can be used by their owners to kill the innocent.

These sorts of dichotomies exist every where you turn in life. People only forget them when it is politically expedient to do so.

Having said that, my guns are locked up. My home defense weapons are a Louisville Slugger and a KA-Bar knife.

Most people who might break into my house are either stupid or fucked up on drugs or both. Either way, I know how to mess them up.

If they simply want to kill me, I guess they have me. It’s not like I am going to carry a loaded weapon around while I cook burgers on the grill.

Crumpet's avatar

Having good locks and an alarm system makes me feel safe.

woodcutter's avatar

It is one of the things that contribute to a secure home. It’s part of a package. It is good to have it and hopefully not need it. It will be used if the conditions allow. I’m not going to get into a punching fight with an intruder if I don’t have to.

genjgal's avatar

@RocketGuy Using the same logic, what makes a police more authorized to shoot someone than you or I?
The criminals aren’t usually trying to invade a judges home either.
I believe that in many states it is not legal to shoot an invader more times than is necessary to protect yourself. It’s illegal to shoot someone on your doorstep, since they have not actually entered your home.

—In response to @ETpro ‘s question—-
Guns don’t kill people, and they don’t save people either. It’s the people that save people. With good education, guns can be a tool in keeping the owner and family safe. Merely having a gun in the home does not necessarily make you safer. It’s only one piece of the puzzle, though it’s an important piece.

Feta's avatar

Well, I know a man with PTSD from being in Vietnam that has a gun.

He’s also racist and lives in a predominately African American neighborhood where kids come up to houses and ask if they can do yard work for money. These kids/men he perceives as possible intruders and threats.

Also, considering the last time I saw him he had the gun and was “jokingly” pointing the laser at us…no. I don’t feel safe when people like that have guns.

augustlan's avatar

My grandfather used to be a cop, and still owned a handgun while I was growing up. He kept it in a locked box on the top shelf of a closet, ammo stored separately. My husband collects guns (rifles and shotguns). They are stored in a locked gun cabinet, ammo locked up separately. Sensing a theme? In both their opinions, guns are more dangerous to household inhabitants than they are useful against intruders.

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat There are major issues beyond gun safety training, and those include anger management, depression and insanity. I guess you’d have to include stupidity, as well. A significant number of the annual accidental shootings occur when someone playfully points a gun they believe to be empty at a friend and pulls the trigger. Often, they have removed the magazine without checking to see if there was a round already chambered. Any decent gun safety training class should cover that, but given enough stupidity, training does little to modify behavior.

@bkcunningham Actually I was open to input from any part of the world, but the study I cited did come from the USA.

As luck would have it, I searched for “us deaths from accidental shooting” and found this, which has the 680 number you mentioned, but it is the number killed in the US in 2008 alone. The number of accidental deaths had been declining over time, but began to tick slightly back up in 2008. My guess is accidental shootings have been decreasing on average because the number of households owning a gun has been decreasing.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room Given your concern, I probably shouldn’t share this story. But discretion has never been my strong suite. True story. Way back when, I worked for Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. in a huge room full of draftsmen and engineers. There were many hundreds of us in that room. One smallish guy at the other end of the engineering building was incredibly timorous. His startle reaction was always in high gear, and you had to be quite careful to approach in his line of sight lest he piss his pants.

His neighbor also worked in the engineering hall, and told of a sad confrontation he had with a wayward dog. The neighbor noticed a dog that was for some reason scratching at his front door and making a ruckus. Our timid friend had warned all that he was armed with a Browning 12 gauge automatic shotgun. I guess the dog’s scratching was too much for the easily frightened man. He chambered a round and blew a massive hole in his front door. The recoil pointed the tiny man’s aim straight up, and his second shot took down his chandelier and opened a passage to his second floor. The recoil from that shot spun him around toward the back of his living room where his third shot killed the television set.

Fortunately, while the shotgun holds five rounds, Virginia law at the time required owners to load no more then three, so the carnage stopped with the death of the TV. Oh, and the neighbor who saw the dog that triggered all this mayhem was happy to report that the canine ran away with nary a scratch.

@Adirondackwannabe Do you keep it for hunting or the shooting range?

@marinelife Thanks for looking it up and providing the link. I guess that makes sense. Proximity to a gun has to be a major factor in the risk of getting shot by one. Therefore, constant proximity would have to carry an increased risk.

@ucme Ha! Nail guns were just coming onto the scene when I gave up carpentry. I wasn’t on the job when it happened, but a friend of mine totally embarrassed himself in very painful fashion when he accidentally nailed his foot to some plywood sub-flooring he was installing.

@RocketGuy The judge, jury and executioner idea is an excellent question with which to answer my question. I guess that’s up to each of us to decide. If it came to a fight to the death in hand to hand combat, would you let an intruder kill you even though you could turn the tables and win the fight?

I can tell you this. In the one instance where I did defend my household with a rifle, I had time to go get it because I heard a gang outside in the street hooting and hollering. They were throwing rocks at the streetlights, putting them out one by one. So by the time the gang member broke in, I was sitting on the couch with the M1 carbine loaded and a round chambered. I did not, however, pull the trigger. I was ready to, but he was an unarmed teen. When he saw the muzzle of that gun pointing at him, he said, “Oh sorry man, wrong apartment.” He went out the door and in seconds, the street was back to total peace and the entire gang was gone.

That was 1964. Today, it probably would not go down that way.

@Kropotkin Yeah, it seems to be shaking out just so.

More tomorrow. The hour is late and there are other posts I’ve yet to attend to.

rojo's avatar

Last night my daughters boyfriend was show off his new Smith & Wesson 380 handgun.
He handed it to my wife who made note of how well it fit her small hands.
After he told her what he had paid for it, he asked her “Don’t you want one of these”?

Her answer: “For the price, I’d rather have a working washing machine.”

glacial's avatar

@rojo Wow, I had no idea. If that’s how much they cost, it’s no wonder that the firearms industry is well-motivated to convince everyone that they need a gun to be safe in their own homes.

RocketGuy's avatar

@ETpro – I have martial arts training (including weapons), so am quite willing and able to put out a response to any threats. The advantage that I see is that my response can match the level of threat (excluding threats by firearms). So a burglar does not need to be killed if he comes into my house, etc. And a guy with a knife will be severely injured (maybe with his own knife, if I am lucky).

rojo's avatar

@glacial I believe he said it cost about $400.00 (+/-). Wouldn’t buy you the best washer but much better than what we have.

glacial's avatar

@rojo Same here. :/

ETpro's avatar

@rojo Thanks for the even-handed response.

@KNOWITALL My tendency is to believe the data, but I am very glad that the one time I needed a firearm for home protection, I had it available.

@poisonedantidote It would also be really nice to have a phaser you could set to stun.

@tom_g You’re arguing that this is the wrong question. You know what? I totally agree.

@livelaughlove21 Very astute comment. By the way, here’s what gunman Adam Lanza, the school shooter at Sandy Hook elementary, had in his house. Most of this collection belonged to his mother, who was his first victim. He was his own last victim. How safe did this arsenal make them? I know it’s just anecdotal evidence, but it speaks volumes to me. I think that the most paranoid among us are likely to collect the largest arsenal of lethal weapons, and they are also the most likely to use them in inappropriate ways.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETproI think that the most paranoid among us are likely to collect the largest arsenal of lethal weapons, and they are also the most likely to use them in inappropriate ways.”

Where to start deconstructing that totally bigoted, politically motivated and unresearched statement…
It’s time to hit the rack but we will correct this one together at a later time.

LuckyGuy's avatar

@glacial When someone mentioned the price you wrote “Wow, I had no idea…” implying that they were expensive.
As an engineer I am amazed they are as cheap as they are! I think the price should be much higher! Think about it like an engineering problem. The barrels need to contain an explosion that accelerates a mass from standing start to >1000 ft/sec in a distance of 3 inches in less than a millisecond. We are talking accelerations above 50,000 G! It must be designed to do it thousands of times, (typical spec is 10,000 cyclces!). It must do it in temperatures as low as -40F to over 120 F and it must be capable of being carried on a person without the possibility of accidental discharge. It must be small and light enough to be carried. It must resist water, body sweat, solvents, oils, dirt, etc. It must be capable of ejecting a spent cartridge and inserting a new round within 150 ms. And we have not even begun to address the need for aiming and putting the projectile on a target consistently. Technically, I find it amazing.

But, IMO, the most incredible production skills involve the primer that ignites the gun powder in the bullet. It is made of two dissimilar metals and shaped into an cylindrical cup with extremely tight tolerances so it can be pressed in the bullet case but not fall out as the temperature changes. It is loaded with a powerful explosive that must remain stable for decades, yet explode when the metal cup is hit with a very specific impact. After 5 years of shelf life this device must still work to better than 1 failure in 200! Amazing, but even I can come up with something that would do that. But here’s the incredible part… somehow, manufacturers have figured out how to make them for less than 2 cents per piece! I can’t even design a plastic package to hold them for that price!

woodcutter's avatar

@LuckyGuy I have miltary surplus ammunition from the 1940’s that lights every time. If it is stored correctly it will outlast us.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro said:”I think that the most paranoid among us are likely to collect the largest arsenal of lethal weapons, and they are also the most likely to use them in inappropriate ways” Ok, there you go again with that “arsenal” word. In a thread previous, I asked you to define that for us. You never did so this is your chance. How much of whatever it is that makes up an arsenal counts toward that situation? Is it 5 weapons….10 weapons? Or is it subjective? Is it based on emotional feelings? I could say: I think that the those who take SSRI’s and other legally prescribed meds for depression and other mental anomalies to include BPD who own One firearm or even a car, are also the most likely to use them in inappropriate ways” and it would be purely speculation on my part, based on light research. A statement like that is surely to light off a firestorm, especially here ,where there is a hefty percentage of members who use depend on these drugs. Therefore it becomes easy to understand how the majority here might be against gun ownership because they do not trust themselves with a loaded gun as they know better? If so, then that would show excellent judgement by them. Good Judgement that they impose on themselves, but not others? That’s where it gets sticky. If they think they would be better off and safer then of course the rest of us automatically benefit for the same reasons? They want to make that call?

It’s looking like you cast gun collectors in such a light to mean they must have some kind of mental defect because they desire more than they need. And here we are at that “other word”. Need. Who gets to define that? Karl Marx. “To each according to their needs”. Remember that little diatribe? We are getting into dangerous times when we allow someone to dictate, root word of dictator, how much individuals can have, based on some arbitrary definition of need.

There are always going to be people who do bad things to others. They will use their guns but more deaths are caused using arms and legs. Pick your poison. Using verbal poison to try to classify those you may not agree with is one of the oldest dirty tricks in the book.

KNOWITALL's avatar

One more thing, just remember that those of us in rural areas may need help before emergency personnel can arrive, my grandfather had to pull his gun out a few times, like wild dogs breaking into the chickenhouse, or an intruder on the property leaving the cattle gate open repeatedly.

A lot of us were/ are raised to be independent and to take care of ourselves, females included. I don’t think there’s any problem with being trained to use a weapon, and to keep your training up via target-practice or hunting. I don’t understand why anyone in this time in history would choose to be defenseless or rely on law enforcement. Here, our law enforcement encourages us to know how to defend ourselves. Our current waiting list for Sherriff’s office to get your conceal and carry permit is three months long.

woodcutter's avatar

Those who live in tightly packed compartments encased by common walls, in urban settings can incorrectly have the notion that the cops are just a few seconds away. That may be true but that in no way means they are out there for them at any given time. They will be on another 911 call a few blocks away making them completely useless to them. So hurry up and wait. Buying a gun and double locking it in a locked closet for safety is like not having one at all, so no wonder they may feel useless. Also ,Thinking it will do all the dirty work in a time of need is asking too much of it. Guns don’t defend us, we do that so if it gets hidden away and forgotten it is an expensive conversation piece. It helps to know how to use it.

RocketGuy's avatar

So we are down to solving conflicts by killing the other person?

WestRiverrat's avatar

@RocketGuy When the other person is trying to injure or kill you, the proper response would be to incapacitate him or her with the least effort necessary. If you are big enough and fit enough, you probably won’t need a gun.

But if you are a wheelchair bound invalid or a small woman and your attacker is built like a professional linebacker, beating him/her up isn’t an option.

RocketGuy's avatar

My martial arts instructor was 5 ft tall. I out weighed him by 30 lb. Once he threw me so hard that when I opened my eyes, I was 6 ft away and flying upside down through the air. Judge him by his size do you?

We had small female black belts in our dojo, and they were wicked good!

