What is your view on owning a type of weapon, used solely for the purpose of defending your property, home, collecting, etc

*Keep in mind that I emphasize safety first, meaning that proper handling, knowledge, safety, stowing and security of said weapon is an primary MUST.*

Personally, yes. I am all for it. I do NOT support:


Minors (or anyone else) handling something without the proper supervision, training, knowledge, etc

Joe BlowNobody leaving it loaded, out in the open for someone to do something awful with.

The pawnbroker selling and permitting someone something that requires rounds without taking the proper steps(i.e.: Background check, but not limited to)

Etc. etc. etc,. you get the picture.


I want to see what everyone here thinks about this, and be very open about it, that is all I ask:).

A couple of months ago, a couple of thieves broke into a home on LI. The home owner had a licensed gun and opened fire. In the exchange of gunfire a visitor to the home an pre-teen boy, was shot and critically wounded.

Would anyone have been hurt if the owner hadn't opened fire? I don't know. If a weapon is kept on premises for protection and that weapon is kept safely to protect kids in the home would that weapon be available in case of such an incident? I think it unlikely.

From what I recall reading, if the victim tries to use a gun to prevent being a victim of a crime, there is a greater likelihood of the victim getting hurt.

I totally understand what you are trying to say, honestly. It shouldn't have happened, no. Did the homeowner understand the threat in his home, or did he just start opening up a few on some people in the dark without really knowing who they were?

That is what we have security systems for in the event of a robbery, force like that shouldn't be used unless the innocent are fired on first. Was the boy OK? I hope so.

The burglary shouldn't have happened, either, nor should have the accidental shooting of someone who was there with the knowledge of the homeowner. There is a great possibility those men who broke in could have, sadly, done something terrible to the entire family. Personally, states that have the 'shoot to defend' laws should make it a must for a sign in neon lights saying, "We shoot, care to run?" ;) to be displayed on their properties. Something a tad larger than "Trespassers will be shot".

And I have to say that a weapon can be available safely to an adult, and only an adult if (I stress the IF) certain practices and precautions are taken to prepare for the event (though heaven forbid) of a break-in or worse, as long as they are capable, rational and not trigger happy.

I want to add that this thread is for the sole purpose of debate, sharing and exchange of thought and it is not meant to offend anyone. I am not against those who do not believe in handling or owning one, I respect that choice greatly.

Scott is correct. Statistics show that many inexperienced gun owners are in fact injured with their own firearms during home invasions.
I don't believe in owning them in any regard. As to a home invasion... My thoughts? Takes all the fun out of dropping them with an aptly placed nerve hold or well applied wrist lock. As well as having studied Hapkido, I did successfully complete a weapons disarmament seminar in Combat Sambo. Dislodging a weapon at close range is often easier than many people think.
Violence begets violence. Displaying a weapon will likely only increase aggresion, perhaps setting the stage for a situation which might otherwise have been avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas1970

My thoughts? Takes all the fun out of dropping them with an aptly placed nerve hold or well applied wrist lock.

---

Nice one, I am not against hand to hand or self defense. Finding a pressure point and using it to your advantage can be fulfilling when the moment calls for it.

The only thing about guns is, are you really mentally prepared to shoot someone, even if they enter your home?
Most people who are intent on shooting someone will typically do so from a distance. Call it, not being able to delay the "gratification", so to speak.
In a case of robbery, often the gun is simply a means of intimidation. Most criminals don't necessarily want to shoot someone. Likewise, they may see the homeowner in the same light. It only takes a second of hesitation on the shooter's part.

My husband is a master gunsmith, one of the few still around.

While I will agree with what everyone is saying, and no I do not want to get into a debate, I still see that there are many instances where a person defends themselves properly, but it is never broadcast on the news. Criminals are broadcast, and people who make mistakes are broadcast, but rarely is the incident where it saved the lives of others broadcast.

