Printable View
Arnold brings up an interesting point.
Kids and guns, like as not there are a LOT of guns and your kids are VERY LIKELY to visit a home with at least one gun and no adult supervision at some point.
If you don't have guns your kids still need to have a protocol they KNOW to follow when if they see one. Especially frightening is the fact that guns are an item of intense curiosity for kiddos. Putting the brain behind the actions.
Basically, for home protection IMVHO it is hard to beat a 12ga shotgun (20ga is fine too, especially if your wife/gf may be too scared of a 12er).
I too totally agree with your thoughts. Handguns are harder to shoot for the lady friend but the old skatter gun is much easier and more effective. Now that doesn't just mean that if someone breaks into your house to just go ahead and shoot them but it will definetly deter any predator if its present in your hands of hurting one of your family members. Home protection is very important because in reality everything that you own and have worked to hard for in life is in your home. Most importantly your children and wife. This of course is my opionin on our right to bear arms. :D
Spot on, lemon boy. I had a mother ask me once if I had any firearms in the house before she would allow her daughter to come play. I was taken aback, but now my wife and I ask before we send our kids into other people's homes, and we've had the gun talk with our kids.
If someone breaks into my house and gets by Cosmo the German Shepherd and his trusty sidekick Samson the Golden, who would distract them with tennis balls, they will be met by what they would least expect:
THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!
http://people.csail.mit.edu/people/p...anish/tt12.jpg
And forced into the comfy chair.
Good thread, good points.
I've owned multiple handguns and shotguns but only have an older Ithaca 37 20 gauge around anymore.
http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/ithaca37hs.jpg
I keep it in the closet in the bedroom, unlocked, but without shells. Unlike a baseball bat, which as mentioned by Parvo and others tends to be rather ineffective unless right on top of someone, and is typically used on the owner rather than the assailant. A shotgun has a nice distinctive sound when pumped, I would hope that I would never need to make that sound and threaten anyone in my home, but know that I would still have the option of defending myself with the shotgun if needed. Not all will agree with not having ammo, but I would rather not have it in my house to be used against me, or in an accidental matter on others, I don't have kids or many friends with kids that visit often, but feel better without having the two together.
People suck, it stinks that we have to arm ourselves in our own homes, but there is a need, arm yourself with something, a phone, a bat, a gun, something. Education is key, a fool and a gun is a dangerous thing for the fool and all of those around him.
Our house was robbed twice in Durango, once with a roomate asleep downstairs, kid was 6'2" and 240, also a gun fanatic. Guy didn't wake up until our TV and some other stuff in the living room was gone, next time they stole a bunch of CD's and a small stereo, but my roomates Husky did get a shoe.
Shit happens.
Interesting but I would suspect the agenda of the "COALITION for Gun Control."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
The coalition -- 7.4 million firearms
The Justice department -- 7.2 to 11 million firearms
The National Firearms Association -- up to 21 million firearms
Since I don't have the knowledge on firearms that people in this thread seem to have, I just have one question. What is the advantage of owning a shotgun or handgun versus non lethal protection such as pepper spray or a stun gun? I understand owning guns if you hunt or enjoy trap shooting but it just seems like an unneeded risk if you are only planning on using for protection.
I only say this because I've seen various friends who would probably say things similiar to what's been written in this thread. I keep it locked, my parents/friends taught me how to use a gun properly when I was young, etc. However, these same responsible people have also taken a shotgun around in a car in suburban NJ shooting up street signs, accidently shot a gun at the wall of their apartment missing by inches a shot to the head on a roomate who was in the next room, pumped six shots into the BMW of someone they didn't like just for fun and committed suicide. Just seems like a invitation for trouble rather than safety to me.
Tippster - guns kill people, like a spoon made Rosie O' Donnell fat.
there are also ways of safely having kids around a house, as well as guns. If I had kids, any guns I might have would be disassembled and scattered - real hard to make a gun go off if the trigger housing is locked away one place, the upper receiver somewhere else, the barrel elsewhere, the clip somewhere else, etc...preferably each in a locked location. Takes away from any usefulness in home defense, but I can't think of a safer way of doing things with children - guns are completely useless without all the parts assembled together.
