yes probably true, i should have been more clear that i also know hes not an idiot.

and also, im not saying having a gun at home for safetly is an awful thing (in what cases you intend to you use it and how you use it is more important), ive been saying that its insane to shoot all intruders on-sight without warning.







[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 1:27 PM. Reason : -]

2/14/2006 1:24:31 PM

Quote :

"A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2 * Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3 * As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4 * Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5 * Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7 * Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials." B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime * Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9 * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11 * Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12 * Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14 * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder. 1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin. 2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15 C. Criminals avoid armed citizens * Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16 * Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17 * Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes: * Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18 Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection * Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19 * Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20 Justice Department study: * 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21 * 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22 * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23 "

for the top

2/14/2006 1:38:31 PM

without a source you might as well post anything

2/14/2006 1:45:55 PM

fine

Quote :

"Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188. Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997). As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate. 2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 30,000 deaths per year. See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. 3Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185. 4Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185. 5 Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997); available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt on the internet. The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases did not sit well with the anti-gun bias of the study's authors, who attempted to explain why there could not possibly be one and a half million cases of self-defense every year. Nevertheless, the 1.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. See also Kleck and Gertz, supra note 1, pp. 182-183. 6Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148. 7George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93. 8Id. at 164, 185. 9Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, "Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense," The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 -- a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime." br>10 One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study's findings in John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000). 11Lott and Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." 12Kathleen O'Leary Morgan, Scott Morgan and Neal Quitno, "Rankings of States in Most Dangerous/Safest State Awards 1994 to 2003," Morgan Quitno Press (2004) at http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm. Morgan Quitno Press is an independent private research and publishing company which was founded in 1989. The company specializes in reference books and monthly reports that compare states and cities in several different subject areas. In the first 10 years in which they published their Safest State Award, Vermont has consistently remained one of the top five safest states. 13Memo by Jim Smith, Secretary of State, Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report (October 1, 2002). 14Florida's murder rate was 11.4 per 100,000 in 1987, but only 5.5 in 2002. Compare Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988): 7, 53; and FBI, (2003):19, 79. 15 John R. Lott, Jr., "Right to carry would disprove horror stories," Kansas City Star, (July 12, 2003). 16Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15. 17Compare Kleck, "Crime Control," at 15, and Chief Dwaine L. Wilson, City of Kennesaw Police Department, "Month to Month Statistics: 1991." (Residential burglary rates from 1981-1991 are based on statistics for the months of March - October.) 18Kleck, Point Blank, at 140. 19Kleck, "Crime Control," at 13. 20U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31. 21U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): 27. 22Id. 23Id."

2/14/2006 1:50:43 PM

Quote :

"Everyone here keeps saying they would shoot an intruder on sight bc they wouldnt have the mental capacity to make a descision to fire. If you would be scared so shitless by an intruder that you couldnt think straight, couldnt make one simple judgment call, then you SHOULDNT own a gun. picking up a gun doesnt mean shooting then next unknown person you see. the 'thinking' proceses doesnt end with loading your gun. youre are all excellent examples of why more family members are accidently shot then actual intruders. ask any military person if the descision to fire comes before, or after they pick up a gun. you decide to fire only after youve assesed the situation, and if you cant do that, you are a danger to your family or anyone you are living with."

Well, on this point, you're right, in my opinion.

I will offer the caveat, though, that if you shoot an intruder in your home, you are probably not wrong in my eyes or those of the law, unless he's trying to leave or clearly surrendering or something.

If an intruder was in my house, I'm getting the feeling that I would err on the side of being less hesitant to shoot than you probably would...so yes, technically, we agree, but I suspect that I'd be quicker to squeeze trigger. No, don't shoot the first moving human form you see...but if you're in my house, and you appear to possibly be a threat...well, I'm not waiting for you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you're harmless. I don't view it as the onus being on me to be sure that you're a threat...if you're in my house, the onus is on you to show that you're not, and you'd better have a plan for getting that point across pretty quickly.
____________________________________________________________

When I was at NCSU, my roommate and I had half of a townhouse right behind Wachovia on Hillsborough Street. Our neighborhood itself was fine, but the crackhouses are only a relatively short walk away, so I kept my SIG loaded and handy. One weekend, I went skiing, and my roommate went home to Wilmington. I left and returned before he did (and took my pistol with me).