We had an incident here recently where an employee of a grocery store entered and began cutting (and killed 2) other employees with a rather large kinfe (This employee worked in the butcher's department). He grapped an elderly woman and held the knife at her throat. A delivery driver, who had a concealed carry permit, yelled at the assailant to drop the weapon. In his surprise the assailant dropped the knife and the delivery driver shot the assailant wounding him until the police arrived to arrest him.

That particular gentleman saved the life of this elderly woman, and possibly others. You never see that in the news.

So, now I quietly unsuscribe from this thread.

Were you around when this thread happened, I can't remember...
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/crime/...ht=gun+control
It was a doosie, I thought!

I own a handgun even though in many many ways it does not suit who I am. I am certain I am capable of killing someone in the circumstances I envision using it and yes, that will be a horrendous experience (anyone who doesn't think so is being INCREDIBLY naive). It beats dying or being harmed enough for me to do this and I am convinced we live in culture that is upping the odds daily (we did consider moving and other options as well). Because I believe there are a lot of liabilities to it, I hope I have overcome them with the following:

A comprehensive firearms class (could yield a concealed permit but I don't ever intend on taking it anywhere so I didn't file)

Timely target practice sessions at the local range which inculde a session where I am timed for how long it takes me to load, point and shoot in very deliberately manufactured stressful circumstance to simulate the real thing (it only took me 12 seconds to load and fire, with at least two of the shots deemed threat stoppable on the target every time I have done that so far).

Periodic dry runs in various imagined circumstances on what I think will occur in my home should I have to use it.

I clean the gun every time its fired.

It is presently loaded with mag safe ammo (does not go through walls or richoet) in an easily accesible but well hidden place in our bedroom. If I were to have any overnight houseguests OMG especailly with kids, I would unload it for the duration of their stay.

And I agree with Scott in that most gun owners probably don't have a clue nor take these measures, hence the stats. It was a very difficult decision for me to make. Our house, while somewhat remote, is set up so that if someone breaks in here, they will have had to override a lot of incentive not to already so I will be fairly convinced they mean business. Sadly, so will I.

PS - My hands still shake like Silence of the Lambs after the first shot too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

He grapped an elderly woman and held the knife at her throat. A delivery driver, who had a concealed carry permit, yelled at the assailant to drop the weapon. In his surprise the assailant dropped the knife and the delivery driver shot the assailant wounding him until the police arrived to arrest him.

That particular gentleman saved the life of this elderly woman, and possibly others. You never see that in the news.

---

This account bothers me. I don't know how accurately it follows the facts but certain things stand out. First, is the sequence; "the assailant dropped the knife and the delivery driver shot the assailant". The driver yelled at the assailant to drop his weapon, the assailant did and the driver then shot him? If the weapon had been dropped why shoot? Second, did he, in fact, save the lady or was he just lucky he didn't kill her or get her killed? What if the assailant had been startled and stabbed instead of dropping the knife? If the assailant was holding the knife to her throat, he was probably using her body as a shield. Was the driver that good a shot that he could wound the assailant without hitting the lady?

My point is simply that for every situation like this, where the outcome was positive, I'm sure you can find similar situations where the outcome was negative.

I will note that from the radio yesterday of those people having carry permits, meaning not only do they own but they also carry their weapon there has been almost no accidental shootings.

Gun ownership is a responsibility, if and it happens daily, a unlicensed person drives the car, accidents are much more likely to happen.

For home defense a short barrel shot gun is still normally the best, since even at night, without your glasses on, all you have to do is get close to pointing in the right direction,

But as in Scotts story, someone fired without aiming, you are trained never to fire if you don't know where the target is,

But even at best some shots do miss the target

And yes time practice is a must from hoslter pulling the weapon to hitting two targets twice can take less than 3 seconds for a skilled person.

For homeowners a pistol safe with a push buttom system allows you to get to a loaded weaon in seconds. But keeps anyone without the code out.

