I want to get a gun for the house..

[Dravin]

How does anyone know what the OP wants the gun for? He just said he wants a gun and his wife is afraid of guns.

Good point, I kinda got swept up in all the talk of self-defense and lost track of the OP.

[MarginOfError]

Good point, I kinda got swept up in all the talk of self-defense and lost track of the OP.

Well, the title of the thread is "I want to get a gun for the house." Doesn't that imply on some level that it isn't for recreational or sport shooting?

Then again, I wouldn't be too surprised if dorave kept jungle live stock in his attic :)

[Dravin]

Well, the title of the thread is "I want to get a gun for the house." Doesn't that imply on some level that it isn't for recreational or sport shooting?

Then again, I wouldn't be too surprised if dorave kept jungle live stock in his attic :)

Could be, unless he wants to hunt duck with a 40 mm Bofor. If nothing else you'll be able to take out that blasted snickering dog (assuming you can depress the barrel enough).

Edited September 8, 2010 by Dravin

[jayanna]

Well, if it is for protection from burglars, always turn the lights on first, it might be someone getting a glass of milk.

If it is to punish the house, Shooting holes in mine hasn't had any improvement yet.

[Faded]

Oh my...I just about lost it on that Desert Eagle video.

You're welcome!

[Faded]

I said No to guns too. I believe that unless it's a hunting rifle or a duck-shooting shotgun, there is no other purpose for having a gun but to kill somebody. It bothered me that my husband is ready and willing to shoot someone to death.

I appreciate your passion in the matter, but bear in mind that in the vast majority of cases, it's not about killing people. It's the fact that you're holding their death in your hands, and if they don't leave immediately, they're going to die. You point a gun at somebody and look like you know how to use it, then the average sane person is going to comply with whatever you tell them to do next.

"Sit down, shut up and wait for the the police? Sure, I'd love to! Just please don't kill me!"

"Leave your house and never come back? You can bet that I won't! Why should I risk death to come to your house when the rest of your neighbors probably don't have a gun?"

And if my family's lives are at significant risk and I had absolutely no other choice in the matter, I suppose I'd have to pull the trigger. As long as anybody breaking in can see in my eyes that I'm ready to do just that, they'll probably back off. I hope to never face that situation. I certainly don't want to kill anyone in my life. The point is, simply owning a gun doesn't make me a bloodthirsty killer, it makes me prepared for the worst.

How many police officers carry guns? How many of them ever kill people with those guns? Most of them never will, though they'll walk around with a deadly weapon on their belt for decades before retiring. The fear of the gun on the cop's belt inspires in criminals' minds makes for a great deterrent against a criminal doing something stupid, and thereby forcing the officer to actually use the gun. The most important thing for a policeman or for anyone else who owns a gun is this: Learn how to safely use the thing, educate your children about guns and gun safety and keep them secure.

One thing that always puzzles me: If the vast majority of women had a gun on their person and they knew how to use it, how many men would be crazy enough to try to assault or mug or rape a woman? A gun becomes a great equalizer when confronted by somebody who is bigger and stronger than you. It seems very strange that women are the most avoidant of firearms, when they're the ones that stand to benefit the most by owning the things. See also,

.

Sorry for rambling on so long, but that's just my 2 cents on the matter.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Faded

[dorave]

How does anyone know what the OP wants the gun for? He just said he wants a gun and his wife is afraid of guns.

oh yeah, for civil unrest n protection. good news is I mentioned the range to my wife, she was quiet, which is a good sign.

[Orrinian]

That's the United States. Here in Germany it depends a required and given special permission for buying and owning a gun. But we have many shooting clubs / associations here. And the recent events have shown, that weapons had not always been saved in the way they should had to be saved. Young pupils and students have shot their class mates, and without the guns it certainly would not have happened. It's not the gun, that kills by itself, that's right. But it's also not the man, who kills by himself alone, but in a furious and psychotic way in addition with a gun (except murderers, who have planned their misdoings).

I wouldn't feel well, if I knew that my neighbor had a gun. So I would feel to own a gun, too. And how many people have their temper and emotions always under control? Certainly not everyone ...