Taking people's rights away isn't the answer. Not everybody has kids, I won't be having any anytime soon, so that just isn't an issue for me. I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
You mean "not a right", right? The last dude who shot a burglar here only just got out of prison...Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
edit, btw:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
So you live in the city that is the murder capitol of the western world and they have very, very strict gun control. Looks like a case of gun control working great--for the criminals.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
sea2ski
A firearm has some distinct advantages over stunguns/pepper spray. Primarily range and the fact that they permanently disable (dead) an attacker. Also, pepper spray in a house will probably to some extent disable you, may not permanently disable an attacker or stop them from hurting you. A stun gun (at least the kind with a projectile) might miss and you get one shot, what if there are several attackers? I can't think of anything else that so completely equalizes people.
Regardless, if you're not comfortable having one, don't. Pretty simple.
Mulletizer: Good catch, edited.
RE: the argument that proceeds along the lines of "what if it gets used against you."
I do not think that this is really a very well thought out argument. If somebody breaks into your house and intends on doing violence to you, what does it matter how they visit that violence? If they were gonna hurt you then they would try either way. Just cause they stumble on a gun won't cause them to fly into a murderous rage... You could make the same argument for bats and knives too.
The bottom line is that if somebody breaks into your house intending to do you harm or your family harm; you are literally locked in mortal combat with that person. I personally am going to do everything humanly possible to emerge the victor. If that means punching, biting, kicking and scratching then so be it but I'd rather it be jacking shells into the chamber and shooting.
Note: I am not trying to brag or puff, just laying out my perspective. Also note, I do not spend any time at all worrying about people breaking into the house. Coons? Yes, I worry about them fuckers getting in. I probably won't shoot one except with the pellet gun in the house. If you don't feel the need the have a firearm that is A OKAY with me. Whatever makes you most comfortable.
Interesting thread, coming from an ID fam. that owns a lot of guns (more collection style less arsenal, I think?) I don't really see myself having one.
The following article is related, and I'm sure they didn't publish all the facts but knowing media, wouldn't they have jumped on it if he had been armed or tweaking? Note, I'm not saying he should have let him in.
From The South Bend Tribune, happened a couple days ago:
84-year-old kills intruder; charges are not expected
By ADAM JACKSON
Tribune Staff Writer
MISHAWAKA -- Like many homes on his block, Robert Birtwhistle's is a two-story frame house, with faux-brick siding and a small front porch.
Yet, modest as it is, it's the place he's called home for all of his 84 years. And early Wednesday morning, he proved he was ready to defend his home -- with deadly force.
Birtwhistle called police to his home shortly after 1 a.m. to report that he had shot 40-year-old James Rosebush as the younger man apparently was attempting to force open the front door of his home. Rosebush, who lived just blocks away at 735 Lincoln Way E., died of his injuries at the scene.
"It was going to be either him or me," Birtwhistle said Wednesday. "I told him that if he didn't stop, he was going to get what was coming."
According to a report from the St. Joseph County Metro Homicide Unit, which is investigating the case, Birtwhistle was awakened in his first-floor bedroom by the sound of someone trying to kick down his front door.
At that point, the octogenarian retrieved the loaded revolver he kept in his bedroom and went to investigate the situation.
"He was trying to kick the front door in," Birtwhistle said. "I warned him not to, but he kept trying."
According to investigators, Rosebush eventually was able to break the door loose, prompting Birtwhistle to fire at least one shot through the door. The shot mortally wounded the assailant, who fell onto the homeowner and knocked him to the floor.
The alleged attacker soon died. At that point, the homeowner called 911 to report the incident. Initially, responding officers took the homeowner into custody for questioning, a procedure that he said he didn't particularly enjoy.
"Ever been in the back of one of those squad cars?" he asked. "There's no room for anything back there."
After questioning, Birtwhistle was released to his home. Although St. Joseph County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Frank Schaffer did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment, a statement released by police indicated that charges will likely not be filed in conjunction with the incident.
"The information gathered at this time indicates the shooting is justified," the release stated.
What could have caused Rosebush to be there? That remains unclear, but Birtwhistle is no stranger to break-ins. Within the last two years, Mishawaka police records indicate that his home has had break-ins or robberies on at least three occasions.
That includes an incident on Jan. 22, 2004, in which an unidentified man tricked Birtwhistle into opening his door, then put him in a headlock and robbed him. That incident prompted the mayor to issue a warning to the city's elderly residents to be aware and led to Birtwhistle -- and his anger -- being featured on the front page of The Tribune.
No one was arrested in those incidents, but Birtwhistle said he believes Rosebush may have been involved.
Mike Samp, chief of the investigative division of the Mishawaka Police Department, said that although none of the prior incidents have been linked to Rosebush, his involvement is not out of the question. And although Birtwhistle's neighborhood is no more prone to break-ins than anywhere else in town, he said the victim may have been targeted because of his age.