And as a police officer with years on the street, yes holds and moves are great but you are dead against someone with a gun, period, no one is faster than the bullet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

For home defense a short barrel shot gun is still normally the best, since even at night, without your glasses on, all you have to do is get close to pointing in the right direction,

But as in Scotts story, someone fired without aiming, you are trained never to fire if you don't know where the target is,

---

This seems totally contradictory to me. You say that some people fire without aiming, yet you tacitly imply that the nice thing about a short barrel shotgun is that you don't really need to do so. Or as the old saying goes, "Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades." Or, I guess, with short barrel shotguns.
You also mention knowing what your target is. How about WHO your target is? Can most people really determine this in the dark, particularly without their glasses? Is it worth the risk? I'd personally rather endanger my own life than shoot an innocent person.

Quote:

---

And as a police officer with years on the street, yes holds and moves are great but you are dead against someone with a gun, period, no one is faster than the bullet.

---

Yes, but as I stated, most people intent on firing tend to do so from a distance. A second's hesitation on the shooter's part can be more than sufficient. Many of the fellow students I studied with were in fact police officers. Either way, I'd rather die knowing I didn't do more harm than was absolutely necessary. Just my personal philosophies. I believe, in such a case, that I will be back again, in some way, shape or form. Do you believe that upon arriving in Heaven, such actions are likely to be condoned or forgotten? Gandhi sure didn't...

My husband and I have a hand gun, just a little 22 caliper. We both have permits for it and I know very well how to load it and shoot it. We keep it locked up in a combination safe and the ammo stays in a lock box. But, would I ever use it? Hard to tell. Even though I know how to handle it (actually, I'm a better shot than my husband) and have been around guns all my life (I used to date a guy who competed in shooting competitions who taught me a lot) I still get this "somewhat nervous" feeling when I handle it. I can't quite describe it--endorphines maybe? Anyway, it doesn't make me feel any safer and even though I'm all for protecting your family and your property, my dogs make me feel safer. I have a shi tzu that will chew the ankles off anyone trying to break into the house and a black lab and cattle dog that will take care of the rest! LOL!

I have one that is half Rottweiler, and he's the biggest wuss in the bunch! I'm on my own. It's every man, dog and cat for themselves. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas1970

I have one that is half Rottweiler, and he's the biggest wuss in the bunch! I'm on my own. It's every man, dog and cat for themself. :)

---

You might be one who would feel safer with a gun then! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildcatgirl

You might be one who would feel safer with a gun then!! :D

---

Yeah, maybe a glue gun. At least then I'd know he'd stick by me! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas1970

Yeah, maybe a glue gun. At least then I'd know he'd stick by me! :D

---

LOL--Too funny! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas1970

Yeah, maybe a glue gun. At least then I'd know he'd stick by me! :D

---

A glue gun... ROFLMAO (I'd rep you but the dang spread message!)

I read in the book Spirituality of Imperfection (a wonderful collection of spiritual stories) something that made it possible for me to cross the line from total pacifist to potential killer. It was a tale about a sufi monk who urgently explained to his teacher that he accidentally discovered a man who was about to kill a group of people and knowing there wasn't time for fetching the authorities and that killing is wrong, he didn't know what to do. The teacher asked him to consider everything and return the next day. The monk returned the next day and told his teacher he killed the man. The teacher pressed the monk as to why and he said, better to have the stain of his one murder on my soul than the man to have the stain of many more on his. The teacher said this is correct.

It may be a bit of a perversion to consider it as a basis since we are talking in myself defense case of one against one, presumably. And it smacks of some ego to suggest I should be the one to prevail. But it is, if possible, the same atmospere I am attempting to defend myself in none the less, as strange as that may seem. I am such an admirer of Gandhi but I am not gandhi. In a way, I think Thomas is more correct than I am too LOL.

I really appreciate the input from everyone, its giving me a view of 'the other side', persay.