When I got to the back door of my house (we parked in the backyard), I noticed that the door was open. I went back to my Jeep and grabbed my SIG, called my roommate and asked him if he knew any reason the door could be open, and told him that I was going into the house to check it out, and that if he heard gunshots or lost comm with me, to call 911.

I went in, and nothing looked out of place, so I hoped that maybe it had just been a bum who'd broken in for a warm place to sleep. I yelled something like "If anyone is in here, let me know right now. I'm armed, and I will kill you if need be, but if you let me know right now, we're cool." No response...so I checked all through the house. Upstairs, downstairs, basement, every room, every closet, behind everything, etc. Didn't find a single thing that looked unusual. Only thing I can figure is that my roommate didn't close the door all the way.

[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 3:10 PM. Reason : asdfasdfa]

2/14/2006 3:05:58 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "victim of some thief/rapist/sycho." youd murder before you were the victim of a theft? this is what im talking about. most people who want guns for home defense are insane. "

So I can come to your house beat the crap out of you and steal all your stuff. Its the threat of a firearm that is the biggest deterant. If you think Im armed your gonna go find a house that you know is full of liberal hippes and invade . Are ya gonna go to the house full of hunters and sportsman..prolly not

2/14/2006 3:12:29 PM

Quote :

"Unless you're moving in to her parents' house I wouldn't put up with her father's crap."

you are dating his daughter so i would respect his opinion. doesn't mean you have to get rid of it. just tell him you'll get a gun safe and keep it out of sight.

2/14/2006 3:12:59 PM

Quote :

"If an intruder was in my house, I'm getting the feeling that I would err on the side of being less hesitant to shoot than you probably would"

right, there are a spectum of circumstances that one can oneself in when you discover and intruder. its not like they are a shoot to kill no-warning situation.

Quote :

"unless he's trying to leave"

and there are some people in this thread who are saying its right to shoot all intruders in the back before saying a word to them. maybe its legal in some states for the time being, but still criminaly insane in my opinion.

Quote :

"Its the threat of a firearm that is the biggest deterant."

so....how does a burglar tell if there is a hidden gun in your house? what the hell are you even talking about.


[Edited on February 14, 2006 at 3:16 PM. Reason : -]

2/14/2006 3:13:39 PM

I wouldn't necessarily give any sort of warning before I killed someone. I offered a warning in the aforementioned example because (1) I wasn't caught off guard...I had time to diffuse the situation by means other than 2 to the chest, 1 to the head, and (2) I was kinda betting on it being a bum looking for some heat, since nothing appeared to be disturbed.

that's going back to that spectrum of possible circumstances.

________________________

In general, there are worse injustices than a burglar getting shot in the back, as far as I'm concerned...but I'm not going to say it's "ok". It's not generally right, but I don't view it as cold-blooded murder, either.

2/14/2006 3:22:43 PM

That'll learn 'em.

2/14/2006 9:25:54 PM

Got tired of reading all this crap, but as someone mentioned earlier, having your girlfriend and her dad take a handgun safety course, preferably one with actual shooting, is probably the best thing you can do to make your case.

My dad was apprehensive when my boyfriend got me a handgun for Christmas a few years ago, but we brought him to the range with us a few times and he became more comfortable with it. When my brother takes his concealed carry course this summer, my dad is going to join in even though he doesn't plan to own any guns. Dad used to assume guns were dangerous redneck toys, but going to the shooting range has become a family outing (minus my mom, she keeps her mouth shut and that is really all I can ask of her).

