Do you own a gun?

[Busyman]

I care, and that is precisely the point, Manker.

It's MY stuff, not his, and I don't owe him a pass in and out of my home based on his greedy impulse.

Besides which, why should I suffer a premium-rate hike because some idiot decides he needs my stuff more than I do?

j2 that post is frameable. I gotta remove the quote tags.

[Snee]

Busy, you're in dreamland if you think that your range shooting will instantly mean you'll pwn a burgular in a gunfight.
Training/practice is everything, Manker, and burglars are not renowned for their sense or marksmanship.

Cheap hoods with large testicles is the problem; dopes who hold their gun sideways, like they do in the movies.

If nothing else, range time will improve your odds, which most people would find preferable.

You have to acknowledge that the mere fact you possess a gun heightens the chances you'll get shot.

Not in the least true, unless you lack training, which is, regrettably, an altogether too frequent circumstance.

As regards things like trigger locks/child safety:

Part of proper training is strict and constant observance of what are called rules, and they govern every aspect of firearm ownership.

You learn them and live them.

Given the rules, gun ownership lessens your chances of getting shot.

An armed burgular without being faced with a gun toting house-owner will steal your stuff and fuck off, an armed burgular with his life at risk will shoot you and still steal your stuff. Sure you may get lucky and shoot him first but maybe you're not so lucky the next time.

Your home is not your castle?

Mine is-I will take this small measure to ensure that it stays that way.

I do not now, but have had, and will again, small signs for every window and door in my dwelling, which read as follows:

ENTER ILLEGALLY AT YOUR PERIL; THE OCCUPANTS OF THIS DOMICILE ARE TRAINED KILLERS, AND WELL-ARMED

If I am unlucky enough to suffer victimization by an illiterate burglar, I am confident I can out-shoot him.

If my trespasser does not speak English, I guess I'll have to get busy removing the signs while he bleeds out, and before I call the gendarmes.

Who cares if your stuff is stolen provided you survive. You do have insurance, I take it.



I care, and that is precisely the point, Manker.

It's MY stuff, not his, and I don't owe him a pass in and out of my home based on his greedy impulse.

Besides which, why should I suffer a premium-rate hike because some idiot decides he needs my stuff more than I do?

You can't possibly know what kind of experience someone has with a gun, it's just as possible that someone who has a habit of carrying around their gun all the time is a better shot than someone who goes to a shooting range ever so often.

Your home is your castle, and you can do what you like, but that still doesn't mean that things will work out the way you like.

What you've stated is how you'd like things to be, not the way they are. Or at least you can't assume they are that way.

As for it not increasing your chances of getting shot, that sounds pretty hopeful too, no matter how much training you have, it doesn't negate the fact that aggressive human beings react with violence at a percieved threat.

I highly doubt someone is going to think, "oh this one looks like he has training", and somehow be so distracted by that fact that he can't pull the trigger.

And as for gun-locks, I doubt that any amount of training could absolutely remove the risk of you screwing up, human beings aren't perfect, not even you.

[TheDave]

definately a wacky mentality. all five of us are in the same situation but only busyman and j2k4 feel the need to own a gun.

[vidcc]

It's a deadly circle

Have a gun in case the intruder has one, the intruder is more likely to have a gun if he believes the home-owner has one.

America is different from the UK in that because of loopholes in our under enforced gun laws we sell guns to anyone (gun shows don't require background checks) so the argument of "protection" does carry some validity. The reverse is also valid. The problem is that we can't legislate against incompetence or stupidity happening.

[RPerry]

Yes. Several at that. I have no children, nobody under the age of 31 in the house ( with the exceptions of the Danes, but their paws are much to big to pull a trigger) Most of them are collectors items, or family heirlooms. All 4 of us are equally trained. I work nights, therefore have no problem with my girlfriend and her mother having a means to protect themselves. Wal into my home, if somehow you manage to get by the dogs, I promise you won't get past Dawn

[Snee]

@J2: What manner of scholarly study enables you to say with absolute certainty that your hypothetical burglar-thugs don't spend a moment ever so often taking shots at tin-cans or something. Hell, maybe they enjoy a bit of friendly competition to see who can handle their penis surrogate better.

It's the kind of thing I'd expect reckless idiots to do.

You don't have any statistics to prove how well the average burglar will shoot do you? Just out of curiosity like, can you say that [insert percentage here] of all burglars in the US only own guns for the purpose of display?

I've never heard of any such studies anywhere, scholarly or otherwise.

Take me to task? what with?



The sign is not the gun, you might as well put it up, and not get a gun.

If they've decided to break in anyway, you've only warned them.
They'll sure as hell know you are dangerous then, and will come to you expecting trouble.



Try to dismiss it as wild speculations all you like, human nature will still be human nature. Aggression is often met with aggression, and threats often met with violence.

I do know, from my own, and sadly more intimate than I'd like, observations, that some people see any percieved aggression (including that used for the purpose of self-defense) as a challenge, and others just hate backing down.


As for not screwing up, that's just silly. Anyone can screw up at the wrong moment, especially when caught with their pants down. I'd hardly expect burglars to come when it's convenient for you, hell, the way things sometimes are, they might break into your house when you are drunk out of your skull or something like it.

[vidcc]

And he is less likely to "intrude" if he knows the home-owner is armed.

That is a pure fact.

Your deadly circle just became an arc.

i disagree because we have a higher "intruder" rate than the Uk which is not a gun culture.

[Snee]

All right.

Did you just imply that americans tend to be more daft, compared to UK residents?

[RPerry]

All right.

Did you just imply that americans tend to be more daft, compared to UK residents?

who in the hell could be more daft than UKResident ????

[vidcc]

The intruder rate has nothing whatsoever to do with any "gun culture", it has to do with what percentage of of the population-at-large are idiots, and that is another debate altogether.

so your point would be that a home-owner with a gun is less likely to be violated by a "thinking" intruder?... but then I may just be pissing in the wind here but don't all intruders believe they will get away with it....don't all criminals believe that?

I have said that the "home protection" view has a degree of validity in the USA because of the gun culture...something not needed in places like the UK. So I have given you your view of it being for protection.... I just don't agree it it is factually a deterrent.