And back to the dog reference, why is it that the small pets are going to be more gung ho than the larger ones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentra

I really appreciate the input from everyone, its giving me a view of 'the other side', persay.

And back to the dog reference, why is it that the small pets are going to be more gung ho than the larger ones?!

---

It's all in the attitude--our dog thinks he's 10 ft. tall!

I will explain the shoot gun issue, I am a marksmen, shoot on the police team for a while, and a marksmen with a long range rifle shooting also.

But even at best, with a moving target, ( not spinning and timed) but moving right to left, in a combat situation, a hand gun will be about 75 or 80 percent in a expert shooter, In a shoot out with gun men in a waffle house a few years ago, trained police only hit about 40 percent of their shoots, the bad guys did not hit a single shoot,

But a shot gun allows you to hit a 2 or 3 foot wide area of a direction, and also has a fear factor that stops most people.

And at 4 foot or 5 foot, the reaction time is just not fast enough, we trained with stoping unarmed and armed people in training, with guns, knives, bats and all sorts of weapons. And what if they have a bat or knife,
I would prefer to shoot them and know I win, than to see if they are better than I am. I have scars on my left arm that proves I won, but also proves they were pretty good also.

But I will say from what we were trained most gun shoots and shoot outs are not from a distance, but close up in that 10 ft or less.
And in today's society with drug adicts and gang members, the idea that they will not shoot at once, is getting less and less true.

It is normally the citizen with the gun, who will pause, not the bad guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentra

What is your view on owning a type of weapon, used soley for the purpose of defending your property, home, collecting, etc

*Keep in mind that I emphasize safety first, meaning that proper handling, knowledge, safety, stowing and security of said weapon is an primary MUST.*

Personally, yes. I am all for it. I do NOT support:


Minors (or anyone else) handling something without the proper supervision, training, knowledge, etc

Joe BlowNobody leaving it loaded, out in the open for someone to do something awful with.

The pawnbroker selling and permitting someone something that requires rounds without taking the proper steps(i.e.: Background check, but not limited to)

Etc., etc., etc,. ...you get the picture.


I want to see what everyone here thinks about this, and be very open about it, that is all I ask:).

---

I personally don't own any weapons. But I think you sound like a very smart person. You think of safety first. If you're a responsible with firearms-weapons then I think there is no problem with it. As long as they don't get in the wrong hands...

Check the laws in your state. The NRA is a good place to start. Get some knowledge on gun ownership. Guns really do prevent crime. Go to a certified gun safety training course. Buy a gun suitable for your needs. Practice, practice, practice. It can save your life. DID YOU KNOW that an assailant with a knife can cover 20 + feet (that's about 7 paces) and stab you with it in less than... get this... One thousand one, One thousand two... seconds. Both my wife and I have conceal carry permits in VA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homeinspector

Guns really do prevent crime.

---

Really? And what do you have to back that up?

Having a gun MAY prevent being victimized in a crime, but it is unlikley to prevent the crime in the first place.

I also would take anything the NRA says about gun ownership with a very large grain of salt.

I do agree that if one decides to get a gun then it must be done responsibly. Safety courses and lots of practice should be requirements.

I still believe that owning and using a gun to protect oneself in the advent of a crime brings with it a high probablity that the gun owner and/or an innocent bystander will suffer.

The second amendment to the constitution gives me the right to bear arms. If I do not honer that right, along with the rest of the people that feel like me, I think there is a great possibility that I and the rest of the people in America could wind up like France was in the second world war. Not necessarily over come by an army but by the armed thugs that are taking over certain parts of our nation even as I write this. They say we do not have enough prisons to keep all of the prisoners in prison so they have to be turned loose to make room for the future criminals It is reported that ten percent of the population commit ninety percent of the crime in America. If the ninety percent of the Americans that do no commit crimes would use the money that they spend for burglar alarms and bars on their windows and all of the other crime deterrent things that are so costly, we could build the prisons for the whole ten percent of the criminal population and the rest of us could feel safe in our homes and streets again. Think about it, how safe do you feel if you are pulling into your garage at night? Do you wonder if someone might have slipped in before you lowered the garage door. Do you feel like you can enter your home and be positive that no one is there to rob you. If you do feel safe just give it some time, it will not be long until you lovely life of feeling safe will be shattered beyond all belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by letmetellu