It takes hard work to get there, but martial arts also builds mental strength, which will help people deal calmly with bad situations.

People should not live in fear. There are better ways to live without fear, than to carry a gun.

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat Good point. If you’re going to have a gun in the home careful selection of the safe is vital to keeping it out of the hands of intruders or kids, but being able to get at it quickly when needed.

@WillWorkForChocolate I can understand how having the weapon at hand makes you feel safer when alone. Just be aware that it you ever hit a bout of depression, it might be more of a threat to you than a source of protection. Stay safe. And if you do ever have to dispatch a douche-bag intruder with the death of 10,000 cuts, post video to YouTube and let is know the link.

@gasman good point to remain cognizant of.

@flutherother To each their own. I’d feel a lot more in control of a gun in my house than I would a poisonous snake.

@LuckyGuy I have great respect for chainsaws. I’ve discovered what it feels like when they kick back. While the gun debate is incredibly contentious, almost all of us climb willing into an automobile to zip here or there. Our odds of dying in a traffic accident far exceed the odds of being killed by gun violence or chainsaw accidents. But then, we don’t start going ballistic when people suggest we should be licensed, registered and carry liability insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

rooeytoo's avatar

You know the old bumper sticker, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!” I can see it happening here, in Sydney especially where there is gang activity, they all seemed to be armed and shooting each other. I’m not sure where that leaves the average citizen, but it is interesting to see the bumper sticker warning actually happening!

gorillapaws's avatar

@rooeytoo It reminds me of the old bumper sticker “when shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles are outlawed, only outlaws will have shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles!” The logic makes about the same amount of sense too. The world really would be much safer if anyone could choose to blow up an airplane whenever they felt threatened by it. Just think, if people in New York had anti-aircraft missiles then maybe the world trade center would still be standing.

RocketGuy's avatar

@ETpro – you bring up a good point about liability insurance. Gun owners really should have that, since guns by nature, are products that can hurt other people.

rojo's avatar

Note this weeks Gander Mountain Ad and the amount and type of hardware packed into the Liberty Tactical Safe.
Timely marketing ploy.

RocketGuy's avatar

I am actually glad to see “With rights come responsibility.”

rooeytoo's avatar

@gorillapaws – I think all it took was a couple of box cutters to bring down the plane. Who needs an anti aircraft missile? Maybe they should be banned?

gorillapaws's avatar

@rooeytoo I don’t think anyone will ever hijack a plane with sharp objects ever again. The old rule of “cooperate and maybe we won’t get hurt” is gone. I still think you’re missing point.

RocketGuy's avatar

What happened to respect for our armed forces and law enforcement personnel? Should we allow ordinary citizens to have weapons more powerful than what they have? Doesn’t that put them at risk?

rooeytoo's avatar

@gorillapaws I see the point you are trying to make, I just happen to disagree. What I said is happening here. There are stringent gun control laws which are adhered to by most but grossly ignored by criminals. You took your example way too far to be relevant imho.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@RocketGuy Martial arts training is all fine and good if you have more training than your assailant, or are located where there is affordable training available.

Not everyone has access to martial arts training, or the time it takes to become proficient enough to protect themselves. I don’t deny you the right to choose the self defense method you are comfortable with.

Why do you want to deny others their right to choose the method they prefer?

RocketGuy's avatar

1) it’s excessive force, driven by fear.
2) a free for all on gun ownership will result in our soldiers and law enforcement getting out gunned. If citizens are better armed, you might as well defend yourselves. But for sure they have more training in using their weapons and training in civilized rules of engagement. You want each person to take the law into their own hands? per their individual interpretations? Per their emotions? You know the shooter will be biased in their interpretation, since they will be directly involved.

woodcutter's avatar

If someone has violently breached a person’s home and is making threatening posture to the occupants, both parties understand whats going on. How many aggressors who were shot by home defenders ever exclaimed;“I can’t believe the guy/ girl shot me!”

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro defended himself and his home with a gun. Did he use excessive force? @ETpro did you purchase your M1 because you were afraid?

All states have clearly defined rules for self defence. It is for a jury of their peers to decide if the rules were not followed. From my experience the jurists that have CCW permits are the hardest ones to convince the shoot was justified.

When the civilian population is better armed than the police and military, there is usually less violent crime. There were fewer homicides per capita in the well armed ‘wild west’ than there were in NYC, Chicago or Washington, DC for the same time period. Most ranch hands were better armed than the military that patrolled the same areas.

woodcutter's avatar

The cops out in the rural areas are spread so thin you hardly ever see one. Guess what, its getting to be that way in the more populated areas as cities try to pay for everything. You’re gonna wait longer for one to show up. The bad guy isn’t waiting for them. They are coming in.

Good luck.

RocketGuy's avatar

Let me know when they are coming. I’ve been waiting almost 49 years now.

glacial's avatar

@RocketGuy Yep, no one climbing in through my windows, either. Can’t say I’m even slightly afraid of it.

rooeytoo's avatar

My neighborhood is being targeted at the moment by thieves. Now of course if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them, I will go to jail and they will go free. I guess your chances of having an in home occurrence depends on where you live. It shouldn’t, but it does. If you are in an area where drug use and disengaged youth are prevalent, so is the increase in home invasions. I’m not overly worried either because someone would have to be stoned out of their gourd to challenge my dog, but I guess that is not such a far out idea either judging by the condition of many I see on the street.

woodcutter's avatar

@RocketGuy It’s been maybe 30 years since I had a guy try to come in through the bedroom window one night.

Ask me how far inside he got…..only if you want to know.

What I’m attempting to demonstrate is it may never happen or it may happen tomorrow. I mean hell, do you use your seat belts every time you drive because you really are scared you will need them? Brother, if I got that imminent feeling I was going to be in a multiple roll over every single time I got behind the wheel, I would get a horse.

But it is good to have those seatbelts in the absurdly low chance I do get in a wreck.

see what I mean guy?

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat I didn’t purchase the M1. My dad fished it out of the bay in Italy when he was sent over there to establish law an order post VE day. He was a PO1 in the Shore Patrol. He gave it to me.

I wasn’t afraid, but I have a cautious streak that leads me to be prepared. I did not use excessive force. Because I was armed and the intruder was not, no force was necessary other than the force of logic. If he’d made any threatening move, I’d have pumped a full clip into him and rapidly reloaded.

It’s true that states with an almost exclusively rural populations have more guns per household, and fewer homicides. However, it is not even remotely true that this proves pumping more guns into gang ridden areas would lower crime or gun violence. There are a whole host of complex considerations. Knee-jerk analysis is likely to be wildly off.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Pumping guns (or legal sales) into these shitholes in the form of innocent home owners won’t stop the gang bangers from shooting up themselves and other collateral damage. They will continue to do that regardless. More Guns in the hands of the law abiding won’t cause more crime unless, it becomes a crime to save yourself in which case the lesser of two evils is better than nothing. It is racist to deny people the protection the police won’t provide as we know the bulk of those who are always ducking for cover are minorities who live in those areas. It stands to reason that, one of the origins of the earliest forms of gun control was to make sure blacks could not have firearms. Its a bit of a long read but it is eye opening:

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/cramer-racist-roots.htm

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter Without background checks you have no Earthly idea who is a law abiding citizen and who is a homicidal psychopath with a rap sheet as long as your arm or a terrorist on the no-fly list.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Sure you can. We have to start someplace and expecting people to thrive in a combat zone where only the bad guys have all the firepower is impossible. Most Americans couldn’t imagine having to live with those odds. NICS. While not perfect is good enough for now to get the ball rolling so these people can get the relief they are entitled to under the 2nd amendment. Adam Lanza was denied guns by a dealer who would have made a lot of money if he could have sold him what he wanted. The system does work. But everytime one bad guy squeaks through we have people ready to throw out the system. There is never going to be a perfect system so we should come to terms with that. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is dumb. Why is it do you think that never do any of the major news outlets do stories about those times when the good guys win? Because they go against their agenda to ever portray the successful lawful use of firearms. This is what supporters of 2A are up against every day. News bias. This is why it amazes me whenever I hear about people bitching about how much gun rights orgs. push. They don’t have the msm on their side.

In a place like Chicago we all can agree, it’s not going to get much worse by allowing things to go like it is in the “free states” in the US. Fill out a form ATF 4473. This does weed out the vast majority of the bad ones, and while we are at it, how about arresting anyone who tries to buy a weapon who’s name comes up flagged. Don’t let them run out of the gun store when they know they were caught. Bust them right there and lock them up, fuck what ACLU says. After a while you won’t be able to physically force a fellon to walk anywhere near a place where guns are sold. We let people out of prison and they fuck up again, and again. The police is one huge tangled bureaucracy full of people who could care less. And for that reason nobody trusts them. Its way better to trust yourself.

ETpro's avatar

You’re conflating tow very different things. Background checks and total bans on law-abiding citizens being able to own a firearm are almost diametrically opposed, not the same thing at all.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Maybe we should just ban all democrats from purchasing guns. After all we have to start somewhere, why not with the party affiliated with recent highly publicized mass murderers.

The Ft Hood Shooter, VA Tech shooter, Newtown shooter and Colorado theater shooters were all registered democrats. So were the parents of the Columbine shooters.

gorillapaws's avatar

@WestRiverrat …Or hold gun manufacturers responsible for the damage their products cause. Every time a Colt is used to kill an innocent person they have to contribute $1,000,000 to the victim’s family. If someone is wounded by a Smith & Wesson, then they pick up the medical bills if the shooter can’t pay. When the true cost of guns are included in the products then the free market should sort it out. Right now the cost is being externalized onto society and being paid for mostly in the blood of poor racial minorities.

woodcutter's avatar

Making people/manufacturers pay damages caused by 3rd party players who are beyond their control is not fair. People throw out that one when they don’t want to concede we need to have personal responsibility. Individuals, I know…bad word for collectivists to comprehend, have to be accountable for their own actions. Hold manufacturers responsible if their products fail do do as advertised, not if someone uses them wrong.

gorillapaws's avatar

@woodcutter Read up on cost externalization. Guns are designed and marketed for killing, it’s not like it’s an unintended consequence, such as killing someone in a car accident (cars are designed to reduce their lethality). No one is suggesting abandoning individuals’ responsibility, but simply holding companies accountable for the products they create in addition to holding individuals accountable.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@gorillapaws when you advocate that auto makers, knife makers and ball bat makers be held to the same standard, I will consider it. Why should the manufacturer of a legally produced product be liable for the intentional misuse of that product?

Vehicles are used to commit crimes every day. By your standard, vehicle makers should be responsible for every crime committed with a vehicle. Knives and bats are also used to commit crimes.

woodcutter's avatar

@gorillapaws Every gun can be used in multiple roles. Sometimes target competition, hunting, and self defense. Most cases of real self defense the gun is never fired. That gun just saved two lives. Nobody who is sane will want to trade numbers between the murders and successful self defense uses. There is no comparison.

gorillapaws's avatar

@WestRiverrat Guns are designed for killing people, they are marketed as tools for killing people, and gun manufacturers are responsible for fighting all efforts to prevent intentional misuse. All of the other classes of potentially lethal objects operate the opposite way (e/g/ auto manufacturers are always expanding safety of their vehicles, while gunmakers are expanding the lethality of their products).

@woodcutter Well when you eliminate all of the cases of self-defense examples that could have been achieved by either escaping, or having a large dog, or a baseball bat etc. are you still so convinced that the total number of lives saved in situations where only a gun would have been an effective deterrent would outweigh the number of lives lost to murder and suicide via guns?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@rooeytoo I’m not sure why you think you’d go to jail if someone broke in and you killed them in defense? Call 9–1-1 first, if at all possible, then do what you have to do to protect yourself and your family. See link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

glacial's avatar

@KNOWITALL She is in Australia.

woodcutter's avatar

@gorillapaws So what….if guns are designed for pushing a projectile out of a tube? Anything in society can be used to cause damage and yet you expect people to just try to run away, or take years of martial arts classes…and still get their asses beat?

I have guns because I am compensating for something.

I am compensating because an attacker(s) will be younger, and more physically fit than I

I am compensating because An attacker(s) will be bigger, stronger and faster than I.

I an compensating because an attacker(s) will be highly motivated to harm me and mine, and has already figured out ahead of time what his intentions are.

I am compensating because even with a gun, all I can do is react to what an attacker(s) has in store for me.

I am compensating because those who are supposed to keep law and order are going to never be there when the time comes

I am compensation because there are people in this world who depend heavily on me being there at all times for them.

