Here is a reason to own a gun

[luckytxn 2,264]

Here's more

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

Wow. We are getting to actual facts here. Be careful the sheep will start bleating.

[justashooter 430]

I'd like to hear how you would have handled the above scenario of being woken in the middle of the night by someone in your living room, rustling near your Christmas tree.

the first commandment is "know thy target". if you don't know what it is, don't shoot it. they make light switches, ya know. besides, the lights are lit on my christmas tree year round. it's beside me as i type, 200 twinkling stars...

The inconvenience of having to take care of a gun and maintain adequate training to be of any use should such a situation arise completely and utterly outweighs any possible benefit.

spoken by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

the first commandment is "know thy target". if you don't know what it is, don't shoot it. they make light switches, ya know.

If it really is a perpetrator with a gun and intent to kill you in the dark, who's going to get the first shot off if you need time to identify the target?

[Nessa 23]

I'd like to hear how you would have handled the above scenario of being woken in the middle of the night by someone in your living room, rustling near your Christmas tree.

depends on what gifts Santa brought.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You've got to love these gems of wisdom from The Shooter, VJs very own Jason Bourne and High Priest of the infernal gun.

Perhaps he is also one of the few people in charge of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. I mean if one is issuing commandments, one better be prepared and able to toss one's orbs about!

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

In a civilian context? How do you know that having the gun was critical, did you kill someone who was trying to kill you?

yes, it was in a civilian context, and when you quit changing the questions around to suit your agenda, let me know.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

the first commandment is "know thy target". if you don't know what it is, don't shoot it. they make light switches, ya know. besides, the lights are lit on my christmas tree year round. it's beside me as i type, 200 twinkling stars...

spoken by someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject.

If you want to keep a gun, maintain a gun, and run the greater risk to yourself or your loved one having a gun around creates, go for it. This article in the OP changes my decision to NOT own a gun not a whit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As it shouldn't. These articles are rarely persuasive and all the folks promoting them always seem to do so on the basis of inevitable and imminent threat. Fear mongers, all of them.

[slim 1,530]

the reality is that guns might make you feel safe, but do not change the actuality of your situation. You are in a perilous situation and you will survive if luck is on your side.

So let me get this straight.... you survived a natural disaster and people have already broken into your house several times.... and you're going to trust your survival to luck?

You wouldn't want a gun in that situation? You're honestly telling me that when all the cops/military (your "authority" figures) are busy in the big city and can't keep your city safe you'd prefer NOT to have a gun?

All these arguments about guns just making things worse are great to make from the comfort of your own safe and secure home in a safe and secure area. What happens when that safety and security evaporates into thin air or gets washed out to sea? You're still going to sit there and wait for "authority" to be reestablished?

That situation calls for an AR or an AK. My .40 Cal just wouldn't cut it!

You're a lot better off with your .40cal than with "luck" alone. (Google "Liberator Pistol" to feel even better.)

Absolutely an AR or AK is the way to go for "aftermath" scenarios. I try to tell everyone to own at least one of those rifles. If they can't afford them, I recommend a 12ga. pump shotgun. A pistol should be the last of your firearms purchases as it's merely a side arm. However, as seen by the Liberator pistol, a pistol can usually help you "upgrade" to a longer firearm if necessary.

I'm not assuming anything, when people go around looting and breaking the law to solve immediate problems the rule of law has broken down - no matter what the justification. In these instances the problem is not that people are or are not armed, but that there is no procedure in place to provide citizens with basic necessities while the devastation to homes and other structures is cleared up and put right.

Oh, and more chaotic because the more guns there are, the more likely people are to be injured and killed, it's simple math.

So what are you doing in the time between law and order breakdown and everything getting cleared up? Still relying on "luck" alone? Good luck with that!

First off, we don't know that having the gun was the reason why he has not been attacked all we know is that he 'feels' as if this is true. What we do not have is any statistical data to back this up.

I don't see how that makes any kind of sense at all.

Do we need statistical data to confirm that unarmed people typically run away from armed people who shoot at them? Really? I'm sure there's something on Wiki to confirm that if you really are that much in need of stats.

So what makes sense is "feelings" and "statistics" .... not taking the most effective immediate action to counter a threat to your life or well-being? And before you say that same tired argument of "well that'll never happen to most of us" it happened to the guy in the story and it seems pretty clear that his gun at least helped a little. Can you not admit that? Are you actually arguing that if he was just lucky enough those people would've ran away? I have a feeling the bullets whizzing over their head played at least a minor part in their decision to flee.

Can you at least say maybe? Maybe those people being shot at changed their minds because someone was shooting at them?

I see a good few of the gun toting folks on here as "small minded little peckers", a couple of posters in particular.

Cleo's post at the start about the reasons people give for owning guns - well its not wrong. It has been said on this board by assorted posters that owning a gun makes them feel that others respect them, that it somehow makes them "better" Americans. If that's not a subconcious ####### reference I don't know what is

I may have a small #######, but I have a great big gun. If you can't respect that, I can kill you. I'm not saying that as a threat or a TOS violation or anything like that, I'm saying that because it's an actual fact. I have the physical capability to end someone's life. Right now.

If you don't have that capability and someone else does, no matter how much you argue or what side of the argument you're on - YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG. Either that, or you're dead, one or the other. (And just for the record, if you're dead, you're wrong too.) It baffles me that folks do not realize they have no physical control over the actions of someone else yet completely trust a third party (the "authorities") to protect them from that someone else's actions. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust everyone to be a good, law-abiding citizen because most people are and you can trust them to do so. But, when that person who has the capability to cause you death or harm is presenting an immediate threat to you..... how do you effectively and immediately counter that threat?

Give me one good way to do it and I'll STFU on the guns topic for good.

You've got to love these gems of wisdom from The Shooter, VJs very own Jason Bourne and High Priest of the infernal gun.

Perhaps he is also one of the few people in charge of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. I mean if one is issuing commandments, one better be prepared and able to toss one's orbs about!

I bet there's not a single person here on VJ who'd be willing to break into his house or punch him in the face, touch his wife, steal his car, etc.

Any takers?

Why not?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yep. Disingenuous fearmongering, as I said. Together with a side of alpha male chestbeating. How incredibly tedious.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I bet there's not a single person here on VJ who'd be willing to break into his house or punch him in the face, touch his wife, steal his car, etc.

Any takers?

Why not?

Silly question. A better question would be if both justashooter and someone else agreed to fight to the death by handgun, who you think will win? I'd say whoever has the element of surprise will have the upper hand, and since justashooter always identifies his target before firing, if the other person is less discriminant, they would have the upper hand.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[natty bumppo 297]

Silly question. A better question would be if both justashooter and someone else agreed to fight to the death by handgun, who you think will win? I'd say whoever has the element of surprise will have the upper hand, and since justashooter always identifies his target before firing, if the other person is less discriminant, they would have the upper hand.

isn't it kinda hard to hit a target not yet identified?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

isn't it kinda hard to hit a target not yet identified?

Yes, but my point is that when facing an intruder in your home, because you are a law abiding citizen, you are at a disadvantage, if the intruder is in fact armed and dangerous.

[natty bumppo 297]

Yes, but my point is that when facing an intruder in your home, because you are a law abiding citizen, you are at a disadvantage, if the intruder is in fact armed and dangerous.

depends on the state and castle doctrine laws. some states require the home owner to avoid lethal confrontation unless there is no further avenue of retreat and imminent danger to life is apparent.

identification of target is always a must. dangerously exposing yourself needlessly during the identification process is just stupid.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

depends on the state and castle doctrine laws. some states require the home owner to avoid lethal confrontation unless there is no further avenue of retreat and imminent danger to life is apparent.

identification of target is always a must. dangerously exposing yourself needlessly during the identification process is just stupid.

Is it sufficient to identify by sound (voice, grunts, etc.) or must a person actually see the intruder before being able to shoot?

There was an incident a few years back where some bounty hunters raided the wrong house.