Buyng a Gun

[Professor S]

I'm purchasing a home defense weapon in the near future. I've owned guns before, but they were only a .22 rifle and a 30/6 hunting rifle, both of which not ideal for home defense. I'm looking for something that doesn't involve much aiming or thinking beyond turning the safety off and zero chance of misfire/jamming.

So far I've broken it down to these:

Mossberg 590A1 - These have been banging down doors in the Middle East for a decade. Easy to use, reliable and powerful. Con - Big and might be hard to maneuver and store. Plus - Plenty of accessories, like attachable flashlights, which are perfect for late night home defense.

http://www.mossberg.com/images/products/590A1/51414.jpg


Taurus "The Judge" .45/.410 pistol

http://www.imfdb.org/images/0/0c/TaurusJudge.gif

The benefit of this weapon is that it fires either .45 caliber rounds, a proven man-stopper, or .410 shotgun shells with a wide area of affect. Con - The .410 shells don't have much stopping power, but after the first disorienting and very painful .410 round each subsequent chamber can be loaded with .45. The .410 gives you time to aim the .45 if necessary. Plus - Its small and very versatile.


SAIGA 12 Shotgun

https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/data/default/images/catalog/large/saiga12assault.jpg

Well... just %$&@ing look at it! It even looks like it might kill you by looking at its picture.

J/K - I'm really between the Mossberg and the Taurus. My hope is that I'll never have to touch either one I choose, beyond maintenance and learning how to operate it properly.

[Vampyr]

I would go for the Taurus.

The shotgun seems as likely to damage your own property as it is the intruder.

[Ginkasa]

Did something happen to cause you to want a crazy hardcore shotgun, or did just think "Well, you never know?"

[Professor S]

Did something happen to cause you to want a crazy hardcore shotgun, or did just think "Well, you never know?"

I'm not interested in the Mossberg because its "crazy hardcore", but only because its rated as very reliable and easy to use. I'm also interested in the version without the stock and the standard Mossberg 500 depending on cost (the 500 is only about $200). I just thought if I'm going to get a shotgun for home defense I might as well get the one that will liquefy a man's torso if the need arises.

The idea is that I'm not going to have time to think or even really aim. My blood pressure will be through the roof with adrenaline pumping, and I want to know that if I pull the trigger the intruder is 1) going to get hit and 2) is not going to need a second round.

As for the need for this, I think the fact I'm having a kid has made me bite the bullet on buying a home-defense weapon. I first got the itch when I got married, but now with a kid on the way there is just so much to lose if some scumbag invades my home.

[Teuthida]

It's the whole torso liquefying thing that bothers me. Checked out a video for the Taurus. Ouch. Perhaps its just me but if you really must have a gun, number one it would be used to scare someone off, and number two you shoot to injure and not kill...thus taking the time to learn how to use your killing device. Happen to know the statistics of unarmed vs armed break-ins? A shotgun to the chest of a kid trying to nick your Xbox is a bit harsh.

[Professor S]

It's the whole torso liquefying thing that bothers me. Checked out a video for the Taurus. Ouch. Perhaps its just me but if you really must have a gun, number one it would be used to scare someone off, and number two you shoot to injure and not kill...thus taking the time to learn how to use your killing device. Happen to know the statistics of unarmed vs armed break-ins? A shotgun to the chest of a kid trying to nick your Xbox is a bit harsh.

No offense Teuth, but I'm going to chalk that up to you not having a family or a home of your own yet. Trust me, if you think someone has broken into your home the last thing your worried about is aiming to injure. If I have to shoot, I want that person to blow to pieces. I can't assume the intent on the intruder and anyone would be stupid to do so.

That said, the one time I thought someone broke into my house my first reaction was to first announce that I had a gun and then I told the non-existent intruder that if they left now nothing would happen. (A branch broke a window)

After I waited and didn't hear anyone leaving, I headed down stairs to check things out. I was never so scared in my life and I definitely would not have the capacity to rationally "aim to wound" regardless of training with the weapon (I am trained with guns, BTW, over 20 hours total). At the time, I felt completely helpless: "What if he has a gun?" was all I was thinking and I raced to the kitchen to grab a knife before exploring any further.

Bottom-line: If someone breaks into my house I assume they are threatening my safety and the safety of those I love. If I see someone I shoot to hit the target, and STOP the target, and I want a weapon that will make it difficult to fail at that goal.

If someone doesn't want to get shot then they shouldn't invade someone else's home. Thieves should be well aware of the risks they take.

[Typhoid]

I'm a firm believer in pacifism, and only would suggest a gun for hunting - I did however work out some math the other day - albeit no doubt incorrectly:

There is a break in in the US every 15 seconds, which after you do all of the tedious mathworking, means that everyone in the US (based on the numbers) will be broken into every 14 years.


Edit: And Maybe just because it's Canada and we don't feel we constantly need guns for every situation; someone tried to break into my dad's house and failed. Instead of buying a gun, he spent money on preventing ways people can break into the house. And to me that actually makes a lot more sense. Why buy a gun, if you can just buy alarm systems, knob-to-floor door stops or heavy duty deadbolts and latches.

Guns should be for hunting.

[Dylflon]

I agree with the Typh.

I'm pretty firmly against guns in the home. If you're doing it for protection you don't really need a shotgun.

Go for the Taurus if you have to pick, otherwise I get the impression that you kinda want to kill somebody (since shotguns tear people apart).

[Bond]

No offense Teuth, but I'm going to chalk that up to you not having a family or a home of your own yet. Trust me, if you think someone has broken into your home the last thing your worried about is aiming to injure. If I have to shoot, I want that person to blow to pieces. I can't assume the intent on the intruder and anyone would be stupid to do so.
I could be wrong on this, but I think that is tricky legal ground. You have a right to defend your home against a threat, but only to a point. I can't see a jury taking kindly to a kid breaking into your house to steal beer and you blow him to pieces.

[Professor S]

I agree with the Typh.

I'm pretty firmly against guns in the home. If you're doing it for protection you don't really need a shotgun.

Go for the Taurus if you have to pick, otherwise I get the impression that you kinda want to kill somebody (since shotguns tear people apart).