And I am not going to sit and hope some other person(s) jumps in and helps me in time.
If using an object that propels a projectile through a tube to kill stops someone who is bent on my destruction, is what will work, then so be it.

You are free do do whatever you think is right, if you find yourself in that kind of dilemma.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@gorillapaws All my guns are marketed and made for killing animals, except for one WWI Russian combat rifle I have, and when I have the time and money it will be rebuilt into a hunting rifle. Even my handguns are marketed for killing food or self defense from animal attacks. None of them were marketed as tools for killing people.

So if the gun makers stopped marketing their products for self defense, and sold them only as hunting implements would they then not be liable?

woodcutter's avatar

I find it hard to imagine a game animal really can tell the difference if the bullet that ends it came from an old military rifle, a self defense gun, or a bonafide target use gun. As long as the weapon has enough power to make a humane kill the same purpose was served. What anti gun people fail to understand is unless a particular firearm is a purpose designed tool, almost every variety of firearm can and does serve several duties. It then becomes cosmetic features that drive them to make the distinction between a “safe” gun and an “evil” one.

rooeytoo's avatar

@KNOWITALL – google it, there are so many cases where the homeowner is prosecuted. We live in a world where we feel sorry for the criminal and the victim be damned.

woodcutter's avatar

That is so wrong.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@rooeytoo It’s wrong. I encourage everyone to study the laws of their area very closely and always always try to flee or call law enforcement.

If (and only if) those two options don’t work, then protect yourself and your family to the best of your ability by taking the criminals down until the law arrives, or if no other choice is available and you face certain death, kill the creeps.

My local police allow you to protect yourself and your property if you are behaving correctly, such as when I’m walking my dog and we’re attacked by another dog. I am allowed to take the other dog out by law. Of course I’m a dog mom and would hate that, but if it had rabies or something or was mean as anything, I totally would and blame the idiot owners.

WestRiverrat's avatar

When you shoot someone, regardless of the circumstances you will be detained and probably arrested. You may be prosecuted for self defense in many jurisdictions sometimes depending on the leanings of the prosecutor. That is why we need well informed jurors to determine on a case by case basis if the home owner acted in a reasonable and legal manner.

rooeytoo's avatar

@KNOWITALL – it’s not up to the local police, it is according to the law. Cops enforce the law, not make it, well theoretically anyhow. And what @WestRiverrat says!

woodcutter's avatar

Its best to try to not shoot. Many times if the invader really sees your weapon it changes their plans quickly. But that should never be counted on. If you hurt the guy or end him there inside the home, I think it’s going to change the way a person thinks of his own home from there forward. And all the legal challenges and the fact of “fuck-I just shot someone here”. You will never be looked at the same again by those you know.

But anything is better than dead though and short of reading an attackers mind, one has to assume the worst from him. It’s going to be a bad deal all the way around.

If I end up on trial for shooting someone inside my house I hope I don’t end up with a bunch of liberals on the jury. They tend to feel sorry for the bad guy and since I’m a white male it isn’t going to look good if they don’t put aside their prejudices.

RocketGuy's avatar

If the invader sees your gun then he would think twice about continuing, but what if he does not? You would have to shoot him. Then he would know, but then he would be dead. Something less lethal ought to be able to send an invader away without killing him.

In our neighborhood, when burglars come to the door, they are scared away by people yelling “go away” or by a dog barking. No need to shoot them dead.

rooeytoo's avatar

So all the people who have been killed over the years by druggies, etc. looking for a quick buck could have been saved by yelling go away! Wow, isn’t it a shame someone didn’t tell them that sooner!

woodcutter's avatar

There needs to be an understood culture that assumes that there is a high probability of serious injury or death if people bust into a house. No punishing the ones who were terrorized and were forced into making a terrible decision. It sets in and that hopefully will stop these. If the murder was set up it could be figured out easy enough so if someone says go away, better go away quickly. And never come back. They who are trying to break inside a house know full well they are doing something bad. Fear of losing it all is the only thing that makes some of them think. Its too bad they have let a meaningful life get away from them but then again those who have stayed out of trouble shouldn’t be expected to take the hit in the form of battery or death. When there is a face to face confrontation all that social crap never comes up. There’s no time for that. The situation becomes much more primitive.

WestRiverrat's avatar

If he sees my gun and doesn’t back off, it is on him. Odds are at that point he came in with the intention of doing me or my family bodily harm.

That is why in many states the guy sitting in the car can be tried for murder if someone dies during the commission of a crime.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@woodcutter @WestRiverrat As if my first choice is to kill another human, not even slightly. But like woodcutter said, better on trial for self-defense than dead.

@RocketGuy Even pit bulls can be tricked by food or nose sprays, or simply overwhelmed by human strength. The only other thing you can do is aim not to kill, which gets dangerous and tricky, especially if you have an intruder inside your home. I encourage everyone to take a self-defense course, always.

RocketGuy's avatar

Agreed – your hands and feet are always available, and any hard object can be used as a weapon. Never walk around in fear.

WestRiverrat's avatar

How does being armed equate to walking around in fear? If that is true then the local SWAT team must be the biggest bunch of fraidy cats in town, after all they are the best armed people in the community, and all of them here keep their gear at home.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@WestRiverrat I believe @RocketGuy is just saying that no one should live in fear, so learn to defend yourself one way or the other.

woodcutter's avatar

Expecting people to start depending on fighting skills is going to be lop sided at best. Most criminals are way more experienced with street fighting, unlike the rest of us who are just carrying on with our daily lives. It shouldn’t turn into a video game level of Mortal Kombat to make a “victory” have meaning. People in fear of injury or death don’t want victory. They want it to not happen in the first place. Some think that because they have degrees of successful martial arts training that we all should do it, no problem, right? Wrong. I don’t want to fight. I have other more important things to handle in my life. I could ask the same question that the no gun owners ask. I ask these martial arts fighters….“what are you scared of?”

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat Care to cite a reliable source showing that all those shooters were registered Democrats? It appears to have come from Roger Hedgecock, a right wing radio talk show jock with a long history of inventing facts to suit his ideology. I’d want to see some reliable confirmation of his claim, and searching Google for such, it isn’t there as far as I can tell.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ETpro It was going around fb a few weeks ago, I investigated and it was incorrect.

ETpro's avatar

@KNOWITALL Thanks. It seemed suspicious. I doubt Adam Lanza, at 20 and with his mental condition, was a registered voter of any sort.

Bellatrix's avatar

At what age can you vote in the US? Sorry to go off track for a sec, but I always assumed it was 18.

glacial's avatar

@Bellatrix But voting is not mandatory in the US. Apathetic citizens will not register to vote.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@glacial Don’t even get me started…one of my biggest pet peeves – lol

glacial's avatar

@KNOWITALL Oh agreed. In my country, too.

rooeytoo's avatar

Oh my, are we judging people for not voting???

KNOWITALL's avatar

@rooeytoo I used to feel that our votes count for nothing, and part of me still does think special interest/ $ will always trump the needs of the American people (I know hard to believe, right?!), that’s why it bothers me so much.

Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ was something even some Republicans were hoping would work. Even if we didn’t always admit it.

glacial's avatar

Our votes are powerful things. You just have to look at how politicians behave to see how afraid they are of them.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I was a teenager when the voting age lowered from 21 to 18. I was so freaking thrilled to be able to vote. I’ve never missed a year. In fact, I was in the hospital,very ill, this last election and I made my husband get special papers that allowed me to vote in absentia (or something.) I don’t remember it, but I found the papers in my bag of stuff they sent home from the hospital with me.

glacial's avatar

@Dutchess_III in absentia :)

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yeah, that! Thanks.

rooeytoo's avatar

I find that interesting, we are not allowed to judge based on how people dress, but we are allowed to judge based on exercise of voting rights. Isn’t it great how we can all manipulate just about anything to suit our own agendas!

KNOWITALL's avatar

We are not supposed to judge anyone ever for anything, my religion tells me that is only God’s purview. That being said, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion on things.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What’s the line between an opinion and judging @KNOWITALL?

@rooeytoo :)

Dutchess_III's avatar

And don’t forget the hinkeys!

rooeytoo's avatar

I often wonder about that too. When does an opinion turn into a judgement? I don’t have a middle man (religion, preacher, etc.) telling me how to act. I just use the golden rule and acknowledge my humanity and that of others as well.

glacial's avatar

@Dutchess_III Sounds like a good question to ask.

RocketGuy's avatar

Carrying a gun on the off-chance that one will be accosted is fear (unless you are going to a bad neighborhood [then it would be wise]). SWAT team carrying weapons into a danger zone – also wise.
Yeah, I was a scrawny guy, afraid of getting beaten up, mugged, etc. but not any more. And I don’t have to carry a lethal weapon to get there.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Hey @RocketGuy! Hi! Yeah…I just don’t live in fear that my house will be broken in to and I’ll be killed or raped at random. I’ve been stolen from in the past. Just recently, actually, some creeps broke into our garage and stole some stuff. But would I have killed them over a log splitter? No.
I actually don’t know anyone, personally, who has gone through a violent home invasion.

ETpro's avatar

@Dutchess_III To the degree that you know me through Fluther, you do.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Passing judgement on someone, to me means that you basically write them off for whatever offense you perceived in them.

For me, I am disappointed that my half-sister claims to be a Democrat but doesn’t vote and hates politics, and still love her anyway. Peace.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Wrong thread @KNOWITALL? :)

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Well shoot, it was @rooeytoo I was replying to from above, sorry darlin!!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Thanks, didn’t even know it was posted as another Q.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I posted it per @rooeytoo‘s suggestion.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Great, I couldn’t find it and I’m multi-taking right now..lol

rojo's avatar

Having a gun in your house does not make you safer.
It simply makes you armed, and some people believe, dangerous.
I’ll just go with armed.

ETpro's avatar

@rojo Indeed.

@KNOWITALL I love multi-taking. Enjoy it while it lasts and lasts as long as there are more multis our there to take.

gorillapaws's avatar

I know having a gun made this 4-year-old safer from that 6-year old intruder on his property. I bet if you asked his parents last week about how safe and secure their weapon was they would swear in Jesus’s name that the gun was secure and their family was much safer for having it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws First of all, what does Jesus have to do with that situation?

Secondly, full blame rests on the parents or guardians for not securing their weapon, unloaded, with children anywhere close, let alone in the home.

Lastly, some of us are actually quite smart, take classes and get certified, have no mental illnesses, and are fit for polite society AND own guns. I even know a few liberals that hunt and own weapons, hard to believe, but it’s true.

woodcutter's avatar

Makes me safer and can provide opportunities that most people will never, ever have… ever. The opportunity to get away from me alive before they become nothing.

Now tell me anybody, name some other situation where someone who has gone astray in their lives where they will ever get a deal like that. A deal that will have more meaning, sometimes even a tangible spiritual enlightenment that will change their lives forever? Few in life get such a gift.

ETpro's avatar

@gorillapaws, @KNOWITALL, & @woodcutter Those three comments taken together show why it isn’t possible in today’s political climate to even have a rational discussion about gun safety.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Wait, what,?? At the top of the thread you admitted doing the same thing I just narrated there so explain to the collective why it’s different when you do it vs me doing it.

I cant wait for this, You seem a little bitchish this evening, whats goin on bro?

This has been a habit with you lately, as if you engineer a discussion with an expected track it should follow, and when individuals oblige you causing you disappointment you want to snatch up all your marbles and say we are not doing it right.

You owe us.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter Not bitchy at all, bro. Yes, I have let someone I could have legally shot and killed walk away alive. I hope that was a life-changing moment for the kid, but I rather doubt it.

Be that as it may, I’m not picking on you for your part of the exchange. I’m just struck by the fact that there are such entrenched views, and that both sides talk right past the other.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Gods guns and gays. There are two types of people in those topics. The one’s who are ball hard in support and fence sitters waiting to see who looks like they are gonna win.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ETpro Key word “rational”, my friend…not full of incorrect facts, inflammatory comments, or assumptions.

@woodcutter God, guns and gays, I love ‘em all. :)

RocketGuy's avatar

Need guns in your home if in Somalia? Yes
Need guns in your home if in N. Cal? No

woodcutter's avatar

There can be no causation/ need that is accepted in one region that is lawful ,but say it doesn’t apply as much to those where the crime rate is lower. That is discrimination against those who live in better neighborhoods. If there is a right, it is for everybody I mean who gets to dictate who’s rights are more important?

Somalia…really?