2/14/2006 10:53:20 PM

I thought about the idea of using rock salt for home defense. It scatters like buck shot and the person who gets hit with it likely won't die but they will wish they were dead for about 3 hours or so.

The issue is LAWSUITS.

There have been instances where someone breaks into a house, is injured, then proceeds to successfully sue the homeowners or charge them with other things. If you add that to the list of risks (this person could kill me and my loved ones, they could sue me later, etc) then it almost makes sense to go for a 'kill shot.'

2/15/2006 2:59:09 PM

^ Kill Bill 2? do people legitimately use rock salt in shotgun rounds, or is this just movie nonesense?

2/15/2006 3:02:02 PM

I'm pretty sure rock salt is still fatal within home defense ranges.

2/15/2006 3:04:26 PM

CaptainBF: Not really. Put a shotgun right up against ballistic gel and you wind up with more gel disruption from high-pressure gas intrusion than from rock salt penetration.

Bird shot across a (small) room is just barely lethal. Farther away, you can put someone's eyes out and cause some nasty shallow damage, but you won't reach vitals.

Stick to #4 or larger buck, from a 20ga or larger shotgun. Or use fragmenting/expanding rifle ammo (M193, hunting softpoints, A-MAX varmint bullets, etc.). Or use expanding pistol ammo (hollow points, preferably things like Gold Dot, Hydrashok, Ranger SXT, softpoints, etc.).

***

I'm with Josh8315—sort of. If I caught an intruder in my house/apartment, I would give said intruder one chance to prone out, hands clasped behind head and feet crossed at ankles. Preferably not on any furniture that I like. Then the lights come on and we talk a little bit. And then I call the police.

Any deviation from instructions results in a kill shot.

Efficient, scary, and with provisions to avoid unnecessary property damage. Your life is forfeit the instant you enter my home castle (as in "castle doctrine") without permission.

[Edited on February 15, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : blah blah blah]

2/15/2006 3:22:43 PM

Quote :

"do people legitimately use rock salt in shotgun rounds, or is this just movie nonesense? "

Back home on the farm we would keep a few rounds loaded w/ rock salt, rice, or dried blackeyed peas. Anything hard works well for running off stray dogs, shoot them in the butt and there gone w/ no real damage. As for home defense, the only time to pull a gun is if ur gonna use it, the only resaon to use it is to kill, so NEVER use anything but 00 buck.

2/15/2006 3:34:17 PM

BRENNEKE SLUGS WAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

2/15/2006 3:35:21 PM

Quote :

"do people legitimately use rock salt in shotgun rounds, or is this just movie nonesense?"

I have heard first-hand accounts of people who have used it; all at short range though.

Quote :

"Back home on the farm we would keep a few rounds loaded w/ rock salt, rice, or dried blackeyed peas. Anything hard works well for running off stray dogs, shoot them in the butt and there gone w/ no real damage. As for home defense, the only time to pull a gun is if ur gonna use it, the only resaon to use it is to kill, so NEVER use anything but 00 buck."

true ...

2/15/2006 3:54:48 PM

I haven't seen anything about relying on the cops to protect you, but I think many of you might find this interesting:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App. 1981)
...
In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Appellants' claims of negligence included: the dispatcher's failure to forward the 6:23 a. m. call with the proper degree of urgency; Page 3 the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the 6:42 a. m. call.
...
In either case, it is easy to condemn the failings of the police. However, the desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises. In neither of these cases has a relationship been alleged beyond that found in general police responses to crimes. Civil liability fails as a matter of law.


So the cops have no duty to protect individual people. Personally, I think I'll be taking matters into my own hands if the need ever arrises. Criminals know where there are guns and were there aren't guns. See Chicago, NYC and DC, no handguns, crime out the ass. They may not be the smartest people on the planet, but criminals watch their heads. My entire family shoots. My parents are nationally known shooters, my sister is an incredible skeet shooter. Most of my friends say they'd almost feel sorry for someone breaking into our house.

