Why you live longer owning a gun.

[hutch--]

Bill,

We do agree with handguns but differ on full sized assault rifles. I class machine pistols in the same class as handguns. RE: Intruders, nothing like a few bullet holes in the front gate to make the point. 

Now if I lived in the US it would be a 444 Marlin. They were like using an artillery piece.  :P

[Bill Cravener]

I don't have a problem with guns,they are only a tool really. What I really have a problem with is STUPID gun owners,with no safety training. Sometimes they don't even know about a safety on the gun itself. I think it should be MANDATORY before you are allowed to own ANY gun that you have to go to a gun safety class,and not a one day quick thing,but one where you have to actually fire the weapon on a range,view a film that shows what a bullet does to the human body. Learn to understand your responsibility in owning a weapon.

I agree with most of what you stated anunitu. My only disagreement with you is I do have a problem with guns, that being (as you stated) stupid people owning them and most often those stupid people own handguns. You will find more often then not that a hunter is (like you an ex-soldier) very responsible when it comes to gun ownership. The average handgun owner is nothing more then a danger to themselves and those around them.

[Bill Cravener]

Steve,

Many years ago I owned a Ruger 44 Magnum (big heavy thing) that you held on to with both hands because of the tendency of it to twist ones hand clockwise do to its rifling. I used it several years for bear hunting but never seen a bear worth taking down with it. A gun like that puts a vey big hole in things!

I believe it was several years ago a father took his kid to the local gun club who was a proud owner of an uzi that he was shooting. He then handed it over to his young boy and carefully explained how to hold and fire it. I guess the father didn’t take into account the recoil of it and when the kid pulled the trigger the uzi swung up and peppered the childs head killing him instantly. Can you imagine living with that event the rest of your life?

[K_F]

We always have the right to arm bears.. they have more to fear.

We all live in fear of intruders.. but I refuse to own a gun purely because statistically it's more dangerous to myself and my family.
We work around the intruder factor with deterrents, psychologically subtle and obvious. So far so good  ;)

[anunitu]

One thing with me,I would have no problem shooting to kill someone that put me in danger. BUT there would have to be no other option,if I thought the person wasn't all that much a danger I would shoot to wound only. But the line between the two is very thin.

[jj2007]

We always have the right to arm bears.. they have more to fear.

Indeed. But the bears may need some training to defend themselves.

What strikes me in this thread is that nobody raises any doubt that "death penalty" is ok for somebody who just enters a house to steal something ::)

[Ryan]

The intentions of an intruder are never known.  While it may be to steal something, they could also have intent to kidnap or to kill.  It's something that potential intruders need to realize before they commit the criminal act.

[jj2007]

The intentions of an intruder are never known.

George Zimmerman's logic when he killed the unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

[Ryan]

Are you implying that the logic is flawed?

[MichaelW]

IMO if an intruder presents a significant threat, then whether or not he is armed is irrelevant.

[dedndave]

those accidents would be greatly reduced if people took better precautions
still, the numbers are statistically small
Bill has a nice list there, but it does not compare, for example, how many people are killed in car accidents
or how many people die from illness, etc
it also does not compare how many would-be deaths are prevented by gun ownership
a difficult stat to tabulate, for sure

as for security, a lot depends on where you live
i suspect there are some places that are safer if you do not have a gun
simply because you are not as likely to be shot AT - lol
other places - everyone else has a gun - you better not be the odd man out

intruders rarely pick houses at random
smart ones "case" the place in advance
if the guy living there is a 6'3" former paratrooper, they tend to look elsewhere   
i have only had a break-in once, some 30+ years ago
at the time, i was living alone - and the burglar seemingly knew i was at work
point being, i don't really need a gun for security

if i were to have one for that purpose, it would probably be a .357 mag revolver
it doesn't just put a leaky hole in things
it tends to come out bigger than it went in and knocks them down, as well

i don't think it makes sense to shoot someone with the intention of wounding them
if you are going to shoot them, make sure they don't come back later
aim for the center of mass

[K_F]

Ja, If I'm going to own a gun, I'm prepared to kill.
I won't wound them, just empty the magazine on them.

The way I've worked things out, is that if you put enough deterrents in place you'll put off the intruder somewhat and they'll look for a weaker subject.
Remember that these people do not want to be caught and are highly stressed when breaking in. the slightest noise sets them running (or you get a very bad reaction) - Just set a lot of booby-traps and they won't stay around long enough to find out what's happening. Another thing is that I never allow any stranger into the house so that the internal layout is unfamiliar.
There is of course the determined armed intruder, and if they know you have a gun, they're going to come in 'shooting' - The surprise advantage will always be on their side and this is the biggest factor - Time for you to get your weapon out. It should legally be locked away in a safe, with the key hidden away from the children to prevent any accidents. Do you have the time to go through all that. Probably not, so you keep your weapon in an unsafe place, and so the gun-accidents stats rise.
If they know you're not armed, there's more of a chance they'll use the weapon as a persuader so your chances of survival are better.

I think one must weigh up the stats in the line of - Guns owners who successfully defended/shot intruders-vs-gun owner accidents.
I definitely hear a lot more accidents compared to the other. Another thing is the legal implications if you don't kill them first shot  ;)

I'm all for, quite simply, turning criminals into mincemeat (that nice mini-gun comes to mind), but you have to be careful that you don't do this to yourself.
It's a fine balance.

[K_F]

if i were to have one for that purpose, it would probably be a .357 mag revolver
it doesn't just put a leaky hole in things
it tends to come out bigger than it went in and knocks them down, as well

The Russians in WW2, found out that their 5mm automatic weapons were better suited for close combat than the bigger calibers.
They were smaller, lighter, had a bigger ammo clip and made many more smaller leaks, which was just as effective... and more painful - I like this.  :icon_mrgreen:

[CodeDog]

A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. Albert Einstein

[xanatose]

To those who oppose guns in hands on the people. Are you willing to take out the guns from the hands of government? Because what you are only accomplishing by taking the guns from the law abiding people is that government and criminals are the only ones able to defend themselves. Fact is that even the lunatics choose areas where people are less likely to have a gun.

Never forget that governments are the #1 cause of murder of civilians over the world (Around 300 million on the 20th century). And that includes ONLY civilians, not soldiers.
Of course they do not call it murder. But execution, accidents and collateral damage. Still death is death irrelevant of the name.


As of fear. Do you use your car belt? If so, why? Are you afraid of crashing? Because thats the only point where the belt is useful. Same with guns, is not about fear, but of safety.  Towns where guns are outlawed have far more crimes than towns where guns are required.