guns in the home

[GoodKat]

If you do decide to get a gun, I recommend a pump action 12g (20g if your recoil sensitive). If it's only use will be home defense, I would put as short a barrel as legally permissible on it, and consider either a pistol grip or folding/collapsing stock. Here's mine:

 

[Rezin777]

Well, I can only aid you with statistics and they clearly say that having a weapon at home puts you and your family at a much higher risk to die from that same weapon than the risk of being killed by a criminal.
It's not only accidents that happen handling the gun or showing off with youngsters, people also accidentially shoot their children at night, when they sneak home, believing they are burglars.
I'd rather recommend a fierce dog, because they seem to scare off evil-doers quite effectively.

I myself come from a different culture, where a weapon isn't something normal. There have been school-shootings here and people were shocked how this could happen.
I'd never allow a gun in my house. Those things are simply too dangerous. My best friend's niece was acidentially killed by her own father many years ago, it tore the whole family apart. That's a risk I wouldn't take.

Greetings
Giliell

I'd like to see those statistics, if you wouldn't mind.

It seems to me that the firearm isn't responsible for the deaths, it's irresponsible people. If you aren't responsible enough to own a firearm, I agree, you shouldn't own one.

I think firearm safety should be taught in schools, just like drivers education. A little knowledge goes a long way.

As for firearms being dangerous, they are only as dangerous as the person who is responsible for them. I, unlike you, come from a culture where guns are as normal as hammers, or lawnmowers. It's certainly sad to hear stories of children being victims of accidental shootings, but no sadder than stories of children drowning in a bathtub, or any other irresponsible act. Do responsible parents lock up dangerous household chemicals? I would hope so. Do responsible parents show off while driving their children around? I would hope not. You probably see the point I'm trying to make here, and I'm only making it because I hope someone in your position might see things from a different perspective. A firearm is a tool. While it certainly has the ability to escalate danger when mishandled, it also has the ability to reduce danger when used properly. I am the type of person that enjoys a wide range of tools available for whatever situation might occur. Especially if the bad guys also have access to those tools. Being unarmed in the face of a home invader is a risk I wouldn't take.

That being said, OP there are many of other things someone can do in order to make a home more secure. I agree that a large dog is certainly a deterrent. Plant obtrusive bushes directly outside and below your windows, preferably ones with thorns. Install bars outside your windows. Install a home security system. Install motion lights. Raise your basic level of awareness and teach your children to be aware at all times. Have plans ready for different situations, and practice those plans with your family. Good luck with your situation.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

If you do decide to get a gun, I recommend a pump action 12g (20g if your recoil sensitive). If it's only use will be home defense, I would put as short a barrel as legally permissible on it, and consider either a pistol grip or folding/collapsing stock. Here's mine:

I plan to move out into the middle of nowhere some time in the future and plan on getting a gun for home defense. That shotgun you recommended looks like what I need. I know nothing about guns but does the pistol grip make it easier to handle?

 

[Rezin777]

I plan to move out into the middle of nowhere some time in the future and plan on getting a gun for home defense. That shotgun you recommended looks like what I need. I know nothing about guns but does the pistol grip make it easier to handle?

Short answer, yes. As does the shorter barrel.

If you know nothing about guns and plan on buying one in the future, I would suggest a training course first. They are easy to find and will teach you a good deal about operation and safety.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I plan to move out into the middle of nowhere some time in the future and plan on getting a gun for home defense. That shotgun you recommended looks like what I need. I know nothing about guns but does the pistol grip make it easier to handle?

Short answer, yes. As does the shorter barrel.

If you know nothing about guns and plan on buying one in the future, I would suggest a training course first. They are easy to find and will teach you a good deal about operation and safety.

Thanks. And yes I'm definitely taking a training course, otherwise I would never get a gun since I'm a strict proponent on gun control and gun safety.

 

[orpiment99]

Do responsible parents lock up dangerous household chemicals? I would hope so.

As an addendum to this: I was raised around firearms. I was taught how to handle the rifles and shotgun when I was seven. The first firearm I ever used was an old bolt action 30.06. When I was 13 I was shown were the the shells/bullets were kept (I already knew where the firearms were) and told that if one of the livestock went down and would be unable to get up (when I was home alone) that I would be responsible for putting them out of their misery. When I was sixteen I was taught how to handle a handgun. If children are going to be around weapons, as soon as they are reasonably old enough, make sure that they know how to handle them. Most importantly, though, make sure they understand the damage they can do and the consequences of playing around with them. I never contemplated playing with one of the firearms, ever.