What in the world are you talking about? I want to KILL SOMEONE? Are you nuts? Did you ready anything I wrote? This is why its so hard to have a discussion with some people.

I want to PROTECT MY FAMILY. I will regret having to kill someone to do so, but I certainly will not avoid killing at all costs. The whole idea of a home defense firearm is to take out the invader as quickly and easily as possible, because the more hurdles you put in front of that goal, the more likely you are to get shot/killed by the invader.

In any case, if I hit someone with a .45 bullet, they're just as dead as they would be if I hit them with buckshot. I just have a higher chance of missing.

Going with the shotgun. This actually helped a lot!

[Typhoid]

If you just splurge on a predator drone, and then employ the team to monitor your block 24/7, I think you'd be a lot safer than if you just got a shotgun. I don't think you're doing everything you can to protect your family here.

I can see it now, some crackhead breaks into your house armed with one of your lamps, and you blow him to pieces with a mossberg. What's that, 20-life for murder? Because you surely can't get away with "I was defending myself from the threatening crackhead who had a lamp in his hand by blowing half of his torso all over my living room" in most cases.



You should get a hummer while you're at it.
Oh, and maybe a mesh-backed baseball hat and a tribal tattoo! :ohreilly:


Edit: Besides, buying a gun as a defense instead of buying actual defenses for your house, just seems to me to be a lot more that you want some bad-ass talking point you can always tell people. Like "Hey, I have a gun, you guys. And it's a mossberg!" instead of saying "Yeah, we just got some new alarm system." Because bragging about an alarm system isn't as cool.

[Professor S]

I could be wrong on this, but I think that is tricky legal ground. You have a right to defend your home against a threat, but only to a point. I can't see a jury taking kindly to a kid breaking into your house to steal beer and you blow him to pieces.

There is a "no retreat" law in PA, I believe. If someone breaks into my house, I can kill them if they do not exit the home when given the chance.

Again, I'm not talking about stalking someone through my house silently with night-vision goggles. I'm talking about giving fair warning and then if they refuse to back down, should I not assume they expect to attack me?

This is common sense.

[Professor S]

If you just splurge on a predator drone, and then employ the team to monitor your block 24/7, I think you'd be a lot safer than if you just got a shotgun. I don't think you're doing everything you can to protect your family here.

:rolleyes:

I can see it now, some crackhead breaks into your house armed with one of your lamps, and you blow him to pieces with a mossberg. What's that, 20-life for murder?

No. Its not. Its self-defense.

Because you surely can't get away with "I was defending myself from the threatening crackhead who had a lamp in his hand by blowing half of his torso all over my living room" in most cases.

Yes you can. Honestly, how much thinking do you think is going on in these cases? Am I taking the time to see if they have a lamp or a gun? In the dark? If the lights are on, that's one thing, but even then the invader takes his life in his own hands.

You should get a hummer while you're at it.
Oh, and maybe a mesh-backed baseball hat and a tribal tattoo! :ohreilly:

Oh grow up.

Edit: Besides, buying a gun as a defense instead of buying actual defenses for your house, just seems to me to be a lot more that you want some bad-ass talking point you can always tell people. Like "Hey, I have a gun, you guys. And it's a Mossberg!" instead of saying "Yeah, we just got some new alarm system." Because bragging about an alarm system isn't as cool.

Typh, I've had guns my whole life. Have you ever heard me brag about being a gun owner? No. Lets not be childish about this. The reason I'm attracted to the Mossberg isn't because its in MW2... its because ots the more reliable shotgun on the market, and that's what you want in a home defense weapon.

The funniest part about this argument is how it has degraded. No one seems to want to discuss the points I've made, but instead want to assume I a) want to shoot people or 2) want to be a redneck jackass. Amazing.

People seem more sympathetic to the scumbag invader than the person trying to defend his home. That's sad.

[Vampyr]

Totally with you here - it would be hard to pacify your way out of an armed robbery. I mean, chances are it's never going to happen - if someone breaks into your house it's probably going to happen during the day when no one is at home.

But if someone does break into your house while you're they're - either your car is in the driveway or it's in the middle of the night, they've already considered the fact that they will encounter you, and what they will do when that happens.

I also don't know why we are assuming it's going to be a kid wanting an xbox or a 6 pack. Does that ever happen?

That being said, I think the best line of defense is to pay to have ADT installed, have a sign outside saying you have ADT, and a gun in your bedroom. If you hear someone breaking in, lock your door, sit with a gun aimed at it, and wait for the police to get there.

[Professor S]

Looking at the thread, I think we are all creating situations that are sympathetic to our position. I'm assuming the worst; a serial murderer/rapist in the dead of night with the lights off. Those in opposition seem to be assuming the best of the situation; a strung out unfortunate just trying to get cash for his next hit.

In any case, I think its a mistake to assume the intention of the invader. No one can read minds. So instead, lets list the potential situations and appropriate responses.

Your home is invaded/you think your home has been invaded

1) Call the police

2) Retrieve you firearm from its secure but easily attainable location, turn off safety

3) Turn on as many lights as possible from upstairs

3) Check on loved ones to make sure everyone is secure and it isn't anyone living there who has made you think your home has been invaded.

4) Announce from the top of the stairs that you are aware of the invasion at the top of the stairs, and that you are armed and have called the police. Advise that the invaders are to leave immediately if they don't want to get shot or arrested.

5) Remain at the top of the stairs, shotgun aimed towards the first floor, and wait for the police to arrive.

In most cases, I believe this how the situation would be resolved. The gun gives you the opportunity to cut off points of entry to the upper level without directly confronting your assailant. Without the gun, I feel I would be forced to confront the invader because without a weapon/firearm I'm a sitting duck.

You are confronted by the invader

In this situation I think the biggest factor is whether or not you could get the lights on. If the lights are on, you can see the invader and make split-second judgment calls on intent of action. Without lights, anything could be threatening.

Lights On

Aim the weapon at the invader and yell "Don't move!" If the invader stops, ask him to put his arms in the air and remain there until the police arrive. If the invader makes a break for it, let him go. If the invader makes a move towards you or takes any action you make think could be to pull a weapon: Shoot.