"Sometimes, people will be driving around, and they'll see an elderly person and think they are an easy target," Samp said.
But Rosebush's record doesn't show a predilection for home invasions. Since 1998, he has been arrested three times: once for criminal conversion, once for false informing and once for driving under the influence.
Birtwhistle said he kept his pistol for one reason: protection.
"My dad always told me that a revolver is for shooting a person and a gun is for shooting a thing," he said.
Wednesday morning after the shooting, Birtwhistle was relaxing at home, trying to calm down after the events of the early morning. When asked if shooting Rosebush bothered him, he said his actions could only be judged by his maker.
"My boss is not a mortal," Birtwhistle said. "I only have to answer to Him."
Is he worried about future break-ins? Not very much.
"At my age, I only have about 10 or 20 years left to worry about anything," he said. "And I know there's one (person) I don't have to worry about anymore."
This is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
1) "For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
[...]
The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994." -John Lott
2) Increased handgun availability decreases rampage killings. "The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes [multiple-victim public shootings] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent." -John Lott
3) The National Center for Health Statistics report for 1998 (latest available) shows that of 30,708 firearms-related deaths in America, 17,424 (57%) were suicides.
Additionally, while civilian gun ownership in America increased 75 percent from 1974 to 1994, the suicide rate remained the same -- suggesting that gun ownership does not cause people to commit suicide.
Therefore, many studies which blame or praise handguns are looking at the wrong problem: why is the *suicide* rate increasing or decreasing?
Lott's data focuses on crime rate, which accounts for crimes prevented by guns as well as deaths caused by guns.
4) How many children are killed each year by gun accidents? Take a guess. Now look at some numbers: the way that anti-gun groups get big numbers is by stretching the definition of "children".
"The annual review of mortality data, published by the Department of Health and Human Services, said gun-related deaths dropped from 4,223 in 1997 to 3,792 among children under age 20 in 1998."
"Children under age 20?" What?
"In 1997 gun accidents killed 142 children from birth to age 14."
Oh.
I don't want to imply that these deaths are somehow acceptable -- but 142 is a lot less than 3,798. Most of the 3,798 are 16-19 year olds shooting each other in gang-related violence.
In an average year, roughly 550 children 0-14 are run over by cars, 800 are drowned, 660 are burned to death in fires, and 1,850 die inside cars.
Spats,
I find it best to just avoid the entire statistical argument altogether. You can dummy them up to say anything that you want.
John Lott is IMVHO no more reliable than getting your stats from say.... the brady campaign.
Figures don't lie but liars figure.
There's lies, damned lies and statistics.
Criminals will continue to use guns when comitting crimes. The only people partaking in the "less guns" part are their potential victims. Less guns might equal less dead criminals, but it's certainly not going to deter violent crime with firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
"Fewer than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made soon enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect."
-"This Is 911...Please Hold", US News and World Report, June 17, 1996
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun.
Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger.
We'll see who wins." - Mafia enforcer Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, in an interview with Vanity Fair
All the statistics you could ever want, with citations, right here:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Sadly John Lott has been discredited for a bunch of reasons. A peer review of his data showed no correlation -- carry permits neither decrease violent crime, nor increase violent crime (the gun control crowd always leaves out the second part).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
People should be more concerned about slipping in the tub than getting shot. Neither is much fun.
I think all guns should be banned.
Realistically, that would never happen. Here is my compromise.
EVERY firearm should be replaced with a muzzle loading musket. After all, that is how America won its freedom, and you could still defend your house. I don't think we would have office and school shootings anymore since the "wacko shooter" would get pummelled while loading for the second shot. It would be kind of hard to smuggle a musket into a public building or school, and they would still fit in your gun rack!
Heh the Desert Eagle isn't the bad boy anymore...
http://www.firearms.smith-wesson.com...3500_large.jpg
Massive 500 S&W Magnum® Cartridge 2600 ft/lb. Muzzle Energy
Most powerful handgun in production today.
Well, what the hell. You start a thread about what kind of gun to buy to "protect yourself" and you think everyone here is going to agree with you that having a gun in their home is a good idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
I grudgingly accept that gun ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right in this country, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
That takes initiative, but thanks I appreciated yours and read that site. Some pretty interesting stats. I'm still trying to figure out how are percentage of firearm homicides by handgun is as close as it is (1.6X) given how inflated some of the other handgun vs firearm stats are. I guess everyone really only uses handguns for one thing either side of the border.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Maybe the interesting thing would be how many of the gun homicides are legitimate law enforcement.