The right to bear arms

[Sancho]

Wow, folks are still firing away on this.

Now come on Sancho, I might be afraid of the missus, but I'm not afraid of a paper target at 300 yards, or beer cans, pumpkins or a feral hog if the need came about. ...

Busted!

Awe shucks, Gill, I like plinking too. And after 28 years in various branches of the military, I've accumulated a number of firearms. Although, I'm not sure where they are and I'm pretty sure they're all rusty by now. The last time I actually shot a weapon was on an Army range down in Houston a couple of years ago - the taxpayers paid for it, and yes, I shot expert in rifle and pistol.

Also I'm pretty sure I'm a coward.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I got the gist of your message Sancho; how would one honestly react if they were carrying outside the home.

Inside the home, I would like to think that I would be in a better poistion to evaluate the situation before taking the ultimate step.
Besides, I would have exhausted many prior steps in deterring a home invader before firing a weapon assuming I had enough warning i.e. sounds of breaking in.
Hitting the lights, yelling, dog barking (the dog is old and hard of hearing that's why I put it third), firing a warning shot if need be (just make sure you know where the bullet is going)
Of course, one major first step is to seek out a "safe"(er) place to live if you can afford to as you mentioned above, which we did back in the mid '90's.

[Volya]

I think that although people might say carrying in public should be allowed because muggers might have guns or knives, if you are being held at gun/knifepoint, I don't think you'll have time to draw your gun before they get you first. And if you draw your weapon before then, you might be drawing it on an innocent person.
Another argument for allowing people to carry is to prevent mass shootings - presumably the carrier will whip out his gun and shoot down the shooter. However although this may work, you need to weigh up whether or not in total it will save lives or cost more.

I feel reasonably confident that I could defend my home without a firearm, however I would feel more confident if I did have one, because an intruder may have a knife and without a ranged weapon the odds are whether or not you manage to neutralize the attacker, you'll still get cut. Another reason would be if there were multiple intruders.

[OrphanPip]

While I agree that people should have a basic right to own weapons, and keep them within their home, there is good reason to think that guns are probably not very effective at making people safer.

Arthur Kellerman, an epidemiologist, produced a very extensive study of homicide cases in Ohio and Tennessee, and found that people who owned guns were more likely to be murdered than those who did not have guns. In fact, a gun in the home was apparently as much of a risk factor in being murdered as living with a convicted felon. Kellerman's argument to explain why this heightened risk factor exists is that gun ownership in the home drastically increases cases of domestic violence related murder, combined with a negligible impact on protecting people from criminal activity (most people are murdered by someone they know).

[prendrelemick]

I have three shotguns in the house, but they are locked up and beyond practical use for emergency burglar shooting.

By the way I found out yesterday I've been carring an illegal weapon for years. I have a little Opinel penknife, the best pocket knife I've ever owned, simple ,light, excellent steel, BUT because it locks open it is illegal to carry in a public place in the UK.

[Paulclem]

I think that although people might say carrying in public should be allowed because muggers might have guns or knives, if you are being held at gun/knifepoint, I don't think you'll have time to draw your gun before they get you first. And if you draw your weapon before then, you might be drawing it on an innocent person.
Another argument for allowing people to carry is to prevent mass shootings - presumably the carrier will whip out his gun and shoot down the shooter. However although this may work, you need to weigh up whether or not in total it will save lives or cost more.

I feel reasonably confident that I could defend my home without a firearm, however I would feel more confident if I did have one, because an intruder may have a knife and without a ranged weapon the odds are whether or not you manage to neutralize the attacker, you'll still get cut. Another reason would be if there were multiple intruders.

You don't need a ranged weapon - anything will do - chair, toilet brush, bottles of perfume from the extensive stock in the bathroom, shower gel, shampoo - imagine that lot raining down on an intruders head. It's not called "head and shoulders" for nothing. (Ranged weapon? - been playing on the x-box again? : )

If they have a gun, barricade the door/ stairs - hard to hit what they can't see - hopefully.

I can understand attitudes to guns. The best fun in the Territorial Army was the shooting, particularly the SLRs we had at that time and the General Purpose machine Guns. (I also got to fire 108mm Howitzers which was fantastic fun). But then, that was in very controlled conditions. The knowledge that this stuff can kill a lot of people makes the fun dangerous in itself in a mixing business and pleasure way.

The thing with domestic ownership is how handy with it are you as well. In a stressful situation are you likely to shoot yourself, family or the other? The army has very strict rules for live firing ranges and still people get killed and wounded. When I was in the TA we were told we'd be imprisoned if we misused or were negligent with any weapons.

It's a difficult situation in the US. I don't think more will help, but will a reduction or stricter control be popular enough?

[Volya]

Paulclem, if they have a knife then I don't want to be within stabbing distance. I doubt you'd have enough to time to barricade a door. When I'm older I think I'll get a crossbow rather than a gun, since you don't have to go through all the fuss of paperwork and licensing and it seems like it can do just as well for defence as any other gun (for sale in the UK).
I personally don't think banning guns or mass-ownership of guns has the largest effect on crime rates. There are other factors that are much more important, which is really what the government should be focused on tackling.

PS
X-box? Nah, PS3 all the way (but I honestly don't play it that much - why bother leveling up on computer games when you can be leveling up on life)

[Delta40]

I imagine during a high stress situation, you would really want a steady hand with a cross bow...

[Paulclem]

Paulclem, if they have a knife then I don't want to be within stabbing distance. I doubt you'd have enough to time to barricade a door. When I'm older I think I'll get a crossbow rather than a gun, since you don't have to go through all the fuss of paperwork and licensing and it seems like it can do just as well for defence as any other gun (for sale in the UK).
I personally don't think banning guns or mass-ownership of guns has the largest effect on crime rates. There are other factors that are much more important, which is really what the government should be focused on tackling.

PS
X-box? Nah, PS3 all the way (but I honestly don't play it that much - why bother leveling up on computer games when you can be leveling up on life)

You misunderstand me - you rain all the shampoo/ perfume bottles and the liquid from bleach/ toliet cleaner/ bathroom spray/ mould spray etc on them. No need to get close if you're up stairs. Two gun Volya with the bathroom spray in one hand and the mould spray in the other. Most unpleasant on the skin and eyes.

As for barricading a door - get the mattress off and get yourself behind it. Stuff the sheets under the edge of the door so it sticks - by the way - an easy eway to lock a door if you don't want intruders. Come n Volya - where's your imagination!! I jest.

I imagine during a high stress situation, you would really want a steady hand with a cross bow...

Much better with the bleachy spray.

[Emil Miller]

I was reading some time ago about a gun that was quite rare. It was a small calibre handgun that was about 4.5 inches long and lethal at close quarters. So just the thing to carry in one's pocket for the careful owner in a liberal democratic society. As someone who has been attacked by members of our wonderful inclusive society, I only wish that I'd had that weapon with me at the time because, whatever the 'liberal' authorities had done to me, the evil trash would have been deservedly six feet under. This is not a note of bravado but something that has been reasoned through and a statement of fact.

[Volya]

I imagine during a high stress situation, you would really want a steady hand with a cross bow...

I wouldn't imagine it's any more difficult than using a gun - point and pull the trigger. Although I dare say it takes longer to reload than a gun.

Paul, well I can see how it's a viable option, but personally I think I'd prefer something with a bit more 'oomph' to it, the bottle of perfume might just make them more angry. But each to his own I suppose

Another option is to just get a big dog. We have a fairly large dog, she's a loveable cuddly girl really, but I guess she might look more intimidating to a stranger. I know a lot of people on our road have dogs, largely due to the fact that they're mostly old rich pensioners who are lonely, but the high proportion of German Shepherds among them suggests it may also be to scare off any burglars.

EDIT: One other point about gun laws. Although gun laws aren't going to stop all criminals, it would seem that it means they're used less often. From what I'm aware the majority of criminals in the UK use knives not guns.

[Paulclem]

I wouldn't imagine it's any more difficult than using a gun - point and pull the trigger. Although I dare say it takes longer to reload than a gun.

Paul, well I can see how it's a viable option, but personally I think I'd prefer something with a bit more 'oomph' to it, the bottle of perfume might just make them more angry. But each to his own I suppose

Another option is to just get a big dog. We have a fairly large dog, she's a loveable cuddly girl really, but I guess she might look more intimidating to a stranger. I know a lot of people on our road have dogs, largely due to the fact that they're mostly old rich pensioners who are lonely, but the high proportion of German Shepherds among them suggests it may also be to scare off any burglars.

EDIT: One other point about gun laws. Although gun laws aren't going to stop all criminals, it would seem that it means they're used less often. From what I'm aware the majority of criminals in the UK use knives not guns.

You probably wouldn't have one loaded though - string slackening.

I also think you are underestimating the power of domestic cleaning fluids. Have you ever got washing up liquid in your eye? I have, and it is very debilitating and painful. Just imagine what jojoba perfumed shampoo will be like, and that's before we get onto the toilet duck and bathroom spray. Even perfume is a most unpleasant irritant. Failing that, you could throw the dog down at them. Knife? Call that an effective weapon? (Sprays bleach mould and mildew remover) - now that's what I call an effective ranged weapon.

[Scheherazade]

It has been more than 25 years since I actually handled a rifle anything other than dusting purposes. My father was a keen huntsman (huntsperson?) Even though it was not (and probably is still not) a common practice where we lived, he wanted me to be able to handle the rifle since we had 3 at home (also it might have been a ruse to get me clean them). I did go hunting with them but I decided it was not for me by the time I graduated from highschool when I was around 16 years old. I am glad I learnt how to shoot (not sure how much of that "learning" I have retained) but I don't have any burning desires to own one.

I really don't see the point.

[prendrelemick]

You don't need a ranged weapon - anything will do - chair, toilet brush, bottles of perfume from the extensive stock in the bathroom, shower gel, shampoo - imagine that lot raining down on an intruders head. It's not called "head and shoulders" for nothing. (Ranged weapon? - been playing on the x-box again? : )

If they have a gun, barricade the door/ stairs - hard to hit what they can't see - hopefully.

I can understand attitudes to guns. The best fun in the Territorial Army was the shooting, particularly the SLRs we had at that time and the General Purpose machine Guns. (I also got to fire 108mm Howitzers which was fantastic fun). But then, that was in very controlled conditions. The knowledge that this stuff can kill a lot of people makes the fun dangerous in itself in a mixing business and pleasure way.

The thing with domestic ownership is how handy with it are you as well. In a stressful situation are you likely to shoot yourself, family or the other? The army has very strict rules for live firing ranges and still people get killed and wounded. When I was in the TA we were told we'd be imprisoned if we misused or were negligent with any weapons.

It's a difficult situation in the US. I don't think more will help, but will a reduction or stricter control be popular enough?

Now that's what I call a deterrent!

[Sancho]

While I agree that people should have a basic right to own weapons, and keep them within their home, there is good reason to think that guns are probably not very effective at making people safer.

Arthur Kellerman, an epidemiologist, produced a very extensive study of homicide cases in Ohio and Tennessee, and found that people who owned guns were more likely to be murdered than those who did not have guns. In fact, a gun in the home was apparently as much of a risk factor in being murdered as living with a convicted felon. Kellerman's argument to explain why this heightened risk factor exists is that gun ownership in the home drastically increases cases of domestic violence related murder, combined with a negligible impact on protecting people from criminal activity (most people are murdered by someone they know).

I know I'm starting to sound like the needle's stuck in the groove, but guns are just too quick, too easy, and too dangerous. I've heard statistics exactly like that one, Orphan. I've also heard that statistically guns kept in the home for the purpose of defense are far more likely to used for suicide than to thwart a burglar. But using that line of argument is like trying to convince somebody that winning the lottery will be ruinous to them: "Yeah, I know, people are statistically less happy after they win the lottery than before - but I'm willing to take that chance."

Here are a few more stat's that pop up from time to time. I can't vouch for their validity:

A policeman wearing body armor is more likely to shot in the line of duty than a policeman not wearing body armor.

A bicyclist is more likely crash while wearing a helmet rather than not.

(Also, I hate to be curmudgeon, Paul, but was it a 105mm Howitzer? Perhaps an M-108, 105mm?)