Lights Off

You see a silhouette of a man moving. Yell "Don't move!". If the man stops, turn on the lights and wait for the police to arrive. If the man moves: Shoot. In the dark, I can't honestly say I could safely assume any intent of action, and I am forced to assume the worst.

Do these situations sound reasonable? If not, what would your alternatives be?

[TheGame]

That's not bad, but step 0 is to already have an extremely loud alarm system that sounds off whenever any doors or windows are opened... especially if you're in a 2 story house. If the alarm goes off, then follow the steps you listed... if the alarm doesn't go off, then quit being scared and go down and comfront whatever you feel the threat may be.

If you don't trust your alarm system to efficiently tell when your house has been breached, then get a better alarm system.

If you're still afraid to see what went bump in the night, take kick boxing classes.

BTW, I also want a gun.

[Combine 017]

I like the SAIGA, excellent in the event of a full scale zombie apocalypse.
It also looks bad ass, just needs a rifle scope. :p

The revolvers barrel is too short and it looks stupid.
If your going to get a revolver go all out and get the one Dirty Harry uses.

[uber_paddler]

If I had a gun it would be one like Vash the Stampede uses. Unfortunately, I don't think it's even mechanically possible.

[Fox 6]

No offense, but if you are in a situation where you are contemplating scenarios about serial rapists or home invaders coming into your home, maybe you live in a bad place in general.

[Professor S]

No offense, but if you are in a situation where you are contemplating scenarios about serial rapists or home invaders coming into your home, maybe you live in a bad place in general.

Home invasions can happen anywhere. My parents have been robbed three times (in over 30 years) and they live in Thornton, PA. If it doesn't have the lowest crime rate in the country, its close.

Its not a matter of where, but when. As Typh said, it will happen eventually, but most likely when no one is home. I just worry about the times when we're home. Again, I hope I never have to touch the thing.

According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, 38% of assaults and 60% of rapes occur in the home during an invasion.

There are some startling statistics and facts about home invasion in the United States. It is estimated that in the U.S. at least one property related crime occurs every three seconds. In the United States there were over 3,600,000 each year between 1994 and 2005. Statistics Canada reported over 289,200 per year in the last five years. Statistically there are over 8000 reported home invasions each and every day across North America.

http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Home-Invasion-Crime-Statistics/981639

[Vampyr]

I'd like to move to a place where it doesn't happen. :p

I think the shotgun is a good choice - my only qualm is if you miss you're going to do some serious damage to your house. :lolz:

I would still consider getting ADT, though, if you don't have it already. Most thieves are extremely scared of getting caught, and just the sign outside will be enough to deter them, let alone if an alarm went off.

[Dylflon]

A thought just occurred. You could be like a normal person and get a dog.


Not only will dogs protect your home but they love you so much! Dogs are a burglary deterrent and a good weapon should burglary not be deterred.


Edit: or a dog and a revolver.

I think buying shotguns for home defense is an icky idea...the mess...

I'm curious as to why our thoughts of home invasion defense are so different? Alarm system and/or dog instantly springs to my mind...not so much firearms. Maybe a blunt weapon.

I don't think it's the fact that I don't have a wife and kid that makes me different. If I had kids I definitely would not want a gun in my house.
Maybe it comes down to our respective levels of paranoia. I currently have no alarm system and my dog just died yet I still manage to sleep just fine at night.

[Typhoid]

A thought just occurred. You could be like a normal person and get a dog.


Not only will dogs protect your home but they love you so much! Dogs are a burglary deterrent and a good weapon should burglary not be deterred.


If only that dog could kill other people with bullets. :ohreilly:

We need some genetic modification, here.

Either that, or we need to find a way to make guns love you.

[Fox 6]

I think the shotgun is a good choice - my only qualm is if you miss you're going to do some serious damage to your house. :lolz:

Even if he hits hes going to do damage to his house.

[KillerGremlin]

For practicality: the Taurus

For fun: The Mossberg

I figure if you're going to buy it you are going to educate/practice using it. If you're taking it to a range might as well go with the gun that will provide the most satisfaction.

I don't know much about guns, but you can load the 12 gauge with shells that have buckshot and shells that fire a single bullet, correct? I think that gives the gun versatility.

Also, my understanding is that shotguns are less lethal at range than a pistol, especially a magnum firing big ass .45 caliber rounds. Frankly, I'd rather be shot at with the shotgun....

Also, fuck this pacifism shit. If someone is poking around in your house uninvited, I say they deserve to get shot. And that's not sarcasm. This is America, not Canada. When people break in bad things happen. Getting a gun is on my to-do list, once I get some money and a more permanent place to call home.



I can see it now, some crackhead breaks into your house armed with one of your lamps, and you blow him to pieces with a mossberg. What's that, 20-life for murder?

Even if you did get 20 years...it would be a cool, calm 20 years...knowing your wife and kid/s are safe.

[Fox 6]

Even if you did get 20 years...it would be a cool, calm 20 years...knowing your wife and kid/s are safe.

But then you'd be sleepless every night in prison wondering if a rapists has broken into your house to get your wife :P

[KillerGremlin]

That's not bad, but step 0 is to already have an extremely loud alarm system that sounds off whenever any doors or windows are opened... especially if you're in a 2 story house. If the alarm goes off, then follow the steps you listed... if the alarm doesn't go off, then quit being scared and go down and comfront whatever you feel the threat may be.

If you don't trust your alarm system to efficiently tell when your house has been breached, then get a better alarm system.

If you're still afraid to see what went bump in the night, take kick boxing classes.

BTW, I also want a gun.

We have an alarm system...we never set it/use it. I maintain alarm systems are used when people go on vacation and as plot devices in horror movies.

[Typhoid]

Even if you did get 20 years...it would be a cool, calm 20 years...knowing your wife and kid/s are safe.

Assuming someone else doesn't try break in during the 20 years you're in prison, which is likely considering - as stated before - it's likely to happen based on numbers alone to each person in the US every 14 years.