RocketGuy's avatar

I’m not talking about rights, I’m talking about whether one is safer with or without a gun.

woodcutter's avatar

@RocketGuy That would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I don’t think anyone can make that call. Not those in congress who have shown they don’t even know what they are about. That would be as bad as law makers deciding on law regarding gay rights and don’t know anything about them or know any personally.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, to answer the question literally, if it makes you feel safer the answer is ‘yes.’

woodcutter's avatar

Well nobody really knows they are safe. It is only after the fact when they will know for sure.

ETpro's avatar

@Dutchess_III No, the question wasn’t what makes someone feel. it asked about reality, not feelings. The reality abundantly clear form the answers supplied that deal with reality and not feelings or anecdotal “evidence”.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Reality, then, neither yes nor no.
1) Having a gun might come in useful in scaring someone off. Yes.
2) Or having a gun pointed at them makes an intruder more aggressive so he whips out his gun and it’s the Wild Wild West in your house. No.
3)There could be an accident with your gun, killing someone off unintentionally. No.

RocketGuy's avatar

4) if there is a home invasion, and the thugs are armed, then you would be able to shoot them down and save your family. Yes

Dutchess_III's avatar

I named that @RocketGuy. It was #1 and #2.

woodcutter's avatar

I would find it hard to believe a person would go ahead with an attack knowing they are going to surely be in a gun fight once inside. Unless it was some kind of grudge and they’re out of their minds. I give the benefit of the doubt cautiously, that these guys don’t want to die. In places where it is frowned upon to use lethal force they will be more confident. That, and the bad guys realize they have the full force of the law on their side.

If it is accepted and encouraged in an area where most people keep loaded guns in the home it is going to weigh heavily on the minds of the bad guys amongst us. How could it not?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@woodcutter You’re one of the bad guys amongst them??? We better start keeping our BB gun by the bed! (It looks like a hand gun. :)

woodcutter's avatar

@Dutchess_III That could work but it probably won’t. I keep my BB gun in the closet.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@woodcutter a reasonable person would probably be dissuaded from entering if they knew a gun was waiting. But then how many reasonable people break into a house anyway?

Unfortunately around here the people that decide to break into houses are usually under the influence of a controlled substance and their ability to reason is one of the first things effected.

woodcutter's avatar

Like I was sayin, I’m trying to give them the B O D while my front sight covers their 10 ring

RocketGuy's avatar

How come no one has mentioned bullet proof vests or Tasers? Is our mindset stuck on Mutually Assured Destruction?

ETpro's avatar

@Dutchess_III The data show quite clearly that those with a gun in their home are twice as likely to die from gun violence as those who have no gun. Sure, in any given instance, things might turn out differently. But the question was about the overall safety or lack thereof that having a firearm in the home provides.

@RocketGuy Unlikely. There have been a large number of home invasions where the homeowner had a weapon, but the thugs came in armed, perhaps in body armor, guns loaded and drawn. If you have kids in the home and your gun/s are securely stored, chances are you will be shot dead before being able to return fire.

Organized criminals for the Mafia to the Drug Cartels shoot it out all the time. He who shoots first generally wins. Same goes for the Bloods and the Crips. Home invasions. Drive by shootings. The aggressor usually prevails simply because the person/s being shot at are in a hail of bullets while trying to locate and draw their weapons.

@WestRiverrat There are certainly burglars and second story men who would skip a place where they somehow knew or suspected the homeowner was at home and armed. By the same token, it they are determined, they will go in quietly and with guns drawn, silencers in place, ready to neutralize any resistance with deadly force. Again, witness turf fights with organized crime and with criminal gangs.

Brian1946's avatar

@ETpro

I also personally repelled a would-be home invader with my M1 Carbine when he pushed open my front door.

Was your door closed and locked when he pushed it open?

ETpro's avatar

@Brian1946 No. Actually that was back in the day when most of us didn’t lock up till going to bed. I lived in a duplex and we left the entry door and our apartment doors open till everyone was home for the evening.

ETpro's avatar

Mother Jones magazine ran this article, New Research Confirms Gun Rampages Are Rising—and Armed Civilians Don’t Stop Them may have some info that’s of interest.

rooeytoo's avatar

Take the guns away and they will use bombs instead.

ETpro's avatar

@rooeytoo The only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb. Wonderful… NOT!

Brian1946's avatar

So tracking and arresting Ted Krazynski was better than the FBI simply mailing him a bomb? ;-o

woodcutter's avatar

It is not the job of a Samaritan with their personal gun to stop anyone who is behaving badly with theirs, however if they think they can do it, I’m sure those who are bleeding out on the ground will give him the floor. So faulting someone for holding off on something like that is wrong. Some would damn them for that decision and if they do decide to act they will also be damned for not doing it better than they did.

The police have no legal obligation to do that either. At least with them, nobody truly expects them to be there when it counts anyway.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter I’m not faulting anyone for trying to stop a crazed shooter. What gave you that impression? All I am saying is that converting every street corner into the Gunfight at the OK Coral is not the answer to reducing gun violence in America any more than having individual citizens running around with IEDs in a good spy/bad spy game is.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK. So “they” used a bomb today in Boston. Or maybe 2 or 3 bombs. 2 dead so far, one an 8 year old child. Was the point proven? Sandy Hook, 25. Columbine, 13 dead. Boston, 2. WAS THE POINT PROVEN?

ETpro's avatar

@Dutchess_III The only point that any of these incidents have proven to me is the we need to get way better at dealing with mental health issues and that there are some people who must be taken off the streets before they injure or kill innocent people.

rooeytoo's avatar

Taking away the weapons is only treating symptoms. It is the disease that needs to be identified and arrested. But does anyone have the answer to that one????

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ETpro I fully agree with you on this, but not everyone does. I was just told by another jelly that arguing for mental illness funding was a ‘cop out’. We have to get it together to make a change.

rooeytoo's avatar

I think forcing someone to be treated for mental illness or addiction is a waste of resources. One cannot force another to be rehabilitated. It is also good to note that even when one wants to be treated or rehabilitated, it is no guarantee that the goal will be accomplished. If only it were that easy.

ETpro's avatar

@rooeytoo Institutionalizing a homicidal sociopath might not succeed in rehabilitating them, but it can keep them from killing a bunch of innocent people. To my thinking, that alone is worth doing. If, someday, we can rehabilitate them, so much the better.

@KNOWITALL Good for you. The one answer I find completely unacceptable, and in fact willfully ignorant, is; “There’s nothing that can be done to improve this.” That’s the age old, “I have no answer except that your answer won’t work so we shouldn’t even try it.”

woodcutter's avatar

@ETproAll I am saying is that converting every street corner into the Gunfight at the OK Coral is not the answer to reducing gun violence in America”

See that?....that right there?^^ Do you not believe that statement is over the top when thinking in real terms? Gunfight at the OK? C’mon man. Its okay here because there are passionate debates that happen on an internet q&a forum. It’s when people who make our laws do it and become so animated they loose the reality of things trying to appeal to the emotional side of people, trying to influence their decisions. Appealing to our less logical nature hoping for something that may well be well intentioned but useless in reality. I mean it’s not anything new, it’s is an old art and I might add quite a deceptive old art brought down from the ages. Did they really ever get rid of any witches in Salem? No, they just burned the fuck out of a lot of regular women who needed to be blamed for something.

And help me. Who the hell is wanting bombs for self defense? IED’s? Huh? Already illegal here in the states for a really good reason, although Andersen Cooper informed us all tonight on CNN any of us could whip one up just from information on the internet. Thanks for that bro.

Dude, really man I am killing myself up in here just trying to understand you and just when I think I broke the code, you come out with something like this. You go from one extreme to the other. If I didn’t know better I would say you are trying to be ambiguous just to fog things up some. Should I be insulted for trying ,or not?

WestRiverrat's avatar

There were no more shootings in the wild west than there were in New York or Chicago. The wild west is a myth created by Hollywood to sell movies, and before that by publishers to sell dime novels.

People think the term ‘an armed society is a polite society’ means the people are afraid of setting off the people with the guns. Usually it is the other way around, the CCW holder knows if SHTF he is going to get grilled over the coals, especially if he got into an argument with someone.

woodcutter's avatar

Violent crime has been trending lower every year in recent years, according to the FBI records. I don’t think that is because the number of guns owned have also been decreasing. Because they (guns) have been getting more prevalent not less. So what’s going on then? By all the logic of the gun control crowd this must be a typo or something. They can’t blame the guns for that, or can they? The mass shooters are a category all to themselves, mainly because they are so infrequent, and they horrify the most because the victims were more or less congregated in a safe place where crime is unexpected and probably to an even greater extent, the news media camps on a story for months at a time driving the story to almost legendary status. They damn near glorify the acts while at the same time talking out the other side of their mouths trying to be the first ones to hate these. They are highly motivated to amp these up bigger than life any way they can, as if they aren’t really bad enough. We all know they are bad, and need no one to tell us that.So it has to be the ratings wars to be the first ones to make these seem worse than their competitors can. It’s almost comical watching them cover these tragedies if they weren’t so serious.

woodcutter's avatar

@WestRiverrat If I was a betting man I would bet there are WAY more shootings today in our metro areas than there ever were in the old west.
CCW, If a person is carrying there had better be evidence that they tried to run their ass off to get away first. Because of the laws in some places, the guy with the gun is at a severe disadvantage in a fight. Of course these laws are in place to discourage CCW so that the legal problems you run into just might be worse than getting beat to death.

gorillapaws's avatar

@woodcutter “Violent crime has been trending lower every year in recent years”

There is a lot of evidence that supports the idea that Roe v. Wade is largely responsible for the crime drop.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter I’m debating not just with you, but with the NRA, an industry lobbying group falsely identifying themselves as advocates for the gun owning, hunting, and sport shooting general public. Their funding, however, comes heavily form the gun and ammo manufacturing corporations and their job is twofold. Say outrageous, idiotic things to take the heat of the arms industry, and lobby congress to shape legislation that will drive the profits of the arms industry ever higher no matter how many innocent people get killed thanks to the effort. It’s very much like the job of the lobbyist that fought so long and so effectively for big tobacco. Profits over people.

I am fighting against an NRA that will lie, distort, bribe… do whatever it takes to ensure that America’s mass murders are the best equipped and most protected of any mass murders on Earth, because mass murders buy guns and that equals profits, and they inspire gun control efforts, which lead to more sales and thus more profits.

What I favor is universal background checks. We do as much in licensing people to drive. It doesn’t infringe on any law abiding citizen’s rights. I favor stiff laws against straw purchases. Again, that’s not anti 2nd amendment. I favor limiting clips to 10 rounds. If some maniac wants to mow down everybody at a crowded public event, then force him to reload over and over. Numerous mass shootings have been stopped by unarmed heroes who jumped the shooter when he was trying to reload.

Regarding the comment on a good guy with an IED versus a bad guy with an IED, it should be obvious to you if you weren’t so vehemently in favor of guns everywhere that it was a jab at the NRA lie that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Police apprehending someone who has violated gun laws can stop a bad guy with a gun too, and do so before he shots anyone with it. And the instances of civilians with guns stopping bad guys with guns are few and far between. Most gun crimes that get stopped end up with a shootout between the perpetrator and a massive police presence including heavily armed SWAT teams; or with the perpetrator turning his gun on himself.

I wish I could find the video, but exhaustive searches have failed to turn it up. But less than a year ago, we had a violent robbery attempt at a convenience store here in the Boston area. Two bad guys came in armed, and pointed their pistols at the clerk. He pulled a snub-nosed revolver from under the counter and opened fire on the two crooks. They returned fire while heading for the exit. The clerk pursued them into the street continuing to fire at them as they ran away. Police counted 14 shell casings at the scene. Nobody was hit. Thank good fortune that some innocent bystander wasn’t cut down. At least in that instance, the good guy with a gun posed just as much threat as the bad guys.

Now, put guns in the hands of ALL criminals who can gather or steal enough to buy one, because you are dead set against background checks. Felons, terrorists, and the mentally deranged must be able to buy all the guns, massive clips and ammo they want according to you. And since they are all armed, every private citizen better be carrying. Gunfight at the OK Coral? Far worse than that. The Gunfight at the OK Coral occurred because the Billy Clanton and the McLaury Brothers refused to abide by the Tombstone, AZ law that they not carry their firearms while in town. You want everyone carrying. That will not lead to peace.

woodcutter's avatar

Now, put guns in the hands of ALL criminals who can gather or steal enough to buy one, because you are dead set against background checks. Felons, terrorists, and the mentally deranged must be able to buy all the guns, massive clips and ammo they want according to you. And since they are all armed, every private citizen better be carrying. Gunfight at the OK Coral? Far worse than that. The Gunfight at the OK Coral occurred because the Billy Clanton and the McLaury Brothers refused to abide by the Tombstone, AZ law that they not carry their firearms while in town. You want everyone carrying. That will not lead to peace

Sigh….Now this has got to be the most hysterical,inaccurate, sky is falling rant I have ever seen by an educated person ever. You win. Congrats.