The second amendment to the constitution gives me the right to bear arms. If I do not honer that right, along with the rest of the people that feel like me, I think there is a great possibility that I and the rest of the people in America could wind up like France was in the second world war. Not necessarily over come by an army but by the armed thugs that are taking over certain parts of our nation even as I write this.

---

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to trot out the 2nd amendment. As usual, its done without considering the full wording. The right granted under the second amendment is not absolute. It refers to bearing arms in a "well-ordered militia".

But really, there has been NOTHING in this thread that talks about not allowing people who want to own firearms. EVERY post in this thread has been from the perspective of the individual's personal preference. For example: I think its clear that I prefer not to keep a gun in my house. But nothing in anything I have said, speaks to not allowing others to have guns if they want to. I have been critical of some of the rationializations being used, but that's all.

As for the "armed thugs". Parts of this country have been "ruled" by gangs of armed thugs, almost constantly during its history. From colonial times, through the "wild west" into prohibition and now into urban turf wars. This isn't something new and the right to bear amrs hasn't made much of a difference.

ScottGem,

I respect you, not only for what you've had to say on this board to others when they needed help, but also for being able to say no to owning a gun (I know, misuse of the referred to object, ACK!), no one should have to if they don't want to, correct?

That is your prerogative, you made that choice and are sticking by it. Bravo, I know of some people who are thinking of making that type of purchase but know NOTHING, not a darn thing about what it takes, the responsibility or the possibilities that may come with having to actually use one, you do but still decline properly. Not saying you wouldn't know how or would refuse to use it as a defense, but geez, I'd be nervous knowing that some person with a shaky hand and bad nerves is ready to fire simply because they feel as if they have to.

And since it was brought up, yeah, there are people who shouldn't be allowed to get their hands on one and there are rules for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentra

Not saying you wouldn't know how or would refuse to use it as a defense, but geez, I'd be nervous knowing that some person with a shaky hand and bad nerves is ready to fire simply because they feel as if they have to.

---

LOL If you don't break into our house, then there won't be any reason to be nervous over shaky hands firing a gun...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Having a gun MAY prevent being victimized in a crime, but it is unlikley to prevent the crime in the first place.

---

... and those that do break in need to be very nervous. In fact, that is how crime is deterred with gun ownership and to deny it is to not understand human nature very well, never mind the criminal mindset. I can elaborate on that if necessary with facts.

Gun ownership is certainly voluntary and I totally agree there are not nearly enough restrictions in place. Annual registration with visible proof of possession for one and massive paper trails when selling another and heavy fines for noncompliance. I was appalled at how simple buying a gun in Florida is and would actually be more comfortable with restrictions that probably would have counted me out as the buyer on the basis that I have a mental illness on medical records! But in that case my husband would have purchased it instead. But this is all somewhat off topic. I came to the conclusion I did only for myself and would never dream I could decide for someone else about this or anything else. If you do not think my reasons for me are valid, so be it. If you claim they are not valid with faulty reasoning however, I just may fire back LOL but only with words.

FIREARM USE IN CRIME AND SELF DEFENSE
* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:
Murder 10.0 years
Rape 7.6 years
Aggravated Assault 3.4 years
(63)
* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)


RIGHT-TO-CARRY LAWS
* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)


* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)


* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida United States
Homicide rate -36% -0.4%
Firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
Handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

Please understand in the contitution, they are giving citizens rights, not rights for the government, and everyone misses the comma in there making the milita an additional right not the same right.

