• beyondtheveil said on Oct 07, 2008....

  The simplest way to put this sticking solely with the question is that I have never been without a gun and never will because of that one time in your life it may be the only thing that stands between your survival and/or survival of your family.
  
  Its a crazy world with crazy people. If just once people broke into your home with evil on their mind, a gun could be the only thing that might save you and your wife and child from great bodily harm or worse. I also take one on most trips especially if we would be camping out or in a recreational vehicle. Last year a man saved himself and his wife due to having one at a campground in West Texas. The guy he shot (and did not kill) was a dangerous and armed escapee police were looking for.
  
  I would simply never take the chance of not owning one. My bedroom door has always had a deadbolt and the gun (guns) are hidden and only one loaded. Ammunition is in a safe usually with the loaded gun. There are many ways to make it completely safe in your home.
  

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2008....

  "If just once people broke into your home with evil on their mind, a gun could be the only thing that might save you and your wife and child from great bodily harm or worse."
  
  
  True, and it could also be the opposite. It could be a drunk family member getting stupid and killing someone. There are a lot of other examples one can think of. That's what makes this a hard issue for me. I see both sides of it.
  
  
  Here's another odd piece of info. I felt the need for a gun far more when I lived in semi rural places, and do not feel much need when I live in the city and am constantly surrounded by others.

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 07, 2008....

  A lot of it comes down to what makes you feel safe as when you mentioned feeling safer in the city with more people around. I feel safer in rural areas such as my hometown.
  
  Actually, I feel quite safe in both places probably because of the odds of needing one for serious self defense. I will almost certainly not ever need to shoot someone. Its that one lingering possibility of a situation where nothing else will do.
  
  When you mention a drunk and stupid family member are you referring to America as a whole and whether anyone should have one at all? I'm not responsible for drunk and stupid people unless they break into my house. And in that case I should be able to protect my family and a gun may be the only way to do it effectively. That not only makes me feel safer, it would be safer, at least for us.
  
  There are people who feel it would be safer not brandishing a gun and hope for the best. Sometimes they would be right and sometimes not. I'm not willing to take the chance and my family has always depended on me for their safety. Everyone should have the right to protect.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Most of the facts that show guns being dangerous seem to be the "other side" of the abstinance only approach that we have taken in modern America.  I gaurantee that if part of basic public school involved weapons handling it would instantly cut down those numbers. 
   
  Personally I would have a shooting a gun as part of PE myself.  But forwhatever stupid reason there are people who are going to be opposed to teaching their children to shoot so we'll skip that.  But the basics, how to operate the safety, how to unload and clear.  Never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot, never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.  Keep the weapon pointed away from you at all times.  Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
   
  Some of the stats wouldn't go away but it seems to me that accidental deaths involving guns almost always seem to involve children with no knowledge of what they are doing or respect for the power of what they are holding.  It's terribly similar to the right screeching about abstiance when that CLEARLY isn't the right answer.  Education, education & education is the right answer here.
   
  The facts are clear however.  Under our current system the average person with a gun is not any safer.  A person with training or at least comfort with the weapon is probably margially safer particularly in certain situations. 
   
  I'd also like to say the whole if someone broke into your home scenario is pretty much bullshit in 90% of the country (probably more than that)  Random theives *for starters generally operate at mid day when you're not home and your kids are at school* aren't interested in hurting you, they just want your money.  If somebody WAS after you and your family with the intent to do harm I doubt you'd get to your gun in time unless you slept with it under your pillow.

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2008....

  what i'm saying is that people get hot headed and act stupid on a regular basis. Adding a bunch of guns to such a situation is probably a bad idea. 
  
  
  Think about it like this. We were both in the military, now imagine that everyone in the barracks had a few loaded guns in their rooms. I think that would make the situation worse, not better, and these are people trained to use guns!

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  I'm not disagreeing with the fact that people get hotheaded and act stupid. 
   
  Maybe the barracks were a worse place when you were in, for the most part we were close and the only negative to having guns around would have been the risk of getting drunk and starting to buy into our own hype and playing William Tell.