[KillerGremlin]

But then you'd be sleepless every night in prison wondering if a rapists has broken into your house to get your wife :P

If I had guns in my home I'd make sure my wife was educated in how to use them. :p

I'm not pro-imposing guns on people. I am all for alternative forms of home security; whatever makes you feel safe, you know? For me, personally, I want to get into guns mostly as a hobby. I wouldn't mind learning how to use a firearm at a shooting range and turning that into a hobby. A lot of cool engineering goes into firearms and overall it is a legit sport/hobby. For me, I'd probably keep a small firearm in my home just because you never know what is going to happen. I would pray that I would never ever be in a situation where I would have to use the weapon, especially against another human being. I don't know if I could live with myself after having to defend myself. I'd definitely need some therapy. But at the end of the day, having a hobby and being able to defend yourself sounds like a win-win to me.

[gekko]

There is a "no retreat" law in PA, I believe. If someone breaks into my house, I can kill them if they do not exit the home when given the chance.

Just curious how that one will look in court.

Judge: "Did you ask the intruder to leave before firing?"
You: "Of course."
Judge: "Did anyone witness you saying this?"
You: "Yep, the intruder did."

Seems hard to prove. Regardless, I'd recommend the shotgun. Your goal is not to find the best weapon to clear a house with, but find the best weapon to get an intruder to leave your house. Shotguns have a psychological factor to them like you wouldn't believe. Simply listening to a pump action shotgun (even empty) will likely be more effective than a much more dangerous weapon. And of course, if you need to shoot, it'll do its job.

[Professor S]

Some interesting points, let me address a few:

1) Practicality of a shotgun. In the event of a home invasion, I think a shotgun is the most practical BECAUSE its over-kill... literally. In the abhorrent event that I am forced to fire my weapon as described in the scenarios above, I am going to shoot to kill. I would rather it over-kill than under-kill, as horrible as that sounds, its reality. As for the mess... well... at least I'd be alive to clean it up.

2) Getting a dog. Typh put it best. I'm getting the gun for the worst case scenario, not some dullard stumbling in drink or high. Dogs aren't bullet proof and if the intruder didn't care that my cars were in the driveway, I doubt he'll care about the alarm system. Although I think I will get an alarm system for the times we aren't home.

I do want to get a dog, though, but it has little to do with home defense.

3) The legality. A stated, pretty much if anyone breaks into your home and you kill them its your word against a dead man's word. You win. Now you can say that's horrible, but I'd rather trust the homeowner than the person breaking in to someone else's house. Bottom line: If you are a home invader, expect that you might be killed.

In fact, there have been cases where a home invader has gotten hurt breaking into someone's house, and then successfully SUED the homeowner. If that's not an incentive to kill invaders instead of injuring them, I don't know what is.

4) Whatever gun I own, I plan to learn how to use and maintain every inch of it, as I have every gun I've ever had. I'll also train my wife how to use it (in fact, I want to get her a small pistol for her purse if she'll carry it) and when the time comes, my kid. I'm convinced that accidental deaths regarding home firearms come from ignorance. Parents try to hide the firearm from the kid, and when the kid finds it, they treat it like a toy instead of a deadly weapon.

When I grew up my dad had M1 Carbine's, revolvers and hunting rifles hanging fom the walls in the basement and I never touched them. I learned very early how deadly they were, and I was given a bucket of toy guns to play with (boys just want to play with guns anyway, it doesn;t matter if they're real or plastic IMO)

And Dylflon, I'd appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that I am somehow bizarre or a killer if I decide to purchase a gun. Nothing I've described here would make you assume I am some nut, so please stop inferring it.

[Vampyr]

I really love animals, and owning a dog would just make me want a gun that much more in order to protect it. :)

I'm also not saying to get an alarm instead of a gun, but to have both. Better safe than sorry, I say. However unlikely it is someone will break in while your at home, I would rather have the upper hand if it did happen. There's no reason not too, other than the cost of a gun.

A blunt weapon would be alright if the person was unarmed, but what are you going to do if the person breaking in brought a gun? It seems likely if a person is going to invade your house then they aren't the type of person to have qualms about walking around armed and being ready to hurt you or your family.

I mean, bringing a knife to a gunfight just isn't a good idea.

[Teuthida]

I mean, bringing a knife to a gunfight just isn't a good idea.

That's why you bring a sword.

[Zen]

That's why you bring a sword.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qXlFNYoyQg

Wish i could embed

[Dylflon]

And Dylflon, I'd appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that I am somehow bizarre or a killer if I decide to purchase a gun. Nothing I've described here would make you assume I am some nut, so please stop inferring it.


Pretty sure I only insinuated it once, champ.


And what I meant to say the first time was phrased incredibly poorly. My concern is of thinking of shooting to kill over shooting to wound. (This thought was in response to you referring to liquefying an intruder)

But there is no point in pushing this any further because we clearly have very different ideas about home security and merit of gun ownership that we can't mediate through discussion.

Do what helps you sleep at night I suppose. I trust you'll take every precaution so that the gun never comes out of its respective hiding place unless the unthinkable happens.

The reality is that if you take precautions such as an alarm system and a dog who is also pretty much an alarm system, no intruder would bother breaking into your house with those two hurdles in front of him. Even criminals understand risk vs. reward. But I take this idea as a reason for my not wanting to own a handgun.

I know that in America (and parts of Canada) there is a very different ideology surrounding gun ownership, so I'm not going to argue with you or shit on your parade.

[KillerGremlin]

or shit on your parade.

This might be acceptable during the German portion of the Gay Pride Parade, so there is still hope!

[Professor S]

Pretty sure I only insinuated it once, champ.

No, twice in fact. The second time is when you said I could be "a normal person" and get a dog. The idea could have easily been made without the added insult, chief.

And what I meant to say the first time was phrased incredibly poorly. My concern is of thinking of shooting to kill over shooting to wound. (This thought was in response to you referring to liquefying an intruder)

Dyflon, they teach law enforcement personnel, professional gunmen, to shoot to kill when threatened and in fact empty their clip just to be sure. You would expect more from an armed citizen when their home has been invaded? I think that's fantasy.

Do what helps you sleep at night I suppose. I trust you'll take every precaution so that the gun never comes out of its respective hiding place unless the unthinkable happens.

That and to practice using it and perform maintenance. But your trust is well laid.

The reality is that if you take precautions such as an alarm system and a dog who is also pretty much an alarm system, no intruder would bother breaking into your house with those two hurdles in front of him. Even criminals understand risk vs. reward. But I take this idea as a reason for my not wanting to own a handgun.