But the federal government did not have to guarntee itself a right to the military, it gave the right to have arms to the people, and even the right to have a milita was to be an individual right, since at the time, most groups where local or city militas.

No other group of rights have anything to do with government rights, so why do people want to make this one, that gives governemnt rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

....and those that do break in need to be very nervous. In fact, that is how crime is deterred with gun ownership and to deny it is to not understand human nature very well, never mind the criminal mindset.

---

Do you have a sign in front of your home; Beware of gun owner? If not, then how could your ownership of a gun deter a burglary or other crime? And if you did have such a sign, might it not attract some thieves, but only when no one is home?

Unless EVERYONE were to own guns (and I don't think you advocate that) then owning a gun does not deter a criminal from targeting you, simply because the criminal doesn't know. Even if they were to know, if they had their own firearms, then even knowing might not deter them. That's why I say owning a firearm may protect you from being victimized, but it will not protect you from being targeted as a victim.

Again, I am not advocating preventing gun ownership. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of some of the arguments resented here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homeinspector

FIREARM USE IN CRIME AND SELF DEFENSE

---

You rattled off an impressive list of statistics. Not ONE of those statisitics goes towards proving your statement; "Guns really do prevent crime." In fact, the only statisitic that even addresses the issue was: "* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)" But that stat means that 66% were NOT scared off, etc. Nor did having the firearm, prevent the crime from taking place, just rather prevented the completion of the crime.

If I searched hard enough I'm sure I could find stats that show that the gun owner or an innocent bystander is as likely to be hurt in protecting themselves during a crime as the criminal.

GUNS DO NOT PREVENT CRIME!! That is a well known fact.

Whoever thinks that is not informed correctly.

If front yards signs were the only means to intuit whether a home is risky to break into, then all our yards would look like the home headquarters of a dozen politicians running for office simultaneously LOL.

I live on a dead end street with a slumlord apartment building at the top of the street. The rest of the street is far more upstanding. I have talked to law enforcement here, thanks to my annoying neighbor. When I say to them I like living where I do because its fairly bucolic (apart from annoying neighbor stunts) they have said to me more than once the reason that the apartment building crime doesn't spread down the street is one thing and one thing only -- it is a neighborhood that has gun ownership written all over it. And if anyone knows how to sort that stuff out, its both the criminals and the cops. That you or I don't know how doesn't surprise me. But to think you can stand on that ignorance as a way to prove it doesn't happen seems even stranger to me. I've also had opportunity to meet former criminals who confirmed that there are homes that can look well defended and they say its in the details, just like when targeting human victims. I am satisfied knowing that they do. Are the cops and ex-criminals all lying?

And we all heard how I ended the "crime" of my neighbor's dog roaming over here and threatening me by stating the next time I would shoot it. Case closed.

Not everything true and real in this world is black and white or shows up in statistics (although I saw some interesting correlations in those provided here*) but just to help that out a little, I framed and hung my 9mm first shot bullseye in a place easily viewed from a front window. Its not bad looking either. LOL

But like I said in the other thread, the biggest turning point for me was when I found a stranger standing in my front yard after a severe hurricane with law enforcement or anyone else not able to come any time soon. Never again on that one.

As for digging up contradicting facts, I will believe that only when I see it. To attempt to chop away at given facts without providing some seems unproductive. Fair is fair.

* especially these:
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida - United States
Homicide rate -36% -0.4%
Firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
Handgun homicide rate -41% +24%

Is it by accident or some other influence that three categories of major crime decreased in Florida at the same time carrying a concealed gun (and probably gun ownership) increased significantly? Lets see some answers and/or statistics that counters that please. Attempting to shore up the argument by claiming tainted facts as inaccurate or incomplete doesn't really do it for me because either side can do that about the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Again, I am not advocating preventing gun ownership. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of some of the arguments resented here.

---

And yes, it still is A-Okay to not own a gun. LOL Maybe it time to recognise that we can and do feeling differently about it, working with opposiing arguments and embracing different facts and information in the process and let it go at that... resentments are not the objective.

