And by having 120 VAC wiring in the house, you increase your chance of getting electrocuted.
Please, let’s not turn this thread into a GD… :rolleyes:
It depends on what you’re playing. My Funny Valentine or the Guns’n’Roses cut of Live and Let Die?
Stranger
Nah. It’s got to be playing The Beatles’ Happiness Is A Warm Gun. 
Take it to Great Debates, please.
Stranger
He asked for opinions - he didn’t say he’s already decided to get a gun.
Gun control debates–particularly those based upon contentious statements a la Kellerman–are clearly in the domain of Great Debates, not IMHO. Again, take it there, please.
Stranger
I’m not debating you. I’m responding to the OP. Report it to a mod if you don’t like it.
However, in these types of studies and in that kind of statistics, they only count when the gun was actually used to shoot someone. I think there was some sort of study that showed that for every actual shooting, there was something like about a dozen times the gun was simply used for the threat/intimidation factor. I know that myself I carried a gun for 6 years as a Security guard. I pulled the gun 6 times, 4 times for a “threat”- but never once pulled the trigger. I also had a Concealed Weapons permit, where I pulled my gun twice and never pulled the trigger, and once at home I had to “brandish” my firearm- but never pulled the trigger. That’s 7-9 times the gun would be counted as "used’ by any rational human, but 0 times those types of studies would count the gun as being “used”- “lies, damn lies and statistics”. By simply only counting the times the gun is *used to shoot someone * as a “use”, the numbers are badly & misleadingly skewed. But in at least 7 of those times, I “used” my gun and prevented a more serious crime- all without actually putting a bullet in someone. :rolleyes:
Yes, if you have a gun for self-defence you must be WILLING to pull the trigger and you should not THREATEN unless it is legal to do so. However 9 times out of ten or more (nine times for me, but never having pulled the trigger) you will be able to scare the intruder off without having to pull the trigger. BUT- you must be willing to pull that trigger, and know how & when to do so, accurately and legally. If you don’t - you get in more trouble than never having a gun in the first place.
Those statistics also are misleading in that if you have a 14 yo gang-banger killed in a gun fight with other gang-bangers, that is still counted as a “deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age”. :rolleyes:
You are using a widely contested analysis to challenge the OP’s request: “Can you make me feel OK about having a handgun in the house?”
If you want to start a thread about the alleged overwhelming hazards of keeping a firearm in a household for defense or any other purpose, start a thread over in GD and link to a post here in which you state your opinion. Don’t toss in a grenade like the Kellerman cite and then say, “Who me? What debate?”, knowing full well that other posters who follow the guidelines regarding correct decorum for each forum are constrained by common curtesy from crossing swords with you.
Stranger
checks forum
Let’s defuse this. Suppose the OP was about Audis, and I posted “dude, don’t buy an Audi - it’s an overpriced Volkswagen” - would that be a debate?
I posted my opinion, the OP can take it or leave it, and you should apply for moderator or stop acting like one.
Stranger- you have a point, but this is “IMHO” not GQ. Thus, opinions are legit here. In fact so are debates. But in general- debates on such hot topics are Gun Control are sent to GD, I’ll agree. Thus, indeed, we can- and I did- debate his point with him. True, a full out & out hijack is rude, but this is borderline as far as a hijack goes.
Guns aren’t good for home protection.
Quite incorrect. Guns are excellent for home protection. I can cite my own experience.
Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Which tells me not to have a gun in these three cities.
These numbers are totally irrelevent. What were the 7 criminal assaults? What were the 7 homicides? In the homes with guns? Without guns? Guns by perps? Guns of homeowners? All irrelevent. Suicides are even less relevent than the aforementioned irrelevent. All these numbers show are that somebody can keep records.
a gun in the home is actually used for self-protection in fewer than 2% of home invasion crimes.
What pecentage of these 2% resulted in a successful repulsion of the home invasion crime? What is the definition of home invasion?
By having a gun in the house, you increase your chances of dying by gunshot.
Not for ME. Being stupid increases ones chances of dying by gunshot.
Somebody besides me in my house with a gun, and me without one increases MY chances of dying by gunshot.
But understand that they are dangerous tools, and having one in your home empirically does more harm than good.
I cannot tell anybody if a gun in their home can do them good or ill, but I can tell somebody that if one is not an idiot, or careless, having a gun and not needing it is 1 million times better than needing one and not having it.
hh
Do I detect a ShadowRun player in our midst? 
What bup brought up is exactly what bothers me: am I more likely to be injured or killed by having a gun in the house, than by not having one. The fact that that is GD material is educational to me.