In the end you are trusting someone with such low moral character that they would break into your home to run away if there is a dog or an alarm. I don't have that much trust.

I can see your point of view. You're playing the odds. With a family, I simply refuse to play the odds anymore.

[Typhoid]

they teach law enforcement personnel, professional gunmen, to shoot to kill when threatened and in fact empty their clip just to be sure. You would expect more from an armed citizen when their home has been invaded?

Actually, just to touch on this point, I wouldn't expect nor want the same from a regular citizen that I would a law enforcement officer IE cop.

The reason I wouldn't want the same standards for cops and regular people is because then that gets across the idea that not only are cops normal people they just tell 'shoot to kill' to and push them out on their way, but that also insinuates (roughly) that normal citizens are allowed to empty an entire clip on an intruder in their home, and think 'well, cops can do it'.

Like you said, maybe it's different laws where you are - but you're not allowed to murder another human being (here) unless your life is in jeopardy. And just because someone comes into your house, doesn't mean your life is in jeopardy. In very few cases, yeah - the guy breaking in will totally have a gun or maybe have the intention of raping you and your family. But in a lot of the cases it's just junkies or 'young people' just looking for free shit.

The major problem I have with this idea of yours, is the fact you seem to want to use it. Making mention that if someone steps into your house without permission you're allowed to blast them to pieces, without even looking at the fact if they have a gun or not, or if your life is even in danger so long as you say 'I have a gun'.

Because if a junkie walks into your house and wants to steal a TV to sell for some crack, and you blast him to pieces just because he's there, that my friend is murder. Not self defense.

And this isn't so much me harping on you, moreso the situation of people wanting guns. The cycle will never end. Guns beget more guns.

And Dylan made a good point, criminals do understand risk vs. reward. Sure they have a highly inflated sense of ability, but if you have a loud alarm system - loud enough to wake neighbours - no criminal will stick around.

That's why we arm our cars with loud alarms, and not under-panel flamethrowers that activate automatically when someone touches the handle or jimmies the lock.

[Vampyr]

I've never been in the scenario before, but how do you know if they're armed or not? :ohreilly:

[Professor S]

Actually, just to touch on this point, I wouldn't expect nor want the same from a regular citizen that I would a law enforcement officer IE cop.

The reason I wouldn't want the same standards for cops and regular people is because then that gets across the idea that not only are cops normal people they just tell 'shoot to kill' to and push them out on their way, but that also insinuates (roughly) that normal citizens are allowed to empty an entire clip on an intruder in their home, and think 'well, cops can do it'.

I'm confused. Are you saying that you are expecting more weapon proficiency from a civilian than a professional law enforcer?

Like you said, maybe it's different laws where you are - but you're not allowed to murder another human being (here) unless your life is in jeopardy. And just because someone comes into your house, doesn't mean your life is in jeopardy. In very few cases, yeah - the guy breaking in will totally have a gun or maybe have the intention of raping you and your family. But in a lot of the cases it's just junkies or 'young people' just looking for free shit.

The major problem I have with this idea of yours, is the fact you seem to want to use it. Making mention that if someone steps into your house without permission you're allowed to blast them to pieces, without even looking at the fact if they have a gun or not, or if your life is even in danger so long as you say 'I have a gun'.

Because if a junkie walks into your house and wants to steal a TV to sell for some crack, and you blast him to pieces just because he's there, that my friend is murder. Not self defense.

And this isn't so much me harping on you, moreso the situation of people wanting guns. The cycle will never end. Guns beget more guns.

And Dylan made a good point, criminals do understand risk vs. reward. Sure they have a highly inflated sense of ability, but if you have a loud alarm system - loud enough to wake neighbours - no criminal will stick around.

That's why we arm our cars with loud alarms, and not under-panel flamethrowers that activate automatically when someone touches the handle or jimmies the lock.

Typh, I think your still operating on assumptions sympathetic to your point of view. Could you give me feedback on the situations I detailed earlier? After much thought, I think these are realistic expectations to real life situations.

And when forced to shoot, I still think that shooting to wound is fantasy. This isn't the movies. I can't "wing" someone at will or shoot a weapon out of their hand. Realistically, I'm going to shoot for the largest part of their body, and that happens to be their torso. I also want to be sure they can't shoot back if they have a weapon.

There are reasons why police officers are taught to shoot the way they do, and that's because they enforce the law in the real world. When forced to defend your life, the only expectation you should have is to do so the most effective way possible.

[Fox 6]

Just curious, what are the background and waiting list laws in your state? or have you already stated them in the thread?

[Professor S]

Just curious, what are the background and waiting list laws in your state? or have you already stated them in the thread?

Nationally, I think it's 7 days with a few exceptions. I have no problem waiting and no problem with background checks. Hell, I'm not going to buy one for at least a few more months. I've been debating myself about it for a couple months as it is.

[Typhoid]

I'm confused. Are you saying that you are expecting more weapon proficiency from a civilian than a professional law enforcer?

I meant the exact opposite. I wouldn't want the skills police officers have to be held in the same regard as anyone else. I expect them to be much better than a civilian at their job, especially when it comes to wielding a firearm.

Could you give me feedback on the situations I detailed earlier? After much thought, I think these are realistic expectations to real life situations.

Why don't we just take it as the fact I live in Vancouver, Canada - and you live in the U.S.

For example, Police here don't shoot to kill, for one. They shoot to wound, because they want the person to stand trial, not die.

It's maybe not that I'm twisting my entire idea of the scenario itself, but rather the scenario itself is not likely to happen here.

Breaking and entering, of course that happens. But if you have an alarm, they always run away. I can't remember the last time I read a story that happened around here of someone going into a house, ignored the alarm and murdered a family. Or even someone who broke into an alarm-less house and murdered anyone for that matter.

I don't even remember the last time I read a story that happened around here where someones house got broken into and they all got raped.

The beauty of Canada, is that since guns are illegal, people who break and enter don't have them the vast majority of the time. The gangs have the guns, and they don't deal with B&E's. They deal with drugs and other gang-related things.