Reiterating, again, for the umpteenth time;You want expanded backgroung checks? Fine. Just make sure the language in a bill expressly forbids ALL forms of gun sale data mining in continuum. That condition has not been met so far, on purpose. Handing us a law that says it’s only illegal for the Attorney General to do it is not good enough. Thats why gun control in the Senate failed today. Only Liberals were fooled by this latest attempt at gun control which is a shame. They aren’t reading the fine print. If they had (voters), they would understand why this failed. Stop blaming the NRA. Blame yourselves, for trying to be too clever by assuming gun rights proponents (voters), aren’t paying attention.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro in my opinion, the background checks failed because if I go on an extended trip and want my buddy to store my guns while I am gone, I have to get a background check for each gun I transfer to him. Then when I get back, I have to get another background check to transfer them each back to myself.

This would qualify as a multigun sale, which in some jurisdictions is already enough to get you flagged for special attention by the local BATF-E agents.

woodcutter's avatar

And going to prison for crap like that is what bothers most people.
Part of the problem is the constitution itself. A part of the 5th amendment makes it unconstitutional for anyone to be a witness against themselves, in such, if a prohibited person attempts to buy a gun, they can fill out forms deceptively because telling the truth on them is self incriminating. Thats why seldom….really never, are persons prosecuted for trying to buy after they are found to be lying. They just get run out of the store, or they run out willingly. There’s a way ,if we could trust the govt to not go behind our backs and add our names to a registry, to stop prohibited persons and invade privacy. Okla Tom Coburn has the idea that a list of “prohibited persons” be accessible to gun sellers to check before selling to someone. I think even staunch progressives would be hard pressed to not want to keep a list of the bad ones VS lawful ones. If the guys name is not on there the sale could proceed. Todays bill would have probably been better for that, but the progressives still insist on these registration schemes of “one way or another” as if it would stop mass killings. Sandy Hook was from stolen guns, not guns that were sold to the shooter. But lets not let those facts get in the way please. Making fast new laws when people are emotionally incensed is a bad idea. All you end up with is poorly crafted feel good laws that will cause people to realize after its too late ,these laws didn’t go far enough and there will be cries for more laws after the next tragedy. There will never be enough laws for some people.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter & @WestRiverrat. You guys are both reading the NRA lies and believing them.

I don’t know if it makes any sense to call Adam Lanza’s guns stolen. His mom, a Domesday pepper, bought them all legally to make her paranoid self feel safer. Her “protection” ended up being her undoing. But it’s clearly true background checks wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook. But that’s not the only shooting in America. That claimed only 26 of the 30,000 people killed annually in gun violence in America. Universal background checks would prevent a worthwhile number of those deaths.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@ETpro I could just as easily accuse you of reading and believing the lies from HCI or whatever they call themselves now.

rooeytoo's avatar

Bet the people in Watertown wish they had a gun in their house right now!

woodcutter's avatar

The problem the gun control lobby has is, they are unmotivated. Case in point ; they refuse to learn anything about firearms because they are too arrogant. They believe they shouldn’t have to bother. Instead they think raw emotion will trump the hard facts of reality. Their tactics are seen right through. Especially when they throw out comments like “nobody is coming after your guns” They make the mistake by using the word “your” in comments. 2A is there for all of us, even those who say they support gun ownership out of one side of their mouths and preach restrictions and registration out of the other side. It’s there for us all so if that segment of the population who chooses not to care about gun issues project their wishes on the rest. I think using emotion is a far more a dirty trick than anything the NRA uses as well as many, many other gun rights orgs. who go mainly under the radar. Gun owners are motivated way more than gun controllers. Gun controllers prefer gas lighting.

augustlan's avatar

@rooeytoo I don’t know…I’ve been in a couple of lock-down situations, and once followed an armed man for several blocks while on the phone with the police. The thought, “Man, I wish I had a gun” never entered my mind.

rooeytoo's avatar

@augustlan if I had been in that neighbourhood with this apparently crazy person running loose and there was again apparently a pretty substantial risk that he may try to get into my house, knowing he was armed and dangerous, I sure as hell would have wished I had a gun!
Now if you were in so many similar situations, and you had no such wish, then you are either a lot braver or crazier than I am. I do think it is interesting that having lived in NYC, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NJ and suburbs of all, I never ran into anyone using a gun for good or evil. Where are all these crazy Americans with their guns???

augustlan's avatar

I grew up in poor neighborhoods, @rooeytoo. Lots of crime, a few gun instances.

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat I can cite the lies for you. Read what the NRA told their members and mailing list the bill said, then read what it actually said. The NRA lied. Truth is truth and lies are lies no matter who accuses whom of what. Reality doesn’t care about accusations. It just is.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro I will assume you like liberal writers. I just found this nugget by Anne Marie Wonder. Bet you won’t finish reading it all the way. before you puke in your mouth just a little
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/

woodcutter's avatar

Oops the writer’s name is “Kontra”

TulsaOkie1's avatar

Of course a gun in your house can make you safer. If home invaders broke into my house, they would be shot. Without a gun you’re going to be a victim.

woodcutter's avatar

A gun in your house in an area where most people also keep them will have a cumulative effect on the criminal element by making them want to go to an area where they believe they will have less resistance. What this will do is, people who don’t own guns living among many gun owners will, give a defacto shield from home invaders that wouldn’t have been there otherwise. Nobody breaks into a home wanting to get killed or even caught by the police. Having to tangle with an armed home owner all but guarantees this.

ETpro's avatar

It is true you can use a firearm to repel a home invasion. I have actually done it. Nonetheless, the fact is that having a gun in your house makes you very much more likely to die from gun violence. This is because a relatively small number of people die in armed home invasions. A very large number die in domestic violence, confrontations with visitors to the home that end up turning violent, children inadvertently getting access to a gun, or in suicides committed with a firearm.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Here is a good reason why people should not be limited in ammunition capacity.

augustlan's avatar

@WestRiverrat I don’t understand how that video (which is fairly graphic and should have come with a warning, by the way) supports your assertion.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@WestRiverrat So, that, like, if you’re a drug dealer you won’t run out of chances to kill the police?

ETpro's avatar

@WestRiverrat If it serves to do anything, that video shows why people should not have 30 to 100 round clips. Anyone entertaining ideas they can win a full-scale shootout with the police just through sheer firepower of one weapon is delusional. Start down that road, and you will soon be facing hundreds of officers, SWAT teams with full body armor and automatic weapons, stun grenades and armored vehicles. And that is as it should be.

woodcutter's avatar

Why should the cops have more firepower for their well being but not you or me? Their lives are worth more I guess. Cops are not first responders. They always end up being the last responders. You can’t knock them for trying but in the real world they will always be there a day late and a dollar short. Your mileage might vary.

Accidental shootings always are used as a straw man to make those seem more of a problem than having to defend yourself from someone who is not accidentally wanting inside your home. Accidents can be prevented by doing things that are under our control. When you have an attack on your home it is always the attacker(s) who is in control. All we can do there is react to what they do to us….or attempt to do.

WestRiverrat's avatar

How many times was the drug dealer shot before he went down? Seven shots would not have been enough to defend against him. The shot that went through his chest killed him, but he had to be shot at least twice more before he ceased to be a threat to the cops. He was hit 4 times by my count and the tree he was behind was hit more than he was.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, the dude’s firearm didn’t help much as far as his well being @woodcutter, did it. If he hadn’t had the gun they wouldn’t have shot him.

augustlan's avatar

@WestRiverrat I don’t think anyone is trying to limit ammunition capacity to anything fewer than 10, (but I could be wrong, maybe it’s 7?). Wouldn’t that be plenty? Even if an intruder doesn’t die right away, you sure as hell should be able to incapacitate him with fewer than 10 shots, don’t you think?

WestRiverrat's avatar

@augustlan did you read the bill that passed in NY?

Ten bullets is often not enough.

Angel Alvarez, who was shot more than 20 times in 2010 and survived. Or Howard Morgan, who survived more than two dozen gunshot wounds. Or, lastly, soldiers like Roy Benavidez,who somehow survived 37 separate “bayonet, bullet and shrapnel wounds” over the course of six hours.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_19698_7-deadly-things-you-wont-believe-most-people-survive.html#ixzz2TCoFjvhH

augustlan's avatar

@WestRiverrat No, I didn’t read the NY bill. What was the limit in it?

While it is possible that you’d need more than 10 rounds, it just doesn’t seem very likely. Allowing law abiding citizens to be prepared for the very small chance that they’d need more than 10 rounds means that every criminal gun could have that same capability.

Given the odds of a law abiding citizen using a gun to stop a crime vs a criminal using a gun to commit one, which is more important: Slowing the criminals down, or allowing everyone to have unlimited rounds? I know that self-preservation is a strong urge, but we need to think about what is good for the country as a whole, not just what is good for any one individual.

rooeytoo's avatar

It never occurred to me that criminals would obey the law and only purchase guns that have the 10 round limit. I figured they would obtain them through illicit methods and their guns would hold as many rounds as they pleased!

augustlan's avatar

@rooeytoo Well of course they would have access to illegal guns, at least for some time. But you have to start somewhere, you know? The rules we make today may make things better for future generations.

rooeytoo's avatar

@augustlan – not to be contentious, but since there is less violent crime and we are becoming a kinder gentler people than in the past, having learned that aggression breeds aggression, I thought things are already going to be better for future generations.

There will always be nutters & haters, (and their numbers seem to be on the increase). As I always say, I don’t have a really firm position on the question of guns and their ramifications, but I do see the irony and I think futility of so many proposed solutions.

woodcutter's avatar

@Dutchess_III I can’t do vids with this pos pc so I will have to defer to someone who can, and trust they would be honest. But saying any kind of gun or ammo mag didn’t work out well for someone, seems a bit disingenuous to use that one event as an example. As if you would hope that someone who wants to be prepared should suffer some consequence for that. “see what you get for wanting to have an edge?” Having a scant amount of ammo can never be spun into a tactical advantage. I mean if you stop an incident using two shots out of 15 total ready, was that an unnecessary overkill? So there are 13 unused bullets a defenders gun. What harm is it?

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter Why should the cops have more firepower for their well being but not you or me? Because I for one do not get thrilled when criminals are able to kill law enforcement officers. I want them armed well enough to go up against the drug cartels. I do not want my nest door neighbor armed with a 100 round assault rifle knowing that with its muzzle velocity, his shots from within his home can come through my walls and kill me.

If you are worried about stopping power in a home invasion, get a 10 or 12 gauge Browning semi-auto shotgun. There are some 10s out there. Unload 4 rounds of RR-buck into an intruder or group of them and they will not be getting up.

You keep focusing on yourself and I trust you are sane, law abiding, and only interested in using firepower to defend your turf. The problem is there are a lot of people out there that are not just like you. There are robbers, hit-men, drug dealers and their kingpins, numbers operations, thugs selling “protection” and nut cases. An AR-15 and a backpack full of 100 round clips in their hands can mean major carnage. I know there are numerous such clips out there now, and criminals can get their hands on them. But we can limit the number they can get if we stop making them commercially available.

RocketGuy's avatar

@ET – there is no convincing some people. I think they live in S Central LA. Thugs keep invading their homes, hence their need for heavy firepower.

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Well then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Just because an almost comparably microscopic number of gun owners do bad things is no reason to just say fuck it and force the rest of us to do with less. I think you and others are being mind fucked by the msm when pretty much every bad thing some a- hole does with a gun is televised over and over and over, aaaaaand over for days and weeks non stop. And nary a mention of when good guys with a gun actually do stop and prevent harm. Which is much more often than the bad guys deeds. I happen to believe that is dishonest journalism but I suppose the owners of a broadcast company can put whatever news they like, for us to chew on and there’s not much we can do about that.

You want the cops armed well enough to handle drug cartels? Because we all know they will be the only people they will use them on right?~ So you are worried about a hundred round assault rifle? Because they have high velocity ammo? So how much of a velocity drop will that same gun exhibit with a 10 round magazine? Do you think it will be any different? If it’s good enough for the cops, well then it’s good enough for us, the people who pay them.