• Lucytorial said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Safer with a gun? fuck off! are you seriously saying Sean that kids should learn how to fire a gun just so you can help up hold the age old tradition of being able to shoot ANYONE! without having to answer to the courts because it was **LMAO** *self defence*
   
  Ohh man, please keep discussing, I need a morning laugh.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Actually I'm saying kids should learn how to fire a gun so they don't accidently shoot their best friend when they find daddy's gun.  People who don't have applicable knowledge make bad decisions.  Saying GUNS BAD is the same as saying SEX BAD.  Education seems to go a long way towards curing the ails of both.

• Lucytorial said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Yes but why is daddy not being responsible with his guns in the first place??? dah.
   
  Guns and sex are bad in certain forms Sean, you must know that! yes education works however I don't think daddy should have a gun let a lone leave it lying around for little johny to find.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Maybe Daddy is an idiot.
   
  What you said: 

  Guns and sex are bad in certain forms Sean, you must know that! yes education works however I don't think daddy should have a gun let a lone leave it lying around for little johny to find.

   

  What I heard:

  Guns and sex are bad in certain forms Sean, you must know that! yes education works however I don't think daddy should have a girl let a lone leave it lying around for little johny to find.

   

  Johnny needs to know what to do when he finds either. 

• Lucytorial said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Yes but there are far too many daddy's like Mr Idiot thats the problem.  You can spend millions of dollars educating people only to find they have the capacity to learn of a pea! Not only do Mr Idiots find themselves a Mrs Idiot to make a little johny with.... the guns just another deadly tool.  Mr Idiot has one too.
   
  LOL ~ stop it, your turning me on again.  (bwa ha ha)

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  True enough. 
   
  Note: I've never once truly endorsed the idea that guns make you safer.  I stand by the belief that the Founding Fathers were correct that a populace that can't defend itself from its government is just waiting for George W Bush to happen.  We should just be happy that Chenney wasn't the guy who won in 2000 cus then Bush would be running now. . .and likely winning or at the least bringing us up to the ragged edge like in 2004 instead of this year where it's not over but I saw the Fat Lady and she's humming a few bars.
   
  Anyway I've also admitted that we've limited our ability to acquire actual weapons to such a degree that what we have left isn't enough to really bother defending anyway.   Besides as bloc points out Iraqis can make IEDs so we should be able to . . .repeatedly piss off our oppressors.  Call me a coward if you like but when a best case scenario is the Warsaw Ghetto I think I'd prefer playing for the other team.

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2008....

  IED's do more than piss of the oppressors, they win in the long run. Just ask the soviets.

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2008....

  also, the insurgents in Iraq have plenty of guns. They don't work so well against our military do they?

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Only if you allow a long run.  Ask the Jews of Warsaw.
   
  Also we've been over guns vs arms.  And that's why I stated we've already surrendered so much  that we may as well let the the rest go. 

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2008....

  i think we are talking about slightly different things. If the government wants to annihilate you there is nothing you can do. They can simply drop the bomb on you! This is the situation with the warsaw jews. 
  
  
  If however, the government wants to control you, then that's a different situation and I think my point stands. Guns are not effective for the insurgents in Iraq.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 07, 2008....

  Your first line again,  hense my point that we've already surrendered so much that there is little point in holding onto what we've kept. 
   
  Also assuming your not Nazis where the end game is actual anhilation I would argue that dropping a bomb, or clean sweeping a village/city or two would go a long way towards pacifying MOST nations.  Most people value life over liberty and when faced with an enemy that won't hesitate to level a city they'll sit down, shut up and accept new rule.
   
  Obviously against Nazis you keep fighting even if the only thing you've got left is your two fists  cus you know, they are gonna kill you if you surrender.

• curmudgeon said on Oct 07, 2008....

  We need to define "safer".
   
  From crime, only in a limited set of circumstances.
  From accidents, not so much if not everyone is trained to handle them safely, AND they are stored properly.
   
  The United States has something like 60 million gun owners, the vast majority of whom are neither so stupid nor so drunk that they kill each other at the first opportunity. Cigarettes, automobiles and American hospitals cause far more fatalities than guns do.
   