So as I said, it's not that I'm twisting my view of the scenario, it's that the scenario of someone breaking into your house armed with a gun and malicious intent isn't likely to happen around here.

[Professor S]

The beauty of Canada, is that since guns are illegal, people who break and enter don't have them the vast majority of the time. The gangs have the guns, and they don't deal with B&E's. They deal with drugs and other gang-related things.

So as I said, it's not that I'm twisting my view of the scenario, it's that the scenario of someone breaking into your house armed with a gun and malicious intent isn't likely to happen around here.

Ok, but I don't live in Canada, and to be honest my scenarios have nothing to do with nationality. These are situations that could happen to anyone, anywhere. In those scenarios, do you believe the response is legitimate, or not. If not, what would be your alternative.

[Combine 017]

That's why we arm our cars with loud alarms, and not under-panel flamethrowers that activate automatically when someone touches the handle or jimmies the lock.

That would be sweet!
I need to figure out a way to rig my car like that.

[Professor S]

That would be sweet!
I need to figure out a way to rig my car like that.

I think they actually had those in Australia for a while...

[Typhoid]

Ok, but I don't live in Canada, and to be honest my scenarios have nothing to do with nationality. These are situations that could happen to anyone, anywhere. In those scenarios, do you believe the response is legitimate, or not. If not, what would be your alternative.

I'm well aware you don't live in Canada.
I do. Which is why I, and Dylan have a different view on these things.


Because when you said:

Could you give me feedback on the situations I detailed earlier? After much thought, I think these are realistic expectations to real life situations.


I thought "Wait a minute, that's not a realistic situation or response for me, I better explain why in order to make it valid", so I said:


Why don't we just take it as the fact I live in Vancouver, Canada - and you live in the U.S....It's maybe not that I'm twisting my entire idea of the scenario itself, but rather the scenario itself is not likely to happen here.

Those situations could happen anywhere, sure. Just like at any moment a Jumbo Jet can smash through anyones house at any given time.
But realistically, no - that scenario isn't likely to happen everywhere.

Like I was trying to say - our view is different on this because A) Guns are illegal, so people who break in don't have them - because people don't defend their houses with them B) People here don't break in with intent to kill, maim or rape - they break in with intent to steal shit and will flee if you wake up, or they hear your voice.

I don't know why you seem to think Canada is the same as the US in this aspect, but you're mistaken. We have crime, and we have murder. But not like that. We use alarm systems for our cars, and houses. They work just fine.

Nobody I know who has an alarm has ever been broken into, and nobody I know has ever had the thought "I need a gun to protect my family because someone might try to murder or rape them." It doesn't happen here.

Like I said, difference of opinion based on the likelihood of situations.

[Typhoid]

That would be sweet!
I need to figure out a way to rig my car like that.

Yeah - there was a prototype for one a guy was trying to sell - that's why I brought it up, because it never got off the ground because compare to an alarm system it's ridiculously impractical.

[Professor S]

Nobody I know who has an alarm has ever been broken into, and nobody I know has ever had the thought "I need a gun to protect my family because someone might try to murder or rape them." It doesn't happen here.

Like I said, difference of opinion based on the likelihood of situations.

Typhoid, at this point I just think you're trying to avoid the question I asked. I asked you to respond to pretty specific scenarios, but you still seem stuck on location for some reason, so lets try this one:

Imagine you do live in America and as the stats I linked point out, people DO break in to assault and rape. Now what do you think about the scenarios I provided. Are they reasonable responses considering the situation?

[Seth]

I'd maybe like to mention that RCMP do in fact shoot to kill. Most of the time if someone is showing signs of possible violence, the officer assumes that their life is in danger and more often than not a few bullets are fired at the torso. 'Maiming' isn't clipping elbows, it's subduing by bullets to the torso. Granted, there are officers with common sense enough to tear apart someone's calf or femur if the assailant isn't posing an instant threat(approaching with a knife).
I sometimes think it would be better to have a bullet to a limb instead of the freaky tazering...but there's always the chance that the officer didn't get his morning cup of coffee.

bang bang bang

[Typhoid]

Typhoid, at this point I just think you're trying to avoid the question I asked. I asked you to respond to pretty specific scenarios, but you still seem stuck on location for some reason, so lets try this one:

Imagine you do live in America and as the stats I linked point out, people DO break in to assault and rape. Now what do you think about the scenarios I provided. Are they reasonable responses considering the situation?


To be fair when you asked before you never said "Imagine you live in the US" you just said "Imagine if this is happening" which I can't do, because it's not probable for me.


Would I buy a gun to protect my family if I lived in the US? No. Maybe if I was getting broken into constantly, and the alarm system and deadbolt/latches clearly weren't doing their proper job - maybe I'd buy a gun, yes. But just as a "Hey, it could happen" type thing, I wouldn't. I stand firm on my comment of "guns are for hunting."

However assuming breaking and entering where murder and rape are common things, which they apparently are - I would move. What better way to protect your family from getting killed or raped than removing them from the situation itself.


I'd maybe like to mention that RCMP do in fact shoot to kill.

RCMP aren't 'cops'. They're the 'special cops'. I meant normal police officers.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Uhm...

I'm a bit more worried about the danger that having this gun poses on your family.

I mean, sometimes you take all the steps to make sure little (whatever you're naming your kid) has no way to get his/her hands on the gun, but kids will surprise you and are much smarter than you think.

Also what if you were to accidentally shoot a member of your family while defending them from someone? I mean an unlikely scenario, but it could happen, especially with proposed shotgun.

Besides I just don't see the effectiveness of a gun. What I can see being more effective is some type of panic room. Sure they steal everything you own, but at least you keep your lives.

[manasecret]

So, Typh, you're saying rape and murder rates in home invasions for Vancouver are much lower than the U.S. I wonder what the actual stats are beyond your anecdotal evidence for Vancouver. That sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

I mean, I don't know of anyone that had their home invaded and were murdered or raped, but it doesn't mean the rate is any different than other places.

[Typhoid]

So, Typh, you're saying rape and murder rates in home invasions for Vancouver are much lower than the U.S. I wonder what the actual stats are beyond your anecdotal evidence for Vancouver. That sounds pretty far-fetched to me

in 2006 There were 45.3 violent offences involving guns for every 100,000 people in Metro Vancouver

And just for fun, the homocide rate in Canada is 1.85 per 100,000 (as of 2006)
As of 2006, the homocide rate for the US is 5.69 per 100,000.

However, in Vancouver the homocide rate is 2.01 per 100,000 people.

The rate of robbery incidents fell 4% in 2004. Police reported more than 27,000 robberies in Canada, half of which were committed without a weapon of any kind. The rate of robberies committed with a firearm continued to decline, down 3% in 2004, accounting for one in seven robberies. The remaining 35% of robberies were committed with other weapons such as knives.

About 41% of all robberies occurred in commercial establishments, including 16% in convenience stores or gas stations and 5% in banks. The next most common locations were streets/sidewalks (30%), private residences (8%) parking lots (6%) and open areas (5%).

So believe me when I say, around here it's relatively unlikely.

[Typhoid]

For comparison of Canadian crimes (All as of 2004, can't find a newer census):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm

622 homocides.
23,534 sexual assaults.
27,477 robberies.
17,294 thefts over $5000.
680,885 thefts under $5000.
18,002 counts of offensive weapons.
48,052 people caught posessing marijuana.

For fun though, let's do that as per 100,000 people:

2 homocides per 100,000 people.
860 B&E's per 100,000 people.
54 thefts over 5 grand per 100,000 people.
150 in posession of pot per 100,000 people.
304 drug related incidents per 100,000 people.

But remember, that is all of Canada - not Vancouver.

[manasecret]

So, ok, the violent crime rate appears to be less (though none of those stats directly address home invasion), but in any case it's not like it's nonexistent in Canada (and even more so in Vancouver). So it's not like the scenarios Prof. S are saying happen all the time in the U.S. but never happen in Vancouver.

For full disclosure, I lean towards not owning a gun for home protection. I think the chances of something going wrong with the gun and hurting someone are higher than the chances of your home being violently invaded. I just take issue with your statement that you can't fathom Prof. S's scenarios because you live in the utopia of Vancouver. :p

[Typhoid]

So, ok, the violent crime rate appears to be less (though none of those stats directly address home invasion)

What are you talking about?
It's lumped in with Robberies.
In Canada we don't get alot, so we have to combine stats. :ohreilly:

Police reported more than 27,000 robberies in Canada, half of which were committed without a weapon of any kind. The rate of robberies committed with a firearm continued to decline, down 3% in 2004, accounting for one in seven robberies. The remaining 35% of robberies were committed with other weapons such as knives.

1 in 7 robberies in Canada, the person has a gun.

And since you want the direct stat:

The rate of break-ins fell 4% to just under 275,000 [In all of Canada] and was 36% lower than a decade ago. More than one-half (56%) of break-ins were committed in residences, about one-third (31%) in businesses and the remaining 13% occurred in other areas such as garden sheds and schools.

So let's just shoot the shit and say 125,000 break-ins in all of Canada in a given year in a residence, and if 1 and 7 of every break in has a gun, that means of those 125,000 residential break-ins, 17,857 of them were possibly armed with a gun and 107,143 of them had either no weapon at all, or a knife.

because you live in the utopia of Vancouver.

Mercer World Rankings 2009:
1. Vienna, Austria
2. Zurich, Switzerland
3. Geneva, Switzerland
4. Vancouver, Canada

Top 5 cities based on quality of living in the Americas:
1. Vancouver, Canada (4th in world)
2. Toronto, Canada (15th in world ranking)
3.Ottawa, Canada (16th world ranking)

Top 5 cities based on infrastructure in the Americas:
1. Vancouver, Canada (6th in world)
2. Atlanta, USA (15th in world)
3. Montreal, Canada (15th in world)

Just sayin'. ;)

[Combine 017]

I'm well aware you don't live in Canada.
I do. Which is why I, and Dylan have a different view on these things.

I live in Canada too, im just down the street from you guys, but im fine with people owning guns. I plan to acquire one at some point in my life. Its just a lot harder to do in Canada.

[Typhoid]

I live in Canada too, im just down the street from you guys, but im fine with people owning guns. I plan to acquire one at some point in my life. Its just a lot harder to do in Canada.

Which of the following do you plan to acquire a gun for though, Adam:

A) As a conversation piece
B) Just to have one
C) For hunting purposes
D) Because you're afraid someone might rape and kill your family


Edit: For clarification, the reason me and Dylan are against owning guns that are not for hunting is the following:

As soon as people have guns in their homes for protection (or any other purposes, really) people will start bringing guns to breaking and entering scenarios. They won't bring a knife to a gun fight. Guns beget guns, and then the cycle never ends, as we can see with the way it is in the US.

[Combine 017]

Which of the following do you plan to acquire a gun for though, Adam:

A) As a conversation piece
B) Just to have one
C) For hunting purposes
D) Because you're afraid someone might rape and kill your family

A, B, and I guess D.
Not really into the murdering of innocent animals minding their own business.

Mainly to bring to a range and test out my mad skillz.
Around my place though id want a gun more so to protect my family from wild animals such as bears and cougars, not so much worried about someone breaking into my house.

[manasecret]

No, Typh, apparently "home invasion" is defined as breaking into a home with intent for violence or rape, or that ends up in violence or rape. I say "apparently" because I just learned that myself. I don't think any of those stats pertain to that specifically.

But regardless, such things still happen in Vancouver and Canada. It may not be as common as in the U.S., but it's not exactly likely that it will happen to you in the U.S. either. So that you can't fathom it happening in Vantopia sounds like b.s. from pride. But I think your further comments confirm that's it's more about your opinion that you wouldn't own a gun to protect your home either way. Which I tend to agree with.

And good for Vancouver. I didn't know it was so well rated.

Buuuut... what do the native Americans up there think of that rating? :)

[Combine 017]

Most of the Native Americans around here are drug dealers and gang members, at least the ones on the island as far as I know. Many a time have I been told not to talk to or go near any natives while visiting the island. :p

[Professor S]

I really don't understand why Typhoid won't answer my scenarios. I'm not even asking him to approve owning a gun, just to see if analyze whether or not the scenarios are reasonable if someone did have a gun and someone invaded their home.

To be honest, Typh, I think your avoiding the questions because you are uncomfortable with the obvious answer: "Yes, that is a reasonable response."

[Typhoid]

I really don't understand why Typhoid won't answer my scenarios. I'm not even asking him to approve owning a gun, just to see if analyze whether or not the scenarios are reasonable if someone did have a gun and someone invaded their home.

To be honest, Typh, I think your avoiding the questions because you are uncomfortable with the obvious answer: "Yes, that is a reasonable response."


I answered it.

If I haven't answered it to your liking, re-ask the scenario, and I will re-answer it.

Edit: And Mana, it's not 'bs about pride'. It's because I'm honestly not concerned about someone breaking into my house with intent to kill. Rob me of things, sure. But I'm not worried they'll have a gun. But the other half of that was tongue-in-cheek, if you didn't notice.

[Professor S]

I answered it.

If I haven't answered it to your liking, re-ask the scenario, and I will re-answer it.

This isn't a US presidential debate. You don't get to rewrite my questions because you find their premise uncomfortable. These scenarios have nothing to do with judging gun ownership, alarm systems or pet availability. They are specific situations where you have a gun and your home has been invaded. Would you behave as described in the scenarios or not? If not, how would you behave differently in those situations?

Either answer it or don't, it will be the last time I bring it up. To be honest, your refusal to respond to what are really simple scenarios tells me more than your answer ever could.

[Typhoid]

Okay, I will answer it to your liking covering every possible angle, then:

They are specific situations where you have a gun and your home has been invaded. Would you behave as described in the scenarios or not? If not, how would you behave differently in those situations?

If I was in a situation where I lived in a location where I was afraid enough for my families lives and well-being to the point where I needed to own a gun to shoot other people to keep them at bay, not only would I buy a handgun because it causes less collateral damage - and I won't want to miss what I'm aiming at and possibly blast through the wall behind them and hit my son our wife; is easier to store and less likely for my toddler son to get his hands on - but I would take every precaution needed to ensure I do not take another human beings life.


So if I lived in a shitty enough area where someone broke into my house with a gun with malicious intent and for some reason instead of buying an alarm system or moving to a safer location and I happened to own a gun instead of doing those two previous things, yes - I would defend myself and my family. But then after wards I would most likely either get to the realization of "Hey, this area isn't safe" or "You know what, I should buy an alarm system".

To be honest, your refusal to respond to what are really simple scenarios tells me more than your answer ever could.

Dude, okay - if you were the one breaking into a house, with a gun - and you were to murder and rape a family - how would you do it.
I expect an answer to this simple, likely scenario. Afterall, understanding the enemy is everything.

This isn't a US presidential debate. You don't get to rewrite my questions because you find their premise uncomfortable.

It's not that I find the premise uncomfortable. It's that I was saying "Burglars don't really have guns here, so I don't fear that, so therefore I can't see where you're coming from based on experience, therefore I don't feel I personally need a gun to protect from home invasion." I even proved that statement was true. 1 in 7 burglaries in Canada are commited with guns. And in all of Canada, there were roughly 275,000 break-ins in total. And only about 125,000 happened in residences. It's like me asking you about how awesome and useful health care is. You're not going to change my opinion to the point of me saying "You know what, owning a gun around a child is a brilliant idea." Just like I don't assume you'll suddenly think health care is a brilliant idea. I've stated my opinion on guns. They are for hunting, and war. They should be illegal for all other purposes. This is why I love Canada. The system works, as proven by the 1 in 7 burglary numbers. And I have also stated that I would not buy a gun instead of buying an alarm system. I also wasn't the one to mention getting a dog - that was Dylan.

[Professor S]

yes - I would defend myself and my family

Thanks for agreeing with me. :D

[Typhoid]

Neat.
Back to the good 'ol Strangler days, I see.
It's a shame you don't actually answer anything directed at you, and only look for one thing to constantly jump on, negating everything else said of relevance.

It's a difference of opinion, and location which changes perception entirely. Be an adult and realize that.
While you believe in killing someone instead of preventing them from entering, I believing in stopping them from getting into the house so the situation doesn't arise in the first place.
Since I know you love the last word, get it in and enjoy the shit out of it.

[Professor S]

Neat.
Back to the good 'ol Strangler days, I see.
It's a shame you don't actually answer anything directed at you, and only look for one thing to constantly jump on, negating everything else said of relevance.

Canadian statistics don't have anything to do with those situations and are therefore irrelevant to my query.

Typhoid, I answered everything of relevance. I asked those scenarios after a lot of thought and reflection after hearing what you and Dyflon had to say. I wanted to workout realistic scenarios that would help me make the best, moral decisions if the unthinkable should ever happen, and I honestly asked for your opinion on them. I already stated I was buying a gun, I wanted to be sure my plans to operate it were within reason. As for "that will never happen" I did address them, and in fact that was one of the reasons why I made my scenarios so specific.

As for the "move somewhere else" argument, well that is an argument from a point of affluence and not necessity. There are plenty of people who live in statistically dangerous areas that cannot move, and in fact I would say the majority of people who live in dangerous areas can't afford to move (why would they be there to begin with?). In fact, I am one of those people who can't afford to move. I'm upside down on my house right now due to market drop. I couldn't sell my house if I did live in a violent area (I don't, but I live next to a violent area).

But again, moving was never a part of those scenarios. They were located in any house, anywhere. My specificity was meant to prevent the irrelevant alternatives you insisted on offering.

[Xantar]

Look, people, I am pro gun control. On a philosophical level, I would like to rid our society of guns altogether (although I'm practical enough to know that's not happening in this country).

But let's take a step back and really think here. Professor S owning a gun is not the problem here. The problem is too many guns being sold second-hand without any documentation and guns being sold to people who have been institutionalized multiple times and are off their meds. I say as long as Professor S promises to store his gun safely and as long as he's not posting videos on YouTube about how he wants to kill Nancy Pelosi, I say let him have his damn gun.

[Professor S]

I say as long as Professor S promises to store his gun safely and as long as he's not posting videos on YouTube about how he wants to kill Nancy Pelosi, I say let him have his damn gun.

I'd never kill Nancy Pelosi! Her very existence is an argument for conservatism. :D