Edited September 8, 2010 by Orrinian

[Guest]

One thing that always puzzles me: If the vast majority of women had a gun on their person and they knew how to use it, how many men would be crazy enough to try to assault or mug or rape a woman? A gun becomes a great equalizer when confronted by somebody who is bigger and stronger than you. It seems very strange that women are the most avoidant of firearms, when they're the ones that stand to benefit the most by owning the things. See also,

.

Sorry for rambling on so long, but that's just my 2 cents on the matter.

Not true.

I studied self-defense under a police officer. A woman is better served with a knife than a gun.

1.) A woman's psychology leans towards compassion. When she is threatened, there are 2 things that is more likely to happen if she has a gun:

* She points the gun but can't pull the trigger - this gives the bad guy the opportunity to arm himself with her gun.

* She points the gun, gets scared, pulls the trigger when the guy is 30 feet away (when she can't see his face too clearly) and not in any position to do her harm.

2.) A knife, on the other hand is designed for use in short-range combat. If the bad guy is close enough for the knife to sink into his skin, he is too close for safety. Although, most Filipinos are pretty good with throwing knives, it's not a good idea unless you are sure the guy is not going to survive it - throwing a knife is like giving the bad guy your weapon.

So, you might ask, well, what if the other guy points a gun at a woman? In this case, a gun on a woman is not going to be an advantage. It's probably gonna get her killed faster.

A police officer or a soldier carries a gun because he chases after bad guys.

If a non-police/non-military person chases after bad guys - he is a vigilante - I'd be more concerned about his psychology than his gun possession.

A person who does not make a habit of chasing after bad guys can do without a handgun.

Sporting guns are different. You all know the difference. My husband comes home with a .45 caliber and tells me it's for sport? Yeah, right.

Train yourself in martial arts, keep yourself physically fit and mentally alert and be aware of your surroundings. Position yourself in life so that you will always have a choice in where you live and where you go.

"What if some bad guy goes into my house intending to harm me and the only way I can save myself is with a gun?"... sure. What if you walk across the street and gets hit by a mac truck?

Okay, so that's probably what the wife is thinking. So, be prepared with your answers when she comes up with these arguments.

Edit: P.S. I don't agree with a ban on firearms and my favorite TV show is Top Shot.

Edited September 8, 2010 by anatess

[beefche]

Threads on guns and carrying them always gets interesting.

[Faded]

Good points anatess but I think the majority of women would feel just as squeemish about carrying a knife. My point is that I wish something bad happened to every man who tries to assault a woman because he knows he's bigger and stronger. In general, women are far less likely to do anything to equalize the equation. Men are far more likely to carry a gun, a knife or any other self-defense weapon. Men are far more likely to train in martial arts.

That's the thing that puzzles me so much: It's women who really need these things, but they're avoidant. Seems extremely illogical.

Any woman who owns a gun needs to practice with it and get over any psychological hurdles in advance, or your right, she's better off without it. Time spent at the shooting range can make a huge difference there. Reflexes should take over in crisis and she just aims and shoots.

As far as a man owning a gun: It's a man's obligation to protect his family, with his own life if necessary. Him having a gun can, in many circumstances, make it far less likely that he gets killed in the process of trying to defend his family. Defending your family while unarmed and against people with weapons isn't going to go very well and you're no good to them dead.

[theoriginalavatar]

If you have kids in the house, don't.

i beg your apology, but i do not understand your sentiments in the least. will you please explain to me your reasoning for such a statement?

[theoriginalavatar]

Ok, let me qualify...

If the gun is going to be for protection, and in a drawer, under pillow, etc, best to not have one. Little 5 yo junior will use it as a pacifier.

If it's going to be used for sport, hobby and stay under lock and key, then that's another story.

My old man had guns in the house for sport. I've had one in my hands since I was 8. He didn't want me to get curious when I went to a friends house and blow myself away. So I guess I should just shut up and say...

"It Depends..."

i should have read ahead to see that you qualified your statement...my apologies.