So the neighborhood knows that you are Annie Oakley ;) Will that stop someone outside the neighborhood?

As for those stats, they are too bare to draw specific conclusions. There may have been many other factors that contributed to the declines. Were those crime categories on a downturn before the law was enacted? Were there are laws or factors that may have contributed? For example, were there also tougher gun control laws passed at the same time?

Yes, if a criminal knows he will be going against an armed victim, he will probably hesitate and choose an easier victim. Yes, having a firearm may prevent you from being victimized if you become part of a crime. But just the fact of having a firearm does not prevent you from being involved in a crime. Using a firearm to protect yourself increases the possibility that you will be hurt in the commission of that crime.

But I don't believe, nor do I believe there are any stats to back it up, that owning a gun prevent you from being involved in a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Will that stop someone outside the neighborhood

---

Apparently... since both the cops and the ex-criminals spoke of it. If you need to ask how to believe it, then ask them. I already stated I don't know the details of that. If you don't want to examine it closer, then we'll just have to :) agree to disagree on it-- I believe the source I talked to and you don't and have no other sources with which to counter. Additionally, I am comfortable with the notion that intentions really do matter and does indeed translate into a trillion little details that fly by us every day but none the less count, which is why I am so careful with mine. It is what makes me so intuitive and that intuition serves me well. This is partly why I was willing to believe what they said-- I think they are on to something, as intangible or even illogical (to use one of your pet terms) as it seems. I can understand why you are uncomfortable with this, given your emphasis of logic over intuition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

As for those stats, they are too bare to draw specific conclusions. There may have been many other factors that contributed to the declines. Were those crime categories on a downturn before the law was enacted? Were there are laws or factors that may have contributed? For example, were there also tougher gun control laws passed at the same time?

---

:) I agree, all good questions and trust me, I could raise as many indepth questions about any facts you presented as well, which is why I said---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

Attempting to shore up the argument by claiming tainted facts as inaccurate or incomplete doesn't really do it for me because either side can do that about the other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Yes, if a criminal knows he will be going against an armed victim, he will probably hesitate and choose an easier victim. Yes, having a firearm may prevent you from being victimized if you become part of a crime. But just the fact of having a firearm does not prevent you from being involved in a crime (I countered this one - see first paragraph here). Using a firearm to protect yourself increases the possibility that you will be hurt in the commission of that crime (I countered this one with proper edcuation - see next paragraph) .

---

:) I agree with the first part of what you say here, but not the last two sentences. I already isolated what I think we both :) agree is a big determining factor between raising harm chances and lowering harm chances... which is solid self education and training. Now if you want to maintain that even the most educated gun owner is still at risk, I need tangible argument or stats. Otherwise I will consider that your opinion not based in either experience or research but which you are certainly still entitled to-- to which I have already politely disagreed with and offered my evidence to wit.

Its not just about learning to handle a gun effectively but learning how to handle a life threatening situation too. I know that and I know about that too. The best book I every read on the subject of personal safety is Gavin DeBecker's The Gift of Fear-- a remarkably realistic book. I believe he would also be one to say that with gun ownership comes a huge responsibility to see that inappropriate harm does not come from it and if you aren't up to that task, don't own the gun. With solid education, I emphasize the "probably hesitate and choose an easier victim" part while you emphasize the lack of education/training part-- which again I agree :)... others are probably pretty clueless overall and a clueless gun owner is a hazard. So there really isn't much left to debate. I made my choice and you made yours. And nobody got hurt so I call that a good deal! :p

Well said:). And for anyone who is up for a bit of light reading:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/

Gun ownership; the owner of a pistol or a shotgun does NOT think it will prevent crime because owning one means that great responsibility is taken on, especially when it comes down to having to use it. But it CAN prevent and defend their home/family or person, which is what I should have included in my original post.