 

[Rezin777]

As an addendum to this: I was raised around firearms. I was taught how to handle the rifles and shotgun when I was seven. The first firearm I ever used was an old bolt action 30.06. When I was 13 I was shown were the the shells/bullets were kept (I already knew where the firearms were) and told that if one of the livestock went down and would be unable to get up (when I was home alone) that I would be responsible for putting them out of their misery. When I was sixteen I was taught how to handle a handgun. If children are going to be around weapons, as soon as they are reasonably old enough, make sure that they know how to handle them. Most importantly, though, make sure they understand the damage they can do and the consequences of playing around with them. I never contemplated playing with one of the firearms, ever.

This is something similar to how I was exposed to firearms. Although I started with an air rifle.

I think this is an important point. If you are taught responsibility, by responsible adults, the chance of an accident is reduced dramatically. I would assume, and I don't have any data to back this up, most accidents involving firearms are likely to come from people who have had no training, formal or informal. I say this, because the first thing you do when you pick up a gun is check to make sure it is unloaded. I personally check several times, visually and physically. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of firearms should know this. It's fairly difficult to harm anyone with an unloaded gun. Accidents still happen, which means some people out there are either forgetting the first rule or they didn't know it to begin with.

Also, I think a lack of knowledge leads to curiosity, especially in young children. If they grow up never being taught about how a firearm works, and are suddenly exposed to one, it is indeed a dangerous situation. They are curious and will try to figure it out on their own. It isn't dangerous simply because of the gun though, it's because of the lack of knowledge. Of course, the owner of the gun should be held responsible for any accidents that occur. These are not tools that should be left lying around for just anyone to happen upon.

 

[Jotto999]

I agree with the people saying that a gun doesn't actually protect you very much from breaking and entering, and things like a dog and good locks are a much better deterrent.

A thief does not just pick a random house somewhere, and try to get in. They will almost always 'check the place out' first, and you can rest assured that a dog is pretty much the best way to make a thief leave a house alone. Thieves will decide which house looks like the easiest, and go for that one. With a dog there, that house suddenly isn't going to be easy. A dog will:

1. Make loud noises, probably waking the house owners, and drawing lots of attention - the very last thing a thief wants.
2. Possibly be directly dangerous to the thief. The dog could attack or bite the thief.
3. Act as a subconscious deterrent through intimidation. A barking dog, especially in the darkness of night, is kind of scary.

Even if the thief decides to just ignore the dog and try to break in, once they realize that you have some great locks on your door and it's going to take a bunch of time and effort to get in, in addition to the dog, they would be stupid not to just try a different house.

Locks that actually work, and a dog. I think it's all you need for home defence, in most situations. Preventative methods are far more effective, and safer, in keeping thieves away, instead of getting a gun.

 

[borrofburi]

The dog argument is great, but it assumes you only have random thiefs picking the easiest target. If some guy really likes your wife... well it's not going to work so well. But great locks and a dog are a great start, and if you're terrified of guns, then methinks handling a gun (even with training) may not be your thing.

 

[WolfAU]

The dog argument is great, but it assumes you only have random thiefs picking the easiest target. If some guy really likes your wife... well it's not going to work so well. But great locks and a dog are a great start, and if you're terrified of guns, then methinks handling a gun (even with training) may not be your thing.

Agreed, however "some random thief" is statically, by far the most scenario (I haven't seen exact figures and would vary based on country, region, year etc), but would say in Australia its about 85% of break ins.

Anything else, for starters you will usually have some warning with any other scenarios (ie your wife gets letters from an admirer or some guy on the street talking to her, or keeps seeing someone outside her window), secondly the MO of a theif is generally quite common, while other types vary considerably, and many will not try to do something in the home (ie may choose to grab them outside, lure them out or be inside waiting for them), for alot of these scenarios a gun is useless, and will act as a poor deterrent, its only use would be to hope you have access to it in time, can beat him to the draw if he's armed as well. Hopefully few of us would pull the trigger unless it was a simple "us or him" scenario.

Also I would recommend martial arts as a great way to learn not only defence (for unarmed combat, and can also learn skills with melee weapons), and fitness, but it also teaches you to remain calm in a crisis, pick your actions carefully, keep good footing, react carefully and instinctively and often how to avoid encounters (ie avoiding dangerous situations, seeing warning signs etc) or being able to talk your way out of them.