And I am a she, not a he 
A FOAF had one he wanted to sell me for 400.00, which is a very low price–I passed, since I didn’t know the guy well and couldn’t be absolutely sure it was a clean piece…
I’ve been scoping out the Baby Eagles too–lower cost, a bit more reasonably sized for a purse pistol and verrry sexy…
What bup speaketh is gar-bage. See **Crafter_Man’s ** comment. The key is training. Placing a firearm in the hands of an untrained person is like giving matches to a chimp. With training, they are perfectly safe. You get driver training before you drive a car. You should get firearms training before owning a gun. They are nothing but a tool. (I will leave an unspoken comment here. )
If you do not consort with felons, take basic gun safety classes,* and then follow them*- you are safer with a gun. In other words, if you’re not a gang-banger or your son is not a drug dealer or so forth, and you carefully follow the rather common-sense gun safety guidelines you’re fine. If you follow those rules, the chance of having an “accidental shooting” is next to nil, or nil. Most of the crimes commited with guns “in the household” are commited by those who are criminals. Finally, if you are prone to fits of rage, or your husband has drunken fits of abuse, then really the house should be weapon free (and that includes baseball bats and large knives for that matter). If anyone in the household is suicidal, obviously you should weigh gun ownership carefully, too.
I thus assume that you and those who live in your house are not criminal, nor abusers, nor suicidal. And that you can & will follow a few common-sense rules. If so, the gun will make you a lot more safe, and will make you feel safe, too.
Most of those “crimes commited by a gun in the household” are in households where any of us would go “hey, IDIOT- your grandson is a fucking drug dealer- that gun is an extra risk!”
Note that the Desert Eagle is a gas-retared delayed blowback gun. As such, it has a port to the gas system that can become plugged if one uses unjacketed bullets. This is very difficult to clean out. You’ll definitely want to funciton test the pistol before purchasing, espeically at that price (any other issues regarding the legal status of the weapon notwithstanding). In any case, the Desert Eagle is hardly an appropriate firearm for self-defense, or indeed, any practical purpose. It’s the Hummer of pistols; conspicuous consumption embodied.
:sigh: Unfortunately, bup’s point is a highly distorted one, and I’m forced to indulge in this debate in order to correct the misapprehensions he or she has elected to introduce into what should be a technical discussion. Yes, members of a household which contains a firearm are more likely to be injured by a firearm; this statement, however, neglects the fact that many of these shootings are justifiable or are part of an incumbant illegal activity, i.e. the result of defense against domestic violence, drug-related conflict, et cetera. The base statistic quoted (which itself is hotly contended) fails to account for any mitigating circumstances.
Permit me to pose to you this question: are you or anyone in your household likely to grab a firearm out of anger and start firing away at all and sundry? Are you prone to violent, atavistic behavior? Is violence between members of the household a regular occurence? If this is the case, then certainly you should refrain from purchasing a gun. However, the vast majority of firearms are never used in anger, and the substantial amount of households which possess them never see the kind of violence that the fear-mongering anti-gun movement care to promote. There is an estimated 200+ million firearms in this country, and over 80 million households in which they are stored; only in a small fraction of a percent–and of those, most which are otherwise involved in criminal activity–in which firearms-related violence occurs. A gun isn’t going to jump off the shelf and start firing by itself, and a properly, responsibly stored firearm isn’t going to pose the grave risk that is suggested by unqualified, unexamined statistics.
You are vastly more likely to be injured or killed in a car accident than to be shot by someone wielding a gun, even if you live in the highest crime areas of the country. Indoctrination aside, storing a firearm in a responsible manner is no more dangerous than storing and usingg gasoline, toxic cleaning solvents, and power tools.
Purchase (and learn to safely use) firearms if you think it necessary; don’t if you do not, or do not wish the responsibilty. But do not be mislead by specious, distorted arguments.
Stranger
If you’ve got a purse anything like my girlfriend’s, the full-size Desert Eagle would fit fine…
$400 is pretty low for a Deagle. On the other hand, they are usually in pretty darn good shape when purchased used. Folks buy them, shoot them a little, and then decide it wasn’t as much fun as they thought it was going to be. Ammo is expensive too, even for the .44 magnum models because you can’t shoot cheap cast bullet loads in them.
Not too long ago I saw a guy and his son shooting a .50 AE at the gun club. I don’t think they got through one whole magazine w/o the thing misbehaving in one way or another. Failures to feed, failures to extract, launching empties right back into the shooter’s face…for as much as they paid for the gun and for the price of each round of ammo they deserved better.