[theoriginalavatar]

recently my brother (who is staying with us for a while) heard a sound in the middle of the night from outside his window that he thought might be gunfire. he wasn't sure (he woke from a deep sleep at the sound and realized he could be mistaken), but he felt it better to notify the police in case. my daughter heard the same sound and came into our bedroom.

my brother called the non-emergency number and told them of what he had heard. within 10 minutes we had 4 police officers going through every inch of our home.

they told us that they had responded to a LARGE number of shootings in our area (we live in a fairy nice area of las vegas) and that they took any report very seriously. the people in question (which they have yet to apprehend) go around at night looking for doors that are unlocked or easily breakable. they are not concerned with stealth. they simply smash the windows and take whatever they can get their hands on and leave before the sleeping family members awake and realize what is happening.

if they encounter anyone in during their burglary, they simply shoot them. men, women, children, animals, it doesn't matter.

this is why i own handguns. this is why i will always have them. mark my words, if someone threatens my children's mortal safety, i will shoot them. i have no qualms about this whatsoever.

we believe in the constitution of the united states of america in our home, and as such we have the right to keep and bear arms. i will never back down from protecting my family from the evils of the world.

[MarginOfError]

recently my brother (who is staying with us for a while) heard a sound in the middle of the night from outside his window that he thought might be gunfire. he wasn't sure (he woke from a deep sleep at the sound and realized he could be mistaken), but he felt it better to notify the police in case. my daughter heard the same sound and came into our bedroom.

my brother called the non-emergency number and told them of what he had heard. within 10 minutes we had 4 police officers going through every inch of our home.

they told us that they had responded to a LARGE number of shootings in our area (we live in a fairy nice area of las vegas) and that they took any report very seriously. the people in question (which they have yet to apprehend) go around at night looking for doors that are unlocked or easily breakable. they are not concerned with stealth. they simply smash the windows and take whatever they can get their hands on and leave before the sleeping family members awake and realize what is happening.

if they encounter anyone in during their burglary, they simply shoot them. men, women, children, animals, it doesn't matter.

this is why i own handguns. this is why i will always have them. mark my words, if someone threatens my children's mortal safety, i will shoot them. i have no qualms about this whatsoever.

we believe in the constitution of the united states of america in our home, and as such we have the right to keep and bear arms. i will never back down from protecting my family from the evils of the world.

I find it mildly amusing that when there is a group of criminals looking for easy break-ins, your first thought for protection is a gun when clearly a better lock would suffice.

Also, as I've said before, stomping on the floor would probably be enough to make criminals like these flee without incident. I mean, really...these guys don't want to hurt you...they want your stuff. Let them have it and file the insurance claim.

[Dravin]

Sporting guns are different. You all know the difference. My husband comes home with a .45 caliber and tells me it's for sport? Yeah, right.

Why isn't it for sport and are you commenting on the caliber or the implication that it's a handgun*?

*This is a .45 caliber but something tells me this isn't what you have in mind: http://www.marlinfirearms.com/firearms/bigbore/1895.asp

Edit: We may be having different definitions of sport. I consider target shooting (even non-competitive) to fall under 'sport' even though I'm more likely to call it recreational. If you by sport you mean hunting a good .357 or .44 Mag (amongst other rounds) can be used to hunt, and while I imagine it'd be hard to get close enough to something smaller like a .17 HMR or a .22 Mag could be used against rabbits and the like. Though I will concede a long gun would probably be the more efficient choice.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Dravin

[goofball]

NRA-ILA ::

Countless stories of honest law-abiding citizens who have used a firearm to protect themselves, family, or business.

Biggest thing in my opinion is EDUCATION!. Educate yourself and those around you what a gun is for and how to properly handle it.

I will have to check out that supreme court ruling in DC. Sounds scary

[pam]

I find it mildly amusing that when there is a group of criminals looking for easy break-ins, your first thought for protection is a gun when clearly a better lock would suffice.

Also, as I've said before, stomping on the floor would probably be enough to make criminals like these flee without incident. I mean, really...these guys don't want to hurt you...they want your stuff. Let them have it and file the insurance claim.

I think TOA is justified in his comments.

they simply smash the windows and take whatever they can get their hands on and leave before the sleeping family members awake and realize what is happening.