Example my master spends a fair bit of time devoted to theory and real world stuff, not just technique, but not all instructors do that. I also did a bit of a style for like 4 months under a new master (forget his name and forget the style, think it was like Malaysian street fighting) which included stuff with blades and improvised weapons. One of the biggest problems with threatening someone with a gun is most criminals know (or believe) most individuals won't shoot if they can help it, but standing there with a baseball bat and knowing how to use it is another matter. For most situations a melee weapons will be sufficient, especially if you know what you're doing with it. I have an axe handle at home and a flashlight at college (a thick metal case with an extended handle, very effective as a club).

When you combine that with the fact that in most situations, if you keep your gun locked up you won't have access to it in a crisis (ie you're on the street and its back home, or you don't get enough warning to get it etc), while you always have your fists and feet with you, and can usually grab some kind of improvised bludgeon or blade from your environment, and can learn actions like disarms, reversals etc that allow you to turn enemy weapons against them and teachniques like submission holds that allow you to avoid having to cause them serious injury (and it avoids risks of gun accidents, or being robbed for your gun), I would take up martial arts, and if interested also get a gun.

For the record, its important to distinguish between "deterrents", like a dog or security system (which will not scare off a determined stalker etc), and "methods of defense" like martial arts, weapons etc. Locks are not so great if the individual is prepared to break a window, most theifs won't (too conspicuous) but again, for something more serious like a stalker, the reality is there isn't alot you can do to stop them trying, and stop them getting inside, the best you can hope for is enough warning, in which case hopefully you'd be running or hiding rather than grabbing a gun.

 

[SciAth]

Another aspect of gun ownership and self defense need not be limited to the home. Keep in mind one startling concept I was made aware of in my first gun safety class; that being - law enforcement [personnel and agencies] are not mandated or charged with protecting you as an individual in any given situation, be it your home or out in public. The real purpose of law enforcement is to limit the spread of violence. In other words, if you are attacked, be it in your home or elsewhere, when the police respond to such a report, their main objective is to stop that violence from spreading into the wider community. They have no personal responsibility to protect you or your property at any given time or place. Thus the responsibility falls upon you as an individual to protect yourself with any means you deem appropriate. My personal belief is that 1. most criminals are pursuing some form of physical gratification be it an assault on an other person or stealing their property. 2. they normally would not put their own lives at jeopardy in that pursuit. 3. as such, if everyone [acting in a responsible manor with apprpriate training, etc.] were personally armed, how may criminals would risk their lives to steal your TV set or assault someone in public if 15 other trained and armed people were in the immediate vacinity willing to protect someone in need?

 

[WolfAU]

3. as such, if everyone [acting in a responsible manor with apprpriate training, etc.] were personally armed, how may criminals would risk their lives to steal your TV set or assault someone in public if 15 other trained and armed people were in the immediate vacinity willing to protect someone in need?

First off I agree completely the point about cops, but I'll go one step further. One of my biggest complaints about "women" (not all human females, just the western social ideal/stereotype) and some guys, is they usually are opposed to learning how to defend themselves or others, feeling that if attacked they can just "cry fowl" and someone like police or big strong heroes will materialise to rush to their defense. Not only are they disregarding their own safety, but likely the safety of those around them (ie I'm glad I can fight to protect OTHERS I care about if necessary). So to a degree I see it as careless, or even socially irresponsible.

However, the point 3 above, while it MAY reduce crime, odds are it would just lead to crims changing tactics (ie trying to make sure a house is empty or occupants asleep, making sure the attacker is armed with a weapon, a gun or a bigger gun than the occupants, have a backup plan, or get in before the occupants can get their gun... just causing an inflation effect). But there's also the issues I've already raised of people who know you own a gun (there are ways to find out) and having criminals break in just to steal your weapon (for sale or for crime, ie something that cant be traced to them), plus accidents and social harm (ie kids brought up around guns can SOMETIMES get a bit of a fucked up personality (ie feeling like they're a wanna be badass because they own a gun).

 

[kf00kaha]

I think this question is really hard, because it somewhat boils down to the situation in your country. I live in Sweden, where you can own a gun if you're a hunter or shoot as a sport. However, to get a license you're required to take a quite rigorous course on weapon handling and safety (of course the hunter license includes also how/where to hit the animal etc.). Now, I'm not holding such a license myself, so I won't dwell on this topic and this was not my point either.