  My father in law grew up hunting with rifles and shotguns. He had  his own rifle at the age of seven. Yep, his own rifle. Did he shoot any of his brothers? Nope. But firearms safety was taught at an early age.
   
  Personally, if I had a gun in the house it would be just another tool. I can hurt someone with a stick, a knife, sword, pen, whatever. Frankly I'd probably rather not use a firearm in my house because of the layout. A shot could go through a wall and hurt an innocent person. I might be marginally safer with a gun in the house, but my neighbors maybe not so much. And I wouldn't want to carry on the subway because at such close quarters not only could innocent people be hurt, but the gun could be taken out of my hand and used against me or others. For that kind of CQB I have a pen in my shirt pocket.
   
  That said, each person must assess his/her own tactical situation, needs and skills and arm appropriately. An elderly woman probably couldn't do the damage I can do with a pen, so she might want to keep a small pistol in her pocket. When I get too old to go around jabbing people, I'll probably keep a shotgun handy around the house. You can set those up so the shot clears out a hallway but the pellets don't go through walls.
   
  Changing tactics for changing times.
   

• bloc said on Oct 07, 2008....

  @curm
  
  great comment. I agree with almost everything you said. I grew up in the south with guns in the house as many people from that part of the world do.
  
  "Frankly I'd probably rather not use a firearm in my house because of the layout. A shot could go through a wall and hurt an innocent person. I might be marginally safer with a gun in the house, but my neighbors maybe not so much. And I wouldn't want to carry on the subway because at such close quarters not only could innocent people be hurt, but the gun could be taken out of my hand and used against me or others."
  
  Guns remind me a lot of cars. I'm not afraid of my driving, but I am afraid of the other crazies on the road. If we drastically increase concealed weapons I'd fear stupid people more than I would criminals. Our well trained military accidentally kills each other at a fairly high rate. Imagine a bunch of random people on the street trying to stop a criminal by shooting at each other in a circle!
  
  My position revolves around freedom. I believe there needs to be a strong and decisive case for any restriction of freedom (I call this the chomsky doctrine because I heard him say it first). Is there a strong and decisive case for outlawing or restricting guns? I don't think it's black and white. In my opinion there clearly is for military grade weapons. I don't want my neighbors to have .50 cals. But, I don't think there is a clear case against rifles. The hard part for me is drawing a line somewhere betweent those.
  

• RollingC said on Oct 08, 2008....

  marking for later....

• stopmediabias said on Oct 08, 2008....

  I think guns is like everything that needs to be regulated, it should be regulated for safety not to try to deter people, like in New York.

  I am a life member of the NRA and have been exposed to guns nearly my entire life.  Since my kids could walk I've taught them about guns, let them play with guns (obviously unloaded and supervised) told them the non-hollywood truth about guns.  If my kids ever got into my room and found one of my guns by accident they would have no interest in it because they've seen and handled it a bunch of times, there is no curiousity.  They know exactly what to do if one of their friends at school shows them a gun.

  My son is 19 and has zero interest in hunting or guns.

  If we can trust people to drive cars and trucks and ATV's and use chainsaws we can trust them with guns.

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 08, 2008....

  The non-hollywood truth about guns?  Seriously what's Hollywood got to do with this subject, I mean aside from there is no chance in hell that your average man holding a pistol in one hand is shooting somebody running on a rooftop, while running. 
   
  Other than that I agree with all of what you said.

• Lucytorial said on Oct 08, 2008....

  StopM ~ good point yes but you have intelligence.  The availability of guns is severely limited here, we do not have the HUGE death rate by accidents or by murder with guns because of that.  Being a responsible gun owner means having the intelligence to know what and when and how they should be used, not a militia perspective as in everyone has the right!
   
  Here you are either a farmer who requires a gun on your land, you are in the forces and continue to keep your skills up to date or you are a gun sportsman.  No other reason for holding a gun.  The personal checks are in place, NO criminal record, if you do your gun is confiscated and you are recorded nationwide as being banned from holding guns for life.  It works to a degree.  Yet your point about educating your family is pertinent considering the cultural environment you live in is ao vastly different to my own.

• bloc said on Oct 08, 2008....