Having a better lock isn't going to keep someone out that is smashing windows.

if they encounter anyone in during their burglary, they simply shoot them. men, women, children, animals, it doesn't matter.

So if they shot and killed me, just letting insurance handle things is almost a moot point.

[MarginOfError]

I think TOA is justified in his comments.

Having a better lock isn't going to keep someone out that is smashing windows.

So if they shot and killed me, just letting insurance handle things is almost a moot point.

You seem to gloss over the part of if they encounter anybody. I guess if you want to play the odds that they're going to accidentally encounter you, you can. But the attitude I hear from most people who advocate handguns for home security is that when they sense a problem, they're going to grab their gun and go chase it away.

The first line of defense should be deterrence. Next, you give warning. Next, when trouble comes to you, you respond. But you don't ever go after trouble.

And I'm not saying TOA isn't justified. Am I really the only one that thinks that picking your gun and going after an armed assailant is a foolhardy idea?

[pam]

MOE don't argue with me. I'm right.

[MarginOfError]

MOE don't argue with me. I'm right.

Yes, dear.

[theoriginalavatar]

You seem to gloss over the part of if they encounter anybody. I guess if you want to play the odds that they're going to accidentally encounter you, you can.

even if the odds are astronomically in a person's favor against NOT encountering anyone who would break into your home and seek to do bodily harm, it only takes one bullet to take your child away from you. people gamble away their savings for less likely odds.

i would rather be on the safe side and own a gun in the event that i may never use it than be faced with even the slightest chance that i need one and regret that i do not have one.

it is rather like insurance. you hope that you never need to make use of it, but invest in it anyway in case you do.

But the attitude I hear from most people who advocate handguns for home security is that when they sense a problem, they're going to grab their gun and go chase it away.

i can appreciate (and believe) that there are indeed a lot of people who may fall under this category, but please do not assume that i am one of them. i am responsible and i am a safe gun owner. i also understand that the law in most states (including nevada) dictates that you are not justified to shot a person simply to defend your personal property.

The first line of defense should be deterrence. Next, you give warning. Next, when trouble comes to you, you respond. But you don't ever go after trouble.

perhaps you are commenting on someone else, but if it is i to which you are referring, i do not recall ever having stated or implied that i would "go after trouble."

And I'm not saying TOA isn't justified. Am I really the only one that thinks that picking your gun and going after an armed assailant is a foolhardy idea?

perhaps it is a simple misunderstanding of intent. i do not suggest pursuing an armed assailant. i would use my guns as a last resort. if a person comes after my child or wife with a weapon and it is clear to me that they intend harm to them, rest assured that i will use whatever method necessary to prevent that from happening, guns notwithstanding.

[theoriginalavatar]

here are a few of my favorite gun quotes from some of my favorite (and not so favorite) people. i am sure that many of you have read them before...

The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.

--James Earl Jones

By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.

-- Senator John F. Kennedy

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

--Thomas Jefferson

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

--Thomas Jefferson

...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

--Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall.

--Adolf Hitler

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

--The Dalai Lama

A free people ought to be armed.

--George Washington

There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.

--Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky

[theoriginalavatar]

not only that (and i am sure that more than a few of you have tuned me out completely by now lol), but getting rid of the guns does not seem to have the effect that some feel that it will.

sean hannity points out that, since the 1997 firearms act in great britain (in which nearly all handguns were prohibited in the hopes that violent crimes from said handguns would decrease significantly), death and injury by handguns has gone up 400% in england alone.

who are we punishing with such laws?

[Dravin]

even if the odds are astronomically in a person's favor against NOT encountering anyone who would break into your home and seek to do bodily harm, it only takes one bullet to take your child away from you. people gamble away their savings for less likely odds.

That's what it boils down to. The odds of saving a life (your or a family member's) as a result of owning a self-defense gun versus the odds of loosing a life via accident or loosing a confrontation that you would have successfully avoided had you not been emboldened by owning the gun. Obviously people vary on where they place the odds, you place the odds in favor of the first whereas MoE is weighting the odds in favor of the second, particularly the loosing the confrontation bit (loosing = you or a family member ending up dead).

Note, this post is not an endorsement of either weighting.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Dravin