2/20/2006 10:00:34 AM

well how many minorities are in Vermont.

anyway this debate can be skewed so many ways.

2/20/2006 10:07:10 AM

96.8% of Vermont's about 620,000 people are white according to their census data

thats still approx 20,000 minorities in the state

2/20/2006 10:48:59 AM

side note- i won the "debate"

2/20/2006 11:40:02 AM

Quote :

"Criminals know where there are guns and were there aren't guns"

xray vision?

2/20/2006 9:41:58 PM

Quote :

"side note- i won the "debate""

hurray

2/20/2006 9:50:26 PM

Quote :

"xray vision?"

Educated guessing and being careful.

If you're looking to rob someone, where would you do it? DC where handguns are more or less banned or Arlington where gun ownership is (more) common?

Quote :

"60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”, New York: Aldine, 1986 "

2/20/2006 10:06:07 PM

Quote :

"If you're looking to rob someone, where would you do it? DC where handguns are more or less banned or Arlington where gun ownership is (more) common? "

I am Joe Criminal desperate for cash (maybe for drugs, perhaps a gambling debt) for whatever, so I do the following:

1. First I am going to look up home gun ownership statistics and study them.
2. Then Im going to drive across the country and pick a house in one of those cities.
3. Rob that house, then drive back home across the country.

Im sure when you ask people why they chose to houses they robbed, I AM SURE, the first reason would be that they looked up home gun ownership in that city. That makes so much sense, I just feel it must be true.

You said it yourself, they GUESS. They guess. Nobody displays guns in windows. Having the gun wont deter anything unless you actually prove you have it.



[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:16 PM. Reason : -]

2/20/2006 10:12:20 PM

I always have a gun handy in the house, not in plain sight for someone to see or find but where I know I can get it. It's a lot better to have one and not need it then to need it and not have one. I think anyone should have a gun if they want it, they should take the steps to make sure it safe if they have kids.

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 11:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2006 11:47:26 PM

Maybe it's just me but I sleep better knowing that there are 2 clips of .40 cal hollowpoints within arm reach.

2/20/2006 11:50:10 PM

Seems to me that if you are trying to argue your side with statistics then you are fighting a losing battle no matter how good your stats are.

This is a father worrying about a daughter. Bottom line here is that it is an emotional argument. You would be best off appealing to those emotions.

Seems that logic will get you no where but frustrated in this case.

2/20/2006 11:51:12 PM

Is he honestly going to search your house. just tell him what he wants to hear...you sold them.

The only time he should ever find out about them is if you have to use them, in which case I doubt he will be upset.

2/20/2006 11:55:16 PM

Quote :

"Maybe it's just me but I sleep better knowing that there are 2 clips of .40 cal hollowpoints within arm reach."

for me its 8 shells of 12ga

2/21/2006 1:32:31 AM

Quote :

"They guess. Nobody displays guns in windows. Having the gun wont deter anything unless you actually prove you have it"

www.texasgiftitems.com


http://www.petsignsplus.com


ebay - Ron an Dar's Signs


ebay - AutoSwag




Well, a sign might not prove that you have a gun, but the numbers are still good:

Quote :

"60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed."

It's pretty obvious that your claim, "the gun wont deter anything unless you actually prove you have it" is flat wrong.


It's a little funny that no anti-gun tdubers have commented on my suggestion that they should put this sign in their yard....

http://www.danzfamily.com/videos/videos06/yardsign.asf

2/21/2006 9:57:38 AM

Anyway, will you morons stop with the strawmanning?

Of course a thief isn't going to research the safest targets for burgling some drug money then drive long distances to get there. However, thieves already "there" ("there" being some specific place...deep thoughts people) will behave in line with the level of home defense. Areas with high gun ownership tend to have fewer break-ins, because the casualty rate is higher. Areas with low gun ownership tend to have more break-ins, because the casualty rate is lower.

QED.

