Ive always had guns in the home, loaded. My family always had loaded guns. Nobody in my family can ever remember not having loaded guns in the home, not even any of my grandparents could remember a time not having loaded guns in the home. I know to you it seems a legitimate question, but to me, it seems like a stupid question, akin to …" does anybody in your family not have a hammer in the home"? "
Obviously, there must have been a time when my family did not have guns, like before guns were invented… but nobody can remember such a time.
It would not even enter my head to not have guns in the home.
As I said in the other thread, I’m a rabid anti-gun nut. I wouldn’t live in a house that had guns. My ex and I had a heated debate about this once when he said if things ever got so bad that he felt unsafe he’d definitely acquire a gun and I said I’d leave him if he did*.
My votes in the poll were:
My home has never had unauthorized entry.
My home has been burgled when no-one was at home.
I have lived mostly in smaller cities/towns.
I have no firearms in the house.
I fully expect that I will never need to protect my home and family with firearms.
I have minors/children living with me.
Never said it was. I do, however, think it’s a valid reason why no one should ever be legally obligated to keep a gun in their house.
I also think people with depression should think hard about whether they might be suicidal, or whether they might pass their depression on to their child, before deciding to keep a gun in their house. I don’t think it’s a good idea for most people with depression to keep a gun in their house.
I think they should think about those other things, too. But I know I will use kitchen knives this week. I know I will need to take my prescription medications. Therefore, if there is a less than 100% chance that I will commit suicide this week, it’s more likely that I will need those things for other purposes than that I will use them for suicide. I think the chances of me using a gun to commit suicide this week are greater than the chances of me needing one to repel a home invasion. Therefore, I don’t keep a gun in the house.
“As I said in the other thread, I’m a rabid anti-gun nut. I wouldn’t live in a house that had guns. My ex and I had a heated debate about this once when he said if things ever got so bad that he felt unsafe he’d definitely acquire a gun and I said I’d leave him if he did.”*
I’m never critical of other’s opinions on this or any other subject. Gun ownership is obviously a very personal decision. That said, I grew up in Chicago and lived in several other large cities. Never once did I ever feel unsafe. And despite being well versed/trained with firearms in the military, I’d never owned a gun. Never felt te need to do so. W/regard to the incident I referred to earlier, the detectives handling the case told me it was a “one in a million” type invasion as there was nothing that made me or my family an inviting target. The rifle I owned when this occurred was given to me a just a couple of months before by my wife, and then just for “plinking” and some target practice with a friend.
The point I’m making is that one doesn’t have to feel unsafe to justify wanting to keep a firearm for protection. Sometimes things just happen. Needless to say, and while I may have been ambivalent earlier on in my life about gun ownership, that’s not the case anymore.
It wasn’t an armed robber. It was a drug-crazed naked woman, but I didn’t know that when she was trying to break into my back door. I didn’t let her get in the door. I went out (which is poor form, legally) and held her at gunpoint until the Sheriff arrived. Since one hand was full of flashlight and the other hand was full of gun, I had to holler for a neighbor to come out with a phone to call the police.
Once the deputies were out front (I was in the back) the dispatcher told me to put the gun away in the house. I did that while my neighbor held the flashlight on the naked lady. It turned out that naked lady was also a neighbor, one that I didn’t recognize, who was absolutely spun out on something. Not unusual for that neighborhood. I did not press charges, as her perfectly sane husband came down the street and got her. And she had absolutely no option to press charges on me, as the cops recognized that I was acting in self-defense.
She didn’t ever know it, but not once did I put my finger on the trigger. Next to it, yes. Fortunately, she stayed down when I ordered her down, so we never had to see how far the other would take it. I didn’t start shaking until it was all over and everyone was gone.
After that, they pretended that I didn’t exist, while all of the upstanding neighbors kept congratulating me. I live in a better neighborhood now, but I back up to a highway, so who knows what you’d get. I still carry a gun if I’m investigating strange noises by myself, which I’m told is hard to defend if you have to shoot someone. I’d rather be in the position to defend myself in court than dead though.