My point is that the amount of weapons accessible to the bad guys in your country is something you have to keep in mind when discussing these issues. In most countries in Europe (at least in northern Europe, with an exception of Finland) there are not many weapons around to begin with, i.e. it's not that usual to have guns in your home. If there are guns, these are mostly (as I said before) for hunting. Handguns do exist, but mostly for sports (if they're semi-automatic). Anyway, this "absence" of guns in the society make it a bit harder for the bad guys to get a hold of a firearm. In this case it's good to have strict laws about who can possess a gun.

On the other hand, if there already is an abundance of guns in the society (in comparison) you can't just forbid all the guns (disregarding any problems with how to make ordinary, honest people turning in their property), since then the bad guys could just walk into a house, with a gun, at least in the short term. In the long term, this situation would probably stabilize on a lower level, but it would probably increase first, rather much if you look at human nature. It would not be morally right to do this, so I can in some respect understand the arguments for the right to own a gun. What I do think though, is that in some countries and states in the U.S. (please correct me if I'm wrong) it's all too easy to get a hold of a gun without proper training. I don't think it should be possible to buy a gun without such training.

Then one could discuss the topic of the bad guys getting weapons regardless of laws (it's just growing i Sweden, unfortunately) due to weapon smuggling etc. and the unability of the authorities to stop this (especially in Sweden), but I'm already a bit outside of the topic of this thread, so I'll just leave it at that, just clarifying that I'm against guns, but I can understand the arguments (or some of them at least) depending on the situation in your country.

I'm babbling, gonna stop now...

 

[SciAth]

To a large extent, given the fact that it has been decided by the Constitution and SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] that citizens have a Constitutional "right" self defense; there is generally little one has to do in the U.S. to get a gun permit. It may vary somewhat from state to state and locale to locale, but the assumption is that you have the right to defend yourself by any means, any where when necessary, even if you are not "skilled" in using a particular "tool" [i.e. a gun]. Even though citizens may not have a competent skill level when a gun is purchased, citizens are encouraged to take gun safety classes. But there is no requirement to do so. I personally would like to see that change. For example, I think that senior high school students should be exposed to to gun rights/responsibilities/skill classes [given it is a Constitutional right]. Those citizens then become an asset to the community because they will not only understand self defense rights/responsibilities but will be prepared to defend themselves, community and their nation should the need arise. It would not be much different than the classes senior high school students must now take in order to get a license to drive a car. A car is also a "deadly weapon" and the "privilege" to drive one is not a constitutional right. Yet we push those weapons on teenagers as soon as they reach driver license age.

Obviously educating our students on self defense, gun ownership and responsibilities is not going to completely eliminate crimes against people and property; crime will always exist in human societies. However, I believe that crime can be "minimized" if criminals understand that a person, community, state and nation that knows how to defend themselves and are willing defend themselves against those individuals who are inclined to commit crimes, then criminal acts will become far fewer. After all, that [to some extent] was one of the major factors in the "taming of the American West"; the right of civilians to immediately defend themselves without always having to wait for the Sheriff or Marshall to arrive in their defense. We have given our personal responsibility to defend ourselves to over burdened, underfunded and bureaucratic govenment agencies. While that continues, crime will not be minimized.

 

[Q-Hack!]

For those of you who think a dog is the way to go...

We have a TV show here in the states called "It takes a thief" (Discovery channel). These guys routinely bypass the dog of the house with a bit of raw meat.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/ittakesathief/ittakesathief.html

I am not saying that a dog is a bad idea, just that you shouldn't rely on it for security. My dad use to tell me that a lock was only good for keeping an honest person honest. I put the dog in the same category. It will probably deter the wimpy thief... but won't do a thing for you if up against a determined one.

Security should always be a multi faceted objective. A dog... good. A dog with a security system,automatic lights and a gun... better.






... a dog with a gun??? not exactly what I was trying to say...

 

[Marcus]

I don't think any security measure is enough to keep a thief out. That's not what they are generally for. What you want, selfishly, is for it to be harder and/or more risky for a potential thief to break in to your home than your neighbours'. Any opportunist thief (the majority) will just be looking for a house they can burgle relatively easily, and they'll go for someone else's if yours has some measure of security. For a minority of thieves, they will be targeting your home specifically as they want to steal your jewelry, cash, keys to the flash car, gun or whatever. In those cases, there is literally nothing you can do that will definitely keep them out if they are sufficiently determined.