One of the many important lessons we have learned from hurricane Katrina and its aftermath is how quickly, given the right conditions, a major American city can descend into anarchy and chaos. I always held faith in the government’s ability to restore order quickly in times of disaster. I now have diminished faith in the system after the underwhelming and bumbling government response at all levels in the Gulf Coast region.
Keep in mind this was a disaster we could see coming – imagine how unprepared the government could be for a spontaneous disaster such as an earthquake, tsunami, or major terrorist attack? During such an event, how could I ensure my family’s safety from looters, rapists, and murderers? I wonder, would it be wise to rely on my government for protection?
To be clear: I am not a gun advocate. I hate the very idea of guns. I am by no means a fear monger or knee-jerk reactionary, but, after hearing reports of total lawlessness in New Orleans, the thought of buying a firearm for protection did cross my mind, if only briefly. The same can be said for many of my friends, family, and coworkers. I have doubts that I will ever allow a gun to enter my home, but this disaster did get me thinking.
The question: Has the situation in New Orleans changed your opinion on gun ownership and are you now more likely to own a firearm for home defense. If so, or if not, why?
I already have a concealed carry license and a small revolver. I haven’t fired the gun since I qualified for the license three years ago, and I only occasionally remember to take it with me when I take long car trips. I only keep about five extra bullets on hand, and the Katrina aftermath has made me consider how useful they would be in the event of all hell breaking loose. In that light, the idea of getting a shotgun becomes more attractive. However, I seriously doubt I would ever get one.
My husband inherited a shotgun and rifle from his father. The events of the last week have made me decide I need to learn to operate both weapons and have a key to the cabinet they are kept in.
I learned to shoot from my grandfather as a child (started with a BB gun at age 7) and learned from him a very healthy respect for firearms. I am right handed and learned to sight with my right eye, which was destroyed by disease. So now I have to learn to shoot left handed!
I never had, and I still question their ability (and authority) to maintain ‘order’.
Lets just say I recently picked up some more protection recently.
I think it is very sad and dangerous that we as a society has made guns out to be something ‘bad’, something that normal ‘good’ people have no need of - these are the people who should have them, but instead we have people who like to live on the edge, exactly the people we don’t want to have guns, and we see what happens when socitey breaks down.
I lived through the Watts riots in LA years ago. Then went through the Northridge Earthquake later. Yes, I have a gun, mainly because I’m elderly.
I also fire it every new year’s (in the ground) to make sure it’s still working.
I’m a guy but most of my neighbors, both male and female are also “packin’”
No trouble in our neighborhood!
Is not not better to take the gun to a firing range and get practice?
I’m a runner. If I don’t run on a regular basis, I’ll lose many skills. I’m guessing this is the same with owners of revolvers.
To answer the OP, yes I am considering buying a gun. I’ll reread the many threads about handguns, spend hours testing various weapons, and then buy one. I think one thread reached a consensus that a weapon that I own should be fired at least one a month so I can be sure it is in working order and that I’m ready to use it should I need to. If I am wrong, please correct me.
No. I don’t have any plans to ever own a gun. I live in completely different circumstances than the folks in New Orleans, though. I know the importance of getting out of Dodge when the hurricane warnings come and have the means to do so, so if there was any warning of what was to come, I simply wouldn’t be in harm’s way.
No: I am of the mind that if you’re going to have a firearm, you better be prepared to use it. I am a) not prepared to use a gun and b) more afraid of something horrible happening to me (raped, maimed etc) and left to live than dying.
It would be, but I don’t enjoy shooting to the point that I think “Hey, I can go to the range” when I have a free afternoon. If I have a free afternoon, I’ll read a book or watch a movie or practice kendo. It’s also not a chore with a predictable schedule like getting my oil changed or checking the batteries in the smoke detector.
I am not more likely to personally own a gun. I would freeze up, and the idea of giving me something that 1.) constitutes deadly force, and 2.) needs to be aimed sounds like a REALLY bad idea.
I am, however, more likely to let my husband have a gun. He’s expressed an interest–he grew up with guns–and, prior to this, I’ve always said, hell no. Now I’d say, let me think about it.
It still ooks me, though. Guns just seem kind of. . .dishonorable to me, I guess. Unsporting. ::sighs:: I live in the wrong era.
I started a militia group three years ago. Lately I’ve been getting a lot of emails from local men inquiring about joining. All of them cite the mayhem in New Orleans as a reason for wanting to join.
I’ve got a shotgun, and as I’m moving into a new house and considering a disaster box (something my folks always talk about when the power’s out but then forget), I think I’m going to add some boxes of shells to it. Because if you need them you’ll be glad they’re there. Of course, a hatchet for your roof sounds like a better idea than it did a week ago too. I’d absolutely go with an evacuation, but what if the dam broke or something? You never know.
No. I think the ready availibility of firearms is a major contributor to some of the things happening down there. I do not want to make it worse by adding yet another one to the arsenal.
No, not really. I don’t know if I could actually pull the trigger on someone, and since if one has a gun, one should be prepared to use it without hesitation, it probably isn’t a good idea.
That and I’m clumsy as hell, so even with practice, I’d end up shooting myself in the foot.
If we had futuristic weapons, like the blasters in Star Wars, though, where you could switch from “kill” to “stun” settings, I’d probably carry one of those.
And if I ever had to evacuate my house and hole up in say, oh, Heinz Stadium, I’d probably have a knife on me.
Absolutely not. I am not prepared to use a gun and can not concieve of circumstances in which I would be. Therefore, owning a gun would be silly, as it would (probably) only make me more likely to come into contact with people who would shoot first, lest I shoot them.
It hasn’t made us do anything weapons-wise, because we already own several guns. (My grandfather is a collector.)
I would only ever shoot someone if I were in physical danger. If my home were invaded, I would retreat with the dogs to a locked room, and if someone tried to enter, I’d warn them I was armed, and fire a warning shot if necessary, but I would only actually shoot a person if they tried to hurt me. Nothing in my home is worth killing a man to keep.
It has made us evaluate our plans in case of disaster and impending social disorder, which I think every American should do. Hubby and I have agreed on a primary and secondary location to meet if we are seperated, where we will stay, and what supplies we will collect. I’m sure there’s a million other things that we haven’t thought of, but I think it’s a good start.