A number of previous posters have mentioned that they have used a firearm in defense of their homes, and some have provided more details. The responses I read usually involved themselves with the firearm, and the assailant without a firearm or in possession of an inferior weapon (like a knife).
Has anyone had to use their firearm (pistol, shotgun, rifle etc.) against an equally armed burglar or home invader? What if there were two, three, or four? All with firearms?
I find that a lot of people have confidence in their weapon skills like they have confidence in their driving. Basically, they are better than everyone else.
[oversimplification] Most of the time, if you aren’t involved in illegal activity, illegal activity doesn’t seek you out. Professional criminals (many of whom actually take the time to practice drawing and shooting a firearm) aren’t interested in average people minding their own business; amateurs (who are often simply desperate), not so much. [/oversimplification]
As a rule, robbers and burglars want to grow up to be old robbers and burglars. There’s not one that wakes up and decides that today is the day they want to die trying to take a house.
If you understand that, it makes sense that all the personal firearms training they are purported to do isn’t going to matter. Why? Because if they do somehow manage to get away they’re going away for life or getting the death penalty for killing the homeowner. And for that, a TV or a laptop? Maybe a stereo or jewelry? Nope. As for multiple assailants, which one of them wants to be the one to die? Sure they can take you, but at least one of them is going to get shot, and they know it. Beating the victim means nothing if you’re the one that’s dead.
Most of these guys are sensible, the movies notwithstanding. They go for easy marks and run when they’re caught.
If the situation ever arose where I were forced to deal with a home invasion at gunpoint the chances that I would have to actually pull the trigger to protect my family is exceptionally remote. They see a gun and they’re gone if they can get away. Nevertheless, when you pull and point a deadly weapon you have to be prepared to follow through with it.
The truth is that this whole discussion is more or less an exercise in psychology, what you know of human behavior and reactions. You plan for the worst, recognize that it will almost never be that bad, and react accordingly. There’s no need to borrow trouble with ludicrous “what if” situations, if you find yourself in a situation like that you’re in enough trouble as it is.
It’d be interesting to know how many non-US citizens or residents there are who would claim to be willing to shoot an intruder or a burglar.
In my part of the world, acquiring a gun is fairly easy. However, gun sales are controlled, and you have to apply for a license. And the second best way to ensure that your application for a gun license is turned down, is to fill in “home defense” or “self defense” in the box for what you’re going to use the gun for (the best way is writing “I’m gonna shoot my MFing neighbor/wife/husband/brother-in-law/whatever”). In fact, if you kill or maim someone in alleged self-defense, you’d better be prepared to prove that your life was indeed in danger, that there was no other way you could neutralize that hazard, and even running away was not an option. And no matter your excuses to the investigating officer, you’d be tried. A person has been intentionally killed, that’s homicide, and you’re going to court. If you can prove in court that there were no other options, you may be acquitted of manslaughter.
I’m pretty certain that this would be more or less the standard for claiming self defense in other European countries as well. With that sociological background, I’m having big problems with understanding how someone can be willing to shoot another person for stealing a thing. But then, I’m also opposed to the death penalty…
It is my guess, that almost all criminals will go pick on somebody else who is not armed if they see you with a gun. The goals of most criminals are rape, robbery, fun, etc, and getting shot is NOT fun. The usual goals of a criminal are not getting shot, not being in extreme pain, not getting paralyzed, not getting bloody, not losing an eye, nose, or mouth, not getting dead.
Why would a criminal want to go after someone who is armed and ready to shoot, when there are so many other people out there who are unarmed easy marks who will not be able to resist or defend themselves?
How often do criminals try to rob or rape uniformed police officers who are on duty and are visibly wearing an unconcealed handgun? Criminals are mean and cruel, but they are not stupid enough to want to attack people who are armed and able to defend themselves.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Most of these guys are sensible, the movies notwithstanding. They go for easy marks and run when they’re caught.