  @smb
  "it should be regulated for safety not to try to deter people"
  
  
  I'm not sure what you mean. 

• kelly said on Oct 09, 2008....

  I grew up with guns.  But I came to realize that guns are stupid.  Having a  gun has the tendency to make you believe you are safe, even invincible.  That might cause you to go into situations that are best avoided.
  
  
  But for the paranoid there will be no satisfaction except to own a gun.  So be it.  I seem to have gotten along quite well in L.A. without one.  I even used to frequent some of the seedier dives, too.
  
  
  And finally, handguns are for idiots.  If you are really concerned about protecting yourself you would get a shotgun.  Hand guns are notoriously difficult to hit anything with, even at close range.  They require a lot of practice.

• RollingC said on Oct 10, 2008....

  My grandfather was a hunter or at least hunted in his younger days.  Bird hunting. And I remember him taking me and my brother out on the farm and target practice with the .22 rifle. 
  As a kid I was taught safety first always with guns but kids being kids I remember  once that I forgot and accidentally fired a shot (into the ground thank God) so even though children may be well taught... no child should handle a gun (or weapon) without adult supervision.
  As a grown up I have a gun that I bought for self-protection after having the unpleasant experience of being held up in a midnight robbery while on my way to make a night deposit from the restaurant.
  I suffered a broken leg from that experience and promptly bought a gun that I still have although not used in many years. 
  I always keep bullets and gun in separate drawers just for the safety factor of prying and curious hands even after my niece and nephews are all grown up.  But the habit remains to this day.
  
  Rc
  

• stopmediabias said on Oct 10, 2008....

  Sean-Hollywood in movies downplay the severity of gun injuries and I think kids get desensitized.  Hollywood also makes people who carry guns look stupid, like that movie The Hills Have Eyes.  This lessons the importance of guns.

  Lucy-In my state all you have to do is wait five days and produce a drivers license that says you are 21.  I rarely hear of gun violence or even see people with guns.  People think teaching starting in 1st grade guns 101 encourages kids to seek out guns, it doesn't, it protects them.

  Bloc-I live 20 miles from the New York border, in New York in order to legally purchase a handgun you have pay $100 to $300 in fees, wait an entire year or more, hope the paperwork is excepted which there are a lot of variables out of your control that could disqualify you, and then you can legally buy a handgun.  This is regulation to keep people away and it doesn't work for criminals.  Guns should be regulated to keep people safe.

  Kelly-I hope you never have to eat your words. 

   I recall the true story I read in my NRA magazine of a father who purchased her knowledgable daughter a .38 caliber handgun as she was going off to college.  While in college and coming out of the post office a man approached her with a knife and insisted she get in the passenger side of her car or he would kill her.  She quickly pulled her .38 out and pointed at the man's stomach and told him no, go away or I will kill you.  The man was later apprehended by police and was picked out in a line-up by a woman that had been raped earlier that day.  A gun is only a tool and an equalizer.

  If people are afraid of guns it is because they don't understand them. 

• SeanRenaud said on Oct 10, 2008....

  SMB- I don't remember the The Hill Have Eyes overly well.  I've seen a couple gunshot wounds (all accidental) and it really does depend on the bullet and where you were hit, but still I won't argue that Hollywood down plays injuries really in general.  Particularly if we are talking about high action flicks.
   
  SMB:  Giving you benfit of the doubt, is your opinion on Sex Ed in line with your opinion on gun 101?
   
  Surely you understand that the spirit of all those hoops and fees is to minimize the amount of criminals with guns.  What specifically would you do to at least try to minimize this while not screwing over law abiders?  I agree with you but like many other things (See: Campaign financing) I've yet to see a plan that even gets close to the level of quality we have now so I'd be curious.
   
  I endorse your Kelly wishes. 
   
  I hate anectodal stories.  Particularly when they are rarities.  I mean I'd be willing to bet without looking up any stats that the number of women who avoided rapes/kidnappings by owning a gun are dwarfed by kids who found a gun digging in the closet, or walking home from school and accidently shot their best friend.  I've already stated that a child who had any understanding of a weapon is unlikely to kill by accident.  And yes I also acknowledge that mistakes happen but LESS mistakes happen with people who understand the tools. 
   