2/21/2006 11:09:17 AM

It'd be kinda fun to print a bunch of those "Proud Supporter of Gun Control...This is a gun free home." signs and take them to an anti-gun rally to hand out.....

[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

2/21/2006 11:23:13 AM

Having a gun in a home and being trained is a benifit to help protect yourself. As long as you are have no kids in the house. My question to everyone is once you have a family do you keep your loaded gun in the night stand beside your bed?

2/21/2006 11:30:45 AM

why would that be fun, because you would be high at the time?

2/21/2006 11:36:47 AM

Once I have kids, it'll be locked away. They sell safes that can be opened in a sec or two. I'd prob get one of those. Not to mention making sure they my kids understand the responibility entailed with having guns in the house (once they are old enough of course), which I see as far more important than having the guns locked away. It's only a matter or time before the kids figure out the combo to the safe.

2/21/2006 11:59:29 AM

Quote :

"It's pretty obvious that your claim, "the gun wont deter anything unless you actually prove you have it" is flat wrong."

the weed is killing your logic skills

Quote :

"40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed."

even if true, this doesnt mean a criminal will rob people who are more likely to not be armed, only that they would choose to rob someone they THINK arent robbed. who they THINK is armed, may, or may not be armed.

posting a sign saying youve got a gun in the house would do more to deter crime then actually having a gun in your house.

this thread is about gun ownership, not sign ownership.

[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 2:35 PM. Reason : -]

2/21/2006 2:27:28 PM

rofl

"Gun ownership, not sight ownership"

Anyway, having a gun on the nightstand isn't so terribly bad. Keep it on you when you're up, keep it ready at night. Or, as mentioned, get a quick-access safe.

And the quick answer for the "think of the children!" argument: swimming pools kill a hell of a lot more kids than guns do.

2/21/2006 2:49:38 PM

Quote :

"posting a sign saying youve got a gun in the house would do more to deter crime then actually having a gun in your house. "

Follow the train of thought to the end. WHY does the sign have any effect at all if as you say you need to "prove you have it"?

2/21/2006 9:03:31 PM

look if you want to set her dad straight then tell him to talk to the cary police
My dad took a class there and they gave him all the stats for guns

2/21/2006 10:25:46 PM

Quote :

"WHY does the sign have any effect at all"

becuase it effects a criminals thinking. having a gun but not showing/proving it does nothing for the criminal.

2/21/2006 11:09:27 PM

affect

You're intentionaly dodging the question. Why does a sign warning of a gun on the premises affect a criminal's thinking? According to you, you must prove it to do anything to deter crime, but now you're claiming a sign will have an effect as well. Why?

2/21/2006 11:16:22 PM

Quote :

"Why does a sign warning of a gun on the premises affect a criminal's thinking?"

becuase the criminal may think you are armed. thats common sense.

just having the gun wont do anything to deter the criminal, only actions that make the criminal think youve got a gun. ive clearly answered that question a dozen times.



[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 11:21 PM. Reason : -]

2/21/2006 11:19:58 PM

2/22/2006 9:33:28 AM

in my opinion, having a sign advertising gun ownership would work against a homeowner.

criminals want guns, and by advertising that you have one, you open yourself to a break-in while you are not present.

as for the storage.

i keep handguns locked up. the nightstand is fine at night. if you are leaving it laying around during the day when you are not home, you open yourself up to have it stolen, or used against you when you get home.

the quick-action safes are the best way to go.

4 buttons on top you feel with spread fingers and a spring action door.

i can leave my firearm loaded, chambered, and ready to go. i can access it as fast as i can if it were in the nightstand.

2/22/2006 10:10:23 AM

Quote :

"my girlfriend and i are moving in together next week. before that happens, her father wants to have a talk with us. i asked my gf what all he wants to talk about."

He's gonna hold a shotgun to your back and call the preacher. We got ourselves a wedding!

2/22/2006 10:14:16 AM

hahaha

i guess his stance on guns works against him there.

but they know we're getting married

2/22/2006 10:17:10 AM