[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with this. We used to live in a gated golf-course community. The people who had their homes broken into were invariably those who lived right on the golf course. It was very easy for someone to walk along the cart path and look into people’s back windows, figure out what goodies they have, determine when they’d be home, etc. We lived in the interior of the neighborhood, with neighbors on all sides, a six foot fence and a biggish dog. We were not easy marks.
Frankly, I find a dog with a deep, loud bark to be a sufficient deterrent. (again, for us, YMMV)
It depends on just how much personal loss and indignity one is expected to bear to preserve the life of a stranger who is victimizing you. In the USA at least, one is not legally expected to passively suffer felonious actions. For example, many US states have a “Castle Doctrine”, which makes one’s home the one place where you do not have a duty to retreat from confrontation; the theory being that no one should have to suffer being driven from their own home. Is it true that people (police included) are expected to use the least amount of force necessary when resisting a felony.
The USA still retains much of the older standard that used to prevail in Europe- that people committing felonies are essentially in rebellion against law, the government and society at large, and that whatever leniency they are shown is an undeserved mercy. This is of course at odds with the more modern liberal standard that human life is all-but infinitely precious, and that no one deserves to be killed. As these threads show, there is quite a bit of contention between these two different philosophies.
The reason to avoid handguns, in particular, is that they are just so easy to use - its difficult to impulsively slice your wrists badly enough to kill you. I’m very pro-gun in general, but I wouldn’t have a handgun in the home. Long guns, sure, kept safely, but a handgun is a tool for killing people.
Per the wiki article on Castle Doctrine, sometimes you must have a seriously reasonable belief that the intruder intends to inflict great bodily harm. Duty to retreat may also be involved. The factors are very much on a state-by-state basis, and people who decide to bring out a gun to confront some surprised burglar may find themselves in a whole world of trouble if they’re not educated on what is legal.
For instance, Illinois residents must believe that they or another person in the house is in imminent risk of death or severe bodily harm. Defense of property is not sufficient. (Surprise a burglar and shoot, and you’ve broken the law.) There is no requirement to retreat.
As far as I am concerned the intruder is welcome to the “stuff.” The “stuff” is insured. Where I draw the line (and my pistol) is when my family is in danger.
I find this thread amazing. I’m an American in my mid-30s and I’ve never even seen a gun outside of a police officer’s holster, or antique, probably non-functional, big guns (rifles? shotguns? muskets? I don’t know the difference) hung on the wall as decorations.
One exception - Cambodia. I’ve never felt so unsafe as I did walking around Phnom Penh, where it seemed that every male was carrying some sort of big, scary weapon.
Neither are we. But the defense must be proportional to the attack. Simply put, if someone smacks you in the face, you are allowed to parry the attack and to passivate the person. But not by hitting back or pulling your gun to shoot him. And a life is considered more valuable than any property, so you can’t shoot a guy who takes your watch (or even your home cinema, while you’re watching).
And considered quite medieval by our judicial system.
I’ve lived in cities and suburbs all my life. I’ve never had an attempted break in or any other instance in which guns would have been helpful. In fact, the one time I heard a crime in progress and called the police they arrived so fast I hadn’t had time to put on pants. We literally called the police at 7:02 and they were at our building by 7:03 and my husband had to run to the main apartment building door in his underpants to let them in so they could search for the criminal.
I don’t like guns or need them in my home but I am happy that other people have the legal right to own them.
Yes. But note that this is not the same thing as “almost anyone should own guns, for home protection.” I think people with mental illnesses and parents of children between the ages of about 2 and 18 should, in particular, think long and hard before keeping a gun in the house.
I don’t think there should be laws saying people in the above categories can’t have guns, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for all of them to do so. I don’t think there should be laws saying you can’t cut your toenails with a scythe, either, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
I do, however, think there should be laws saying that people who have been convicted of violent crimes or domestic violence shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Those people have shown that they’re more of a risk to others than the average person.