A shotgun really? Just walk out on the balcony and let loose into the sky, huh? Or just blast a big hole right through the door without looking first. You do realize every single pellet of buckshot has a lawyers name engraved into it right? Do yourself and the rest of us a favor man, stop listening to Joe Biden for gun advise, you’ll be glad you did. Just because he is VP doesn’t mean he’s qualified to give anybody tips on how to survive a home invasion….this coming from a guy who has armed security 24–7 with the same guns he wants to make illegal for we, who don’t get taxpayer funded protection. My life is worth just as much as his, more than his, but I will admit to some bias there. It only takes one bad hit from someone you have never seen before and you’re done. I like the option of having whatever kind of firepower I can get. Even better if I never ever have to use it. That argument some use…you know the one, If you haven’t been attacked or killed before then you must not need these things. Really? The one’s who like the frequency of necessity reasoning should just stop using their seatbelts if they have never been in a car wreck right?

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter Seriously, how many times have you been robbed and personally attacked that you are this scared of the people around you? I have to know.

woodcutter's avatar

@glacial Hi. First off, not scared of any people around me. But I don’t have just myself to worry about. So now you know. One time I had a guy trying to come in through a bedroom window at night. And yes I sent one toward him, and he left us very quickly. Keeping a firearm handy does not necessarily mean a person is afraid. More like they don’t want to be a good victim. Do you really think people all have guns because they are scared? Some do but I will give them the benefit of the doubt they may have been victimized at some time in their past. I don’t want to judge.

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter “Do you really think people all have guns because they are scared?”

Oh, absolutely. To my mind, fear is the only reason one “prepares” for violent encounters. To me, the question is whether or not that fear is reasonable – which is why I asked if your vehemence was based on actual, first-hand experience.

woodcutter's avatar

@glacial It’s a many faceted thing. It’s a hobby in the form of collecting and shooting. I really like to shoot and participate in matches. They have a dual purpose. Almost all my firearms can be used for hunting if I was so inclined. Every one of them will work for self defense. Who here can predict the future? If you live in “crack alley” it would be wise to stay frosty because it is ripe for crime there. And since crime can happen anywhere, because no place is immune to it, it is a good idea to at least be as prepared for it any way you can. It only takes one time. It really isn’t all that much of an imposition. It’s too bad you choose to be that out of touch with why Americans own guns. For you ,being prepared is synonymous with being paranoid I guess.

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter Yup, that sure is how I view it. Here, arming oneself simply isn’t the normal response to a fear of crime. I don’t actually want to see it as a normal response to a fear of crime. In that respect, we live in very different universes.

woodcutter's avatar

Sigh…Its not just about being prepared for crime against one’s self. You could be a pacifist for all we know. I don’t fear crime. I don’t obsess over it. Most people don’t. I think you like to served, by others who make you wait. Independent personalities won’t wait for mediocre to truly bad service from others. Some choose to be pro active. You get to be a victim only once in this world sometimes. Can you honestly say your police force will get to your location in adequate time to stop someone? You would be the first. You must be from a different country .I am glad you choose to stay dependent on the police. Because if you don’t trust yourself with a PDW nobody should. I think that is the basis for those who would like to see others be disarmed. And that is they believe all should be on the same level because they themselves believe they would hurt themselves so they assume everyone will. It’s the whole flawed collectivist way of belief.

It’s not your fault :)

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter I’m not being condescending to you; there’s no reason for you to be so to me.

Police response in my city is quite fast, but I doubt that if someone were coming in through the window, they could do much about that. My response would probably be to make noise, or to grab something heavy. It would not be “I wish I had a gun now”. It would never be that.

My work requires that I am frequently in the backcountry, and I have had several solo encounters with wildlife, including bears and wolves. I carry bear spray, and I have never wanted a gun.

I am a Canadian. I live in a world balanced between a densly populated urban environment and a wilderness full of predators. I am independent, and a woman, and I don’t need a gun to make me feel or be safe. I have my wits, my instincts, my guts, and whatever is to hand. I have what I need. Anything that happens to me is my fault, and I am just fine with that.

woodcutter's avatar

You really mean you have never thought about having that little bit of an edge waiting just in case? Well, what has worked for some people would not necessarily work for others in their particular situation. Can we agree on that? I do realise that some peole who were not exposed to firearms much, or have been indoctrinated to dislike them would have cause to at least try to convince others they also should reject them.

augustlan's avatar

I’m an American woman who has seen my fair share of crime, having grown up in bad neighborhoods. Hell, I don’t like in a good neighborhood now, for that matter. And I see things very much like @glacial does. I’ve been a victim, and I’ve never wanted a gun, and never wished I had one – even in the middle of a bad situation. I caught a guy trying to break into our apartment in the middle of the night when I was a teenager, but my scream sent him running. Now that I married a gun collector, there are guns in the house but none of them are for self defense. To keep our family and friends safe, they are all locked up with the ammo locked up separately, as I noted above.

woodcutter's avatar

I just prefer not to stick my head in the sand and wear myself out hoping everything stays safe. Regret is what comes after complacency. There has never been an instance where this was not fact.

augustlan's avatar

I wouldn’t say I’m complacent about dangers. I think maybe we are just focusing on different dangers. To me, it just makes sense to go with the statistics when thinking of the likelihood of any particular danger actually occurring.

While I do lock my doors, and have had an alarm system in the past, I don’t worry overmuch about a violent crime, because they are relatively rare.

But since I have children and grandchildren who are in my house all the time, I do worry about one of them accidentally shooting someone or themselves, so we keep the guns locked up. If I had a very mentally ill person in the house, or even a very depressed person in the house, the guns wouldn’t be here at all because I’d worry about murder or suicide. Locking them up might not be enough to deter a very determined person, you know?

I couldn’t find more recent statistics, but according to this government site, “For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” The odds are in my favor, I think.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@augustlan that site only counts a gun used as if it caused an injury or death. Unfortunately there is no easy way to quantifiy the number of times a gun was used to dissuade an assailant from committing a crime without causing injury or death to anyone.

While that site is accurate in what it counts, it does not give the complete picture.

woodcutter's avatar

@WestRiverrat Spot on^^ There is the quandary of how to measure a negative. And here the negative is, for the sake of calculating how many times someone with a gun does not kill an intruder but, gets the same result. The result being the defender did not suffer an attack. Because the defender leaves that situation the winner- he walks away, literally, with nothing more than he had before the attack. This is often nearly impossible to measure not because they don’t happen, on the contrary, successful repulsions of personal attacks happen thousands, if not millions of times a year. The big problem is they aren’t’ important enough for almost any news organization to care about. Unless an intruder is wounded or killed setting into motion things like trauma center, police, news coverage, witnesses seeing or hearing the attack, thing like this technically didn’t happen. Even people who defend themselves successfully but still don’t call the cops because they have a big pot plant in the back room, just an example, and otherwise rather not make a stink about it.
It can seem comforting to some to rely on statistics to justify complacency, but even statistics have no real power to predict the future of any of us. I mean every single public shooting has been an anomaly. Bad things happen to good people. Having a weapon inside your home doesn’t have to be an inconvenience. In fact the main reason there would be any inconvenience felt is ironically by the laws that make it so.

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter “You really mean you have never thought about having that little bit of an edge waiting just in case?”

No. Never.

You know, your frequent use of the word “complacency” is equivalent to people on the other side of this argument using the word “paranoid”. So, if you don’t like the one… you might want to avoid using the other.

What this really comes down to is evaluating risk. We do it in different ways. If people weren’t getting killed, I suppose it would be a lot easier to respect each other’s differences of opinion and get on with things. But since they are, we have to keep going back to statistics. Eventually, there has to be a set of numbers that most, if not all, people will accept. Until then, this thing will keep going around in circles.

woodcutter's avatar

Whats wrong with the word paranoid? Or complacency? I just don’t think one group should use their experiences or lack thereof as argument as to why the other should follow their example. If you don’t like guns don’t get one its that simple but to say you don’t need one and therefor neither do others ,comes off a bit sanctimonious.

See?

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter “Whats wrong with the word paranoid? Or complacency?”

They are both pejorative. As is sanctimonious.

See?

RocketGuy's avatar

Now I really feel that I need a gun!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl1ujzRidmU

My daughter spends way too much time on her computer. This scenario is much more likely than a home invasion attack.

Shinimegami's avatar

At Japan cannot own guns. American friends own guns. They feel safer. One man draw gun when intruder enter bedroom at night. Are false statistics say people have guns more likely kill family, that is distortion. Mark Twain say, “Are 3 types of lies- plain lies, damned lies and statistics.” I see some answers quote fake statistics.

woodcutter's avatar

@Shinimegami That stat about gun owners having more of a chance of wounding themselves VS a home owner without a single gun there, is amazing. I wonder how many millions of dollars was lost figuring that one out.

woodcutter's avatar

@augustlan Of course there will be the chance of accidental shootings only where there is a gun accessible. I mean how can an accidental shooting even get close to happening if there isn’t any guns? It’s like saying owners of swimming pools will have a greater chance of drownings at their homes than owners of homes with no swimming pools. I mean does it really call for M.I.T. scholars to examine this to figure it out? That’s my point. What those studies do not account for is the people who don’t have gun accidents. That stat is trying to make hay of the fact that irresponsible gun handling is dangerous. Who didn’t already guess that? Letting kids play out by the pool unsupervised is also asking for trouble and you just watch…this summer gets into full swing and how many people drown at back yard parties and get togethers.

I have power tools that will rip arms out of their sockets or remove human extremities if you aren’t being careful using them. And yet I’m still in one piece after all these years. Some people are careless.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter Sorry, my ideologically driven friend, but that’s exactly the point. There are very clear statistics showing that on average, having a gun in your house decreases your life expectancy substantially. It does not increase it. It’s absolutely true that when a 3 year old murders a family member with a gun, it’s not an accident. It’s adult stupidity for not having the gun/s stored where small children cannot get at them. But it happens all too often. Gun owners also kill their family members in fits of rage far more often than do those who have no firearm available. Gun owners and their family members also kill themselves far more often than those who don’t have immediate access to a firearm. And finally, gun owners are killed by unarmed intruders who discover the weapon before the gun owner can get to it. This, too, is far more common than intruders killing someone with a knife from the kitchen or a baseball bat.

woodcutter's avatar

you calling people ideologically driven is just too funny

woodcutter's avatar

@ETpro Those stats are BS. You wan to know how I know this? Because they came from one of any number of sources you like to farm. Sorry but you know its true. No law is going to prevent anyone from being stupid. In fact it’s good that they can’t because it would unravel the ultimate global law of natural selection. Where would we be without that? Natural section puts a loser in their grave when they attempt to get inside a home they otherwise are unwelcome in. Because individuals like that are socially dead anyway. What if anything decent could these people have to offer humanity…being weak as they are?

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter “Natural section puts a loser in their grave when they attempt to get inside a home they otherwise are unwelcome in. ”

First, that’s not what natural selection is. Please stop that.
Second, not all of us want home invaders dead. That punishment doesn’t fit the crime.

RocketGuy's avatar

If the average IQ is 100, and most of us here have >100, then there are a lot of people out there with IQ >100. You want those people to have guns? That’s how accidental shootings happen.

augustlan's avatar

@glacial Agreed. My husband (who is a gun collector) had a conversation with his grown son about this, when the son said he was interested in buying a gun for home protection. Mr. Augustlan told him in no uncertain terms that killing a man who is stealing your TV is not an appropriate response. Unless someone is actively trying to kill you or a loved one, there is absolutely no reason to use lethal force.

He also reminded his son that the gun would have to be secured at all times (our 3 year old granddaughter lives there), making it pretty much useless for ‘defense’ anyway.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Very nice. Very, very nice Mr. @augustlan. I agree. NO material possession is worth a person’s life.