  Having worked directly on the XM-218 (Gau 12) .50 cal machine gun and its sucessor the M3M.  Which as an interesting historical point the XM-218 is one of if not the oldest weapon currently in use in the modern world being designed in (or around) the first World War and mass produced for WW2 and since then most of the changes are cosmetic more than truly functional.  Point being I've seen what that thing does.  It scares the hell out of me.  I want to mount one on the back of a Nissan Titan.  If the stock market keeps up this rate we're talking hitting the reset button on society in a few months and I saw Mad Max once. . .a few other post apocalyptic flicks too.  I should go study up, just encase I'm wrong and it's not all good.  That said, it's all good just a 50% correction. . .it's still good its still good.  It's only happening around the globe. . .its still good, its still good. 
   
  It really sucks having a system that is built so heavily on faith in your fellow man.

• beyondtheveil said on Oct 10, 2008....

  sean- When you asked SMB what he would do to minimize criminals having guns without screwing over law abiders, there was a plan proposed and I believe endorsed by the NRA. It was to have a national computer network linking all the states that dealers could call and have a customer checked out in minutes.
  
  States with waiting periods check the same thing but expend human resources over a week or more. Each state would have the duty to keep the computer updated. I don't remember why it wasn't accepted, but probably due to cost. It sounds more cost effective to me. The promoters said it would help in out-of-state customers trying to buy guns and would give a background for locals.
  
  In Texas I can walk into a gun store and be checked out before they write up the ticket and I pay. So they obviously have something like this set up in my state. I thought it was through the FBI, but would have to verify that.
  

• bloc said on Oct 10, 2008....

  i think the reason is that they don't want people being able to impulsively buy a gun. That's just a guess on my part, but it would make sense to me as a way to prevent some suicides and murders. 

• stopmediabias said on Oct 11, 2008....

  Sean-A classic example of how gun control doesn't work is  New York City.  Even with a handgun permit it is against the law to bring one into New York City.  Gun violence is huge in that city.  If a criminal is going to break the law is he going to obey the law first by attempting to get a gun lawfully.  Waiting periods make people feel all warm and fuzzy but look at them logically.  Is a criminal who wants a gun for whatever purpose going to walk into a gun store and subject himself to a background check? 

  All of these laws do only one thing, keep guns out of honest peoples hands, which by the way is a constitutional right. 

  The problem with laws and I mean every law is they should be tracked from the time implemented to see if they work, if they don't work they should be done away with.

  In Florida back in the 80's rape statistics dropped significantly after they dropped the gun ban and made it a registration program like cars. 

• kelly said on Oct 11, 2008....

  "In Florida back in the 80's rape statistics dropped significantly after they dropped the gun ban and made it a registration program like cars. "
  
  
  Can you prove that isn't a specious argument?  It is also true that as ice cream sales slow down (on a yearly cycle) incidents of rape also decrease.  Are you saying that ice cream leads to rape?

• Antimatter said on Oct 14, 2008....

  If you're concerned about safety at home against intruders, why is a gun any better than a taser?

• stopmediabias said on Oct 14, 2008....

  Kelly-Wayne Lapierre's book Gun's Crime and Freedom has that statistic, which is where I got it.  Even without that, logically if criminals know an area is loaded with people who legally carry firearms doesn't it make sense they are going to avoid that area?

  Antimatter-Just the appearance of a gun is enough to do the trick.  In another useless bordering state of mine-Massachusetts, virually every gun is illegal as well as tasers, mace, etc, but taser's are not a right outlined in the Constitution, so who cares. 

  Anyone against guns, the chances statistically of someone attacking you in your home are slim, just like the chances of a dog or other animal attacking one of your kids.  You guys are comfortable with taking the gamble of handling either situation without a gun while at the same time calling people who aren't idiots, yet overall how many crimes a year could be prevented by honest trained people owning guns.  Think of 9/11, pitbull attacks, school shootings, robberies, etc...all deaths that could have been prevented if honest people were allowed to carry guns. 

Comment on "Does owning a gun make you safer?"

Currently tagged	Guns politics (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment