Buyng a Gun

[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]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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

That's why you bring a sword.

[Zen]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

That's why you bring a sword.

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

Wish i could embed

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

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]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

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?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

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]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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.