ETpro's avatar

I would never kill someone just for stealing my stuff. The poor sucker might be starving. For 1/10th of the cost of buying a decent gun, I can install a home security camera that will make lots of intruders reverse course and leave. And it will capture the image of the ones that stay, giving the police solid evidence to use in bringing them to justice. I’d only use deadly force against an intruder if I feared they planned to use deadly force against my wife or me.

woodcutter's avatar

The problem with home intruders is they are by nature dishonest most of them. And Who here can truthfully say they know the intentions of anyone they have never met? Not to mention someone they should safely assume is doing something without their permission. When a homeowner is faced with someone suddenly trying to get inside their home, there in no time to administer a Rorschach test. It’s not about personal property and we all know this, so please people, stop using that as the straw man argument (safety for burglars = safety for us all). It would be nice if we had guarantees that taking our shit was all they want each time. Hell, take my stuff, take it all it’s not worth the hassles of shooting someone. But there will never be any assurance that theft will be all that satisfies these people. I want guarantees. But that is impractical to even ask for. Every scumbag who knowingly enters an occupied dwelling has a plan for dealing with the people they are about to meet. If you want to take the chance that the guy is only going to snoop through your stuff to get what he wants and then leave, then that’s completely on you. The other people who also live there may have a different opinion, especially if it is one of them who gets the shit kicked out of them while you stand there hoping for it to all be over with in a couple minutes. There is the assumption that you just have to open fire to stop someone from doing something bad to you. Most people will get the hell away from there the second they figure out you can kill them. And the one’s who choose to stay and take their chances anyway well, those are the one’s that will make you sorry. Stop using “the poor and hungry street person just wanting something to eat” story. That hardly ever happens. If they are that passive they probably won’t be kicking in your door just for a sandwich. The one’s you should be worried about, if not for yourself…for the others you care about, are still desperate none the less, and they will do whatever they want to you if they can. It’s up to you if you want to give them the opportunity, the cops don’t care one way or the other.

gorillapaws's avatar

@woodcutter What kind of intruder isn’t going to be deterred by an alarm system with cameras and a big dog? The kind that’s well-armed, has the element of surprise and probably has friends with him. I don’t think your going to hold up well against those odds and would be safer trying to run.

You’re willing to accept all of the death, lives ruined, and expense that accompanies having a society that has the most firearms per capita, so that you can have the illusion that your weapon will defend you against the .00001% chance that the intruders who aren’t deterred by your security system, your dog, or the crossbow in your hand, will be defeated. There’s a term for that sense of control: Security Theatre.

You must have a very good security system in place since home protection is such a high priority right?

WestRiverrat's avatar

@gorillapaws The one that is hopped up on meth looking for the next fix. The one that knows how to defeat those cameras and poisons the dog. Trying to run is all well and good, but it isn’t always an option.

She ran and hid with her kids. How much good did that do her?

bkcunningham's avatar

Part of the issue with gun ownership has nothing to do with protection, IMHO. It is about liberty and living in a free society. If you don’t understand that, I can’t explain it to you.

@gorillapaws, all the death, lives ruined and expense that accompanies a society that has the most firearms per capita? Would you care to explain?

glacial's avatar

@bkcunningham “all the death, lives ruined and expense that accompanies a society that has the most firearms per capita? Would you care to explain?”

If you don’t understand that…

bkcunningham's avatar

Hahaha. Cute, @glacial.

woodcutter's avatar

@gorillapawsWhat kind of intruder isn’t going to be deterred by an alarm system with cameras and a big dog? The kind that’s well-armed, has the element of surprise and probably has friends with him. I don’t think your going to hold up well against those odds and would be safer trying to run”.

This is a joke right?

A home defense weapon is an option, just an option, along with alarms, dogs, etc. I have sidearm with 16 rds of hollow point 10 mm and can cover both points of entry simultaneously. I have planned for something like this because simply putting a new gun in your sock drawer and forgetting about it is not useful. If it looks like it’s going to be serious then I have the pump shotgun with 13 rds of buck and ball. . Anyone better armed than I am is going to be the military. Who’s “friends” are going to stick around to help when that first douchebag drops? None of them. You have just illustrated the need for high round count “clips” (sic) in your explanation even if you didn’t intent to do that.
If you have to run away from your own house you are so screwed. Read what I have already posted. There is no way to ever know what someone outside is planning. I’m choosing to be armed to the teeth and hope to never deploy it. It is going to be completely up to the bad guy if I do. Home protection? I can always get another home and possessions. I’m protecting my family. They are irreplaceable. Home intruders don’t give a crap about my family and the cops don’t either.

In case you have been ignoring the news lately, I can tell you that gun violence on average is dropping in the US. Our very own justice dept as well a the FBI stats bear this out. I can’t hold this ignorance against you really it is the fault of the msm not wanting to report this alarming trend, because it resembles good news. Gun ownership soaring to never before seen levels, and violent crime down. whoda thunk? You won’t see these stories on the common news carriers. You have to want to look it up.

ETpro's avatar

@woodcutter What level of security do you employ when you ride in or drive a motor vehicle on America’s roads? You are far, far more likely to die in an auto accident than in a home invasion. I do understand wanting to be reasonable prepared. But you are coming across as someone who lives in abject terror and laughs at those of us who are able to accept life’s risks without out hair catching on fire.

woodcutter's avatar

I like to be prepared for anything and I have had a life where I have never been able to take anything for granted.The way you prepare yourself is to cover your bases as best as you realistically can. Thats all there is to it. You have your way to do it, and others have theirs. There are some situations you can only hope for the best but if you study them almost anyone can find several things they can do to prevent a bad outcome.Or at least a less bad outcome. With me it is second nature. I never had much security as a kid nor was I cloistered in a privileged setting so I learned early to watch my own ass. If it is second nature it also becomes de-facto common sense. Abject terror? Heh no. It’s just not in my being to depend on others as would an individual who has brought into the collective construct. I think people like you hate the thought that there are unknowable’s in the world and it is just better to let the chips fall where they may and hope for the best. Personally, I find this to be grossly irresponsible and puts the welfare of one’s self as someone else’s responsibility. It’s also intellectually lazy to assume shit like that. And those who fall into that category tend to be the first ones to blame others, (litigious minded) instead of where the blame should squarely fall, and that is on them. I believe the crying and the pain will be worse for those who excepted risks “head on” by being passive about the whole thing because it really is going to sting for a long time after the dust settles after they have concluded from soul searching, they could have done more beforehand to have helped themselves or others. Especially if the loss was great.

Laughing at you ,”Hair catching on fire?” Really? It’s about personal choices and some choose to accept life’s risks without out hair catching on fire. Thats fine. They don’t get to say my choice is wrong.

You ,as a writer know, or should know, that the time when a view or opinion has run out of reason is when the holder of that said view uses ridicule or hyperbole as a staple of their argument. When you often do this, are you hoping to fool yourself, or the rest of us?

RocketGuy's avatar

There are some people who live far from law enforcement (e.g. out in the boonies), who have valuable things to protect. Those people should have firearms.

For city people, firearms are a diet pill towards feeling secure. Don’t have to work hard to have this item. It’s sole function is to kill people.

For me, I have gone the hard work route: 7 years x many hours per week in martial arts. I have no fear of muggers or bullies. What I have has more purpose than killing. My skills have prevented injuries from multiple bike crashes, prevented numerous car crashes, helped my skiing skills, provided healing massage/shiatsu, even allowed me to ballroom dance well. I spent the time and effort to address my fears.

I see most gun advocates opting for the easy way out. I don’t see any mention of extensive training (mental or physical) to properly use their weapons. How fast can they get their weapons out? How good are they at discriminating between bad guys and innocents?

woodcutter's avatar

If someone you have never seen before is trying to force their way into your home, I think it is a safe bet they are the bad guys. Why not just ring the doorbell? Or come over at a decent hour?

Learning martial arts is not for everyone. Having a gun is not the lazy way. They happen to be pretty expensive if you have ever bought one before. Some states make them a hassle to own. Old people or others that cannot be as physical the way they need to be to defend themselves are not lazy. Actually choosing to do hand to hand combat with an unknown turns it into a macho contest. Save that for the Steven Segal flicks. People defending their places don’t want contests. They want intruders to go away or better than that not come to their house in the first place. They definitely don’t want to just accept their fate and become the good victim. Well some do, apparently .There is no perfect “pill” for self defense we do the best we can.

RocketGuy's avatar

The last time my “old” Sensei slammed me to the mat, it took me a while to get up… A slightly younger visiting Sensei sent me flying, and I landed 6 ft away, upside down. If you have maintained a victim mentality all your life, you will need a gun for a quick fix to feel safe.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@RocketGuy I probably train with my firearms as much as you train. You say your Sensei can throw you around. How many martial artists have as much training and skill as your Sensei?

I am above average with my firearms, but I still don’t expect to beat the professionals in any of the shooting sports I compete in.

woodcutter's avatar

You cannot apply logic to the anatomy of a fight. All plans go out the window at the first contact, and all both parties are left with is to react to what the other is doing or what they think they may do. You don’t have a manual for that. If you are intruding into someone elses space, or, home you are in the wrong. The only sensible tact to take is to assume the intruder is there to harm. Attempting to do otherwise would be over thinking it.
My point is I don’t have the victim mentality. I think you know this. I refuse to be a victim and, its just not all about me. There are others in the house who depend on me to survive any attack. Doing hand to hand fighting is taking an unnecessary chance. My point is if the situation develops into a fight it has gone too far. If you have the time to learn martial arts well then good for you, take a bow. I’m not about to get into a fight with someone in my own house. The guy is going to get lit up. I know what to do and I have practiced so I’m not going to be dangerous except to the guy who’s being wrong at the time. If the bad guys think the worst that can happen if they get inside is a sound ass beating from an “expert” it is not going to make them afraid. If they think they are going to die it is bound to make them pause. I’m fortunate to live where the benefit of the doubt goes to the intended victim here, instead of the blight on society druggies who want your stuff at all costs to feed their selfish dependencies. I wonder, how many will have the courage to put a very big sign in plain view in front of their home reading “no guns zone”. What would be the harm? Or how pissed would they be if their gun owning neighbor put one on his lawn reading “my neighbor has no guns in his house”. Nobody wants to advertise they are unarmed inside their home, even if they hate guns with a passion. They aren’t that stupid.

glacial's avatar

@woodcutter Where I live, you don’t have to put up a sign to indicate that you don’t have a gun. Here, most people don’t have guns for self-protection. Somehow, we all still manage to go about our business, not being scared of the guy who you are convinced is about to crawl in through our windows. Hell, I don’t even close my windows at night. Still not scared.

woodcutter's avatar

So, You will put up that sign and post pics?

glacial's avatar

Yet again, you are deliberately missing the point.

RocketGuy's avatar

@woodcutter – you’ve been watching too many kung fu movies. It only takes 3 seconds to break an arm. That’s what Japanese police do if you come at them with a knife. Most do not carry guns.

woodcutter's avatar

@RocketGuy Thats what I mean. You have to be trained to do those things. If you are a poser and try to fake out an attacker it is probably going to end badly. Most people(insert percent of population) don’t have the time to train for that. And they don’t want to. People who are desperate are incredibly and surprisingly powerful. Even you cannot possibly claim you can beat everyone. There is no way to predict how you are going to fare in a punching fight. or in a shooting fight when only the other guy has a gun. I know, because i have drilled in my own place in the dark- empty weapon, that if someone gets inside with the big dogs and alarms going he is going down if I shoot him. All the way down. If he’s jacked on anything they may be impervious to pain. So be it. So you go ahead and break his arm. We don’t have silly mag restrictions and it may well take several hits to finally stop the guy. I can shoot fast. But I’m not about to get inside the guys reach and try to punch my way to a win. Not inside the confines of a room. Furniture and other shit in the way. I don’t want a macho see who’s better contest. It will be impossible for anyone to just appear inside my zone without announcing their presence well in advance. I have trained. My weapons have blinding white light illuminators. No target ammunition in the HD weapons. I have done my homework and it didn’t break the bank or have to spend hundreds of hours away from home studying something that may never get any use. Not everyone can learn the fighting arts and I don’t have the luxury of time.

Who will an intruder be more afraid of, me or you?

glacial's avatar

Oy vey.

RocketGuy's avatar

I use my skills all the time. They are not just for breaking arms.

woodcutter's avatar

Well as long as they make you safer when you have them in your house then that’s what matters

Dutchess_III's avatar

I had some people pick up some free stuff from our curb the other day. They came to the door first to make sure they could really take the stuff. They had come from a big city to here on a Greyhound bus. They had $7.00 in their pocket when they got here. They had secured a place to live, but they had nothing else so I started casting around for other things they could have.
I had a dresser I didn’t need, so I asked Dude if he wanted to take a look at it. He came in, and said, “I can’t believe you just invited me into your house! That would never happen in San Diego!” or where ever they were from…I forget. Big city tho.
I said, “Have you really looked at my dog?” The dogs had piled out the front door and greeted them when they first showed up, and they were exclaiming how big and beautiful Dakota was. They were petting them and hugging them. They were obviously dog lovers.
When I asked if he’d ”...really looked at my dog,” he turned to look again. Dakota was lying down, head tilted, tongue hanging out, smiling a little. When he looked into her eyes her tongue went in, the “smile” disappeared, her head came to level, and she dropped it down a few inches so she was looking at him from under her brow. And in a split second, there it was. A clear, unmistakable warning. “I kill you if you threaten anyone here, including the cat!” He turned to me with big eyes and said, “Wow.”
I said, “Yeah. I’ve only seen her mad 3 times in the 8 years we’ve had her, and it was terrifying! Plus she was a trained attack dog when we got her, so I’m not worried.”
“She was a trained attack dog?”
“Yep.”
“I wouldn’t be worried either either!” he said.
I’d take a well trained, very intelligent dog over a gun any day.

bkcunningham's avatar

How many dogs do you have, @Dutchess_III?

RocketGuy's avatar

I’m sure our dog kept numerous burglars away too.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have two @BK. One is Yupid, though.
Yupid Dutchess
Smart Dakota She’s kind of giving me The Look here, because it was only her 2nd or 3rd day with us, and she wasn’t sure what I was doing….She doesn’t like having her picture taken either!
Together

Yeah @RocketGuy. You don’t have to worry about a dog going off accidentally. A dog is going to be aware of a problem before you. A dog can THINK.

bkcunningham's avatar

Cute photos, @Dutchess_III. The one of Yupid Dutchess laying over Smart Dakota is priceless.

RocketGuy's avatar

@Dutchess_III – right, my dog could tell the difference between shady people and local kids selling stuff. Sometimes before I got to the door.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have millions of pictures of Dutchess as well as other dogs and kids and cats lying on Dakota! Everybody lays on Dakota.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@RocketGuy We had a lab once, Asa. We’d take her to our shop during the day. She was really friendly, never growled….until one day this sleazy looking guy with long hair came in and her hackles went up and she growled. I was there by myself. She instantly knew something about him that I didn’t, other than he was unwashed. But lots of people who came into our shop were unwashed!

woodcutter's avatar

My dogs get rowdy and teeth- out if strangers come out, but I don’t believe they would ever bite anyone. They are big and loud and they make people back off. They don’t know they won’t bite. So the end result is the same. It’s worth the dog hair in the house and poop in the back yard to have that ring of security. Even if it is superficial at best.

bkcunningham's avatar

How would people with dogs react if others wanted to restrict how many dogs they can own and not allow them to keep dogs that are “terrifying” and capable of hurting others? Well, all dogs are capable of hurting others and some people are terrified of all dogs. Why would anyone want a trained attack dog? Should you be allowed to have a dog around small children? ~

woodcutter's avatar

All I have to say about that is, it’s a good thing guns don’t have minds of their own.

WestRiverrat's avatar

@bkcunningham most towns already do all those things, especially with pit bulls.

Makes as much sense as limiting the number of bullets you can have in your gun.

ETpro's avatar

The CDC just completed a major new study of firearm related deaths and injuries. The actual data pretty conclusively show that neither camp in the political debate over gun safety is dealing with the actual facts.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@bkcunningham There ARE laws regarding how many dogs (and cats) you’re allowed to have. I don’t what the number is, but as I heard on a dog training show once, if you have more than two, you don’t have “dogs.” You have a pack.
It isn’t good for people and it isn’t good for the dogs. Can people really take adequate care of 4 or 5 dogs?

I have a trained attack dog, but we didn’t go looking for one.That’s just how she came. And we had to work a little to get the attack mentality out, and her own, gentle nature back in. And she guards children.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Wait BK…. you mean why would anyone deliberately get a trained attack dog! Good question. It is so unnecessary and dangerous. As dangerous as having loaded guns lying about.

ETpro's avatar

This just in: Even though 89% of people in the Granite state supported the background check legislation, last week, at a No More Names rally in Concord, NH, gun violence survivor John Cantin was heckled by a group of pro-gun supporters of Senator Kelly Ayotte. An especially aggressive heckler got extremely personal, but still John refused to be intimidated, and bravely continued to share his story.

Please take a minute to watch this shocking video, then share it with your friends and family: http://nomorenames.org/johncantinwatchandshare/

bkcunningham's avatar

Why do you have your trained attack dog, @Dutchess_III? You said in your post about the guy coming to your house to pick up some things that your dog was a trained attack dog and was “terrifying.”

Also, @Dutchess_III, laws regarding the number of dogs people are allowed to have would fall under local jurisdictions. Some places don’t have any sort of laws regarding the number of dogs. But my point is you wouldn’t want to have to get rid of one of your dogs because someone thought she was dangerous or because someone thought you were not capable of controlling the dog in your house.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@bkcunningham I said ”.....we didn’t go looking for one.That’s just how she came. And we had to work a little to get the attack mentality out, and her own, gentle nature back in. And she guards children.”

You need to read the whole post. The guy loved the dogs, especially Dakota. He came by the other day to bid on painting the trim on the house, which we had discussed the first time we met. Then he said, “I actually just came over to see your dog!” and got down and petted Dakota. I said she could be terrifying if the situation warranted it. Which, so far in her 10 years, has been 3 times. She was specifically protecting some one in each case. It wasn’t a random snarling and growling and barking at some random person.

If someone was actually terrified of my dogs, if my dogs terrified someone and I ignored it and the law got involved, I would be mortified. It would have never gotten to that point. If my dogs ever threatened someone and I just ignored it, I would deserve what I got.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Also, I don’t quite understand the comment ”ou wouldn’t want to have to get rid of one of your dogs because someone thought she was dangerous or because someone thought you were not capable of controlling the dog in your house.”

The problem most people have is controlling their dog when it’s outside, in their back yard where they can go over, through or under to wander the neighborhood uncontrolled.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Dutchess_III, this is the post I was referring to that you said your dog was a trained attack dog and terrified you:

I had some people pick up some free stuff from our curb the other day. They came to the door first to make sure they could really take the stuff. They had come from a big city to here on a Greyhound bus. They had $7.00 in their pocket when they got here. They had secured a place to live, but they had nothing else so I started casting around for other things they could have.
I had a dresser I didn’t need, so I asked Dude if he wanted to take a look at it. He came in, and said, “I can’t believe you just invited me into your house! That would never happen in San Diego!” or where ever they were from…I forget. Big city tho.
I said, “Have you really looked at my dog?” The dogs had piled out the front door and greeted them when they first showed up, and they were exclaiming how big and beautiful Dakota was. They were petting them and hugging them. They were obviously dog lovers.
When I asked if he’d ”...really looked at my dog,” he turned to look again. Dakota was lying down, head tilted, tongue hanging out, smiling a little. When he looked into her eyes her tongue went in, the “smile” disappeared, her head came to level, and she dropped it down a few inches so she was looking at him from under her brow. And in a split second, there it was. A clear, unmistakable warning. “I kill you if you threaten anyone here, including the cat!” He turned to me with big eyes and said, “Wow.”
I said, “Yeah. I’ve only seen her mad 3 times in the 8 years we’ve had her, and it was terrifying! Plus she was a trained attack dog when we got her, so I’m not worried.”
“She was a trained attack dog?”
“Yep.”
“I wouldn’t be worried either either!” he said.
I’d take a well trained, very intelligent dog over a gun any day.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@bkcunningham It was terrifying to see, fights always are, but I, personally was not terrified. It wasn’t directed at ME. It was directed at other dogs who were being aggressive toward us. It was scary because she is so gentle, it was shocking to see what she was actually capable of if severely provoked. I didn’t know she had it in her! Hasn’t your husband or someone you know, who is normal very even tempered and mellow gotten very, very angry with someone else, to the point it looked like it was going to come to blows, and you happened to be there when it happened? I have a few times, and I was scared, even though none of it was directed at me. I just happened to be an onlooker. I’ve seen a few bar fights. Scary, even though I wasn’t a part of it.

PS: You could have simply posted “I said, “Yeah. I’ve only seen her mad 3 times in the 8 years we’ve had her, and it was terrifying! Plus she was a trained attack dog when we got her, so I’m not worried.” that part. I would have remembered without having to read the entire post.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I hope you understand what I’m trying to say. Violence terrifies me. However, it’s reassuring to know that if you’re the target of the violence there is someone there who will and can protect you. Would you like it if some guy started aggressively hitting on you in front of your husband / date and your husband / date ran away because they were afraid of confrontation and left you there alone with the guy who could do who knows what to you? On the other hand, if your husband/date stepped up and, in no uncertain terms, got rid of the guy, scared him away (which can’t be done sweetly) and then sat back down with you, watchful and alert, would you be terrified of your husband / date after that? No. Of course not.

Dutchess_III's avatar

LOL! My peaceful and gentle son, who is the father of a little girl, 16 months, and another little girl due here in October, just posted this. Says it all @bkcunningham. Don’t. Mess. With. My. Family.

bkcunningham's avatar

I do not depend on anyone else to take care of me. I will always be my daddy’s pretty little girl. He taught me to protect myself. (-;

Dutchess_III's avatar

Where in my post did you see that I depended on someone else to take care of me? I was a single mom for 10 years.

My also dad taught me how to fight and change my own tires and oil. I took self defense classes in college. I was also a 2nd degree yellow in Tae Kwon Do when I was in my 20’s. I’m strong and quick, but I don’t delude myself into thinking I could actually defend myself against a couple of large dogs attacking me, or a drunken crazy man, taller, stronger and younger than me.

Dutchess_III's avatar

One time in college I was at a party at someone’s house. They had the friendliest German Shepherd dog. I left, several hours later, at about midnight, slightly drunk, by myself, and began walking the five blocks home. I got about a block from the house when that German Shepherd came running up to me. I kept telling him to go home, but he wouldn’t . He’d run off and explore, but always came back if I called him.
Well, it took a bit, but I finally realized I’d walked at least a mile in the wrong direction…toward the outskirts of town. I turned around and started walking back. A car load of guys pulled up, slowed down, and started to stop. I called the dog, who came running up and planted his paws on my chest. The guys in the car took off.

I wonder to this day what could have happened to young, stupid me if that dog hadn’t followed me home. I’m pretty sure I could not have defended myself against all 4 or 5 of them.

glacial's avatar

@Dutchess_III I think that @bkcunningham is trying to hint that she prefers having a gun to having a dog, and that any government attempt to regulate the number or type of guns one has is analogous to the government attempting to regulate the number or type of dogs one has.

@bkcunningham I apologize if I have misread your posts, but it is getting difficult to follow the conversation, because one can only guess what you are trying to say, or how it relates to the question. Directness can be so very useful. If I have misunderstood, do please correct me.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Oh. Well, if that was her point, it went completely over my head!
Well, if that was the analogy I think it would be perfectly logical for the government to regulate the number of dogs that someone has, if that someone is too damn dumb to figure it out for themselves. Unfortunately, too many people are too damn dumb to figure things out for themselves, so we have to have government regulations.

bkcunningham's avatar

Thank you @glacial. You got it. Here’s how my mind works and why I tried to, as you said, hint at the point I was trying to make. I know that @Dutchess_III leans more toward allowing government officials to control her own and others’ lives than allowing others the rights and the liberty to make decisions for yourself. I was hoping that I could direct her to see things from a different view by using her beautiful and precious dogs. It didn’t work. Sorry to derail the thread. I need to learn how to be more direct without being confrontational or fearing that I’m coming off as confrontational. I think people are more open to listening if you aren’t pushy or arrogant about your opinions. I need to work on that. Thanks @glacial.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No. It didn’t work because I didn’t connect the obscure dots. Our “friends” showed up tonight to pick up some compacted cans, and Dakota went out and greeted them. However, if, on our first meeting he had said, “I can’t believe you let me in the house!” and I pulled a gun on him to show him that I was not afraid, I imagine it would have been a whole different story. Whole different story. They wouldn’t ever have come back. Is that what I wanted? Not necessarily. They need some help (don’t go accusing me of being a Christian now!) However, would they think twice before coming in with ill intent? Oh hell yeah.

As I see it, government steps in when people have shown they are too damn dumb to use their own common sense. Seat belts were invented. People refuse to use them, or to secure their kids with them. That is just dumb. So the government had to step in and make it a law.
A local woman was in a car accident just two days ago. Her 11 and 4 year old son were with her. They were wearing safety restraints (probably because the fines are a WHOLE lot stricter on children without restraints than adults without restraints ). She wasn’t. She’s dead and her kids are without their mother because, “Ain’t nobody gonna tell HER what to do.” She reserved the right to control her own life, and she exercised it. Good for her. She was an idiot.

I don’t feel like I’m being restricted in the least by the government. Not in the least.

jonsblond's avatar

@bkcunningham I’ve been following and giving you ga’s because I understood what you meant. You were clear to me. It’s not rocket science.

bkcunningham's avatar

I know, @jonsblond, but in addition to teaching me how to defend myself, my daddy also taught me to be kind to other people. I know you understand.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther