Would You Consider Owning A Gun?

[Sea Skimmer]

One thing I've always wondered about handguns is why they're so expensive. I mean, there are some great handguns out there, but they've never struck me as things which would be expensive to produce. They're basically molded metal and some springs. I can see paying maybe $100 for one, but some of them go for $500 or more. Is it just manufacturer profit reaping? Or is there some sort of massive tax that they have to cover? Or is there some expense in the manufacturing process that just can't be overcome?

500 bucks new is still not that expensive as far as a good new built handguns go, many are in the 700-1000 USD range. The reason they are expensive is because of low production runs (this is a really big factor) for most designs, and they require a fair amount of machine tool work, working with some hard metal, and hand assembly. But that said, while I’m not so sure about today’s plastic wonders, a predominantly metal and wood gun can last 100 years or more. A whole lot of quality up front pays off in the long run. When you consider how much many car parts cost, I dont think the pricetag of guns is anything strange.

Limited production runs drives the cost of civilian model assault rifles really through the roof, you could easily pay four times what a military would, for a gun which does less. This is because they have to redesign the gun mechanism so its impossible to easily convert it to fire full auto and then the modified production line only churns out maybe a few thousand of them a year.

100 dollar and cheaper handguns are in plentiful supply though, if you want something low power or some really old (but never or only light used) for example Model 1895 Nagant Revolver. Those things are selling for as little as fifty bucks.

[TheFeniX]

I would also add a few things for the high cost of most handguns:

1. Warranties: some of them are pretty badass. Kimber is one noteworthy source. They refinished my buddies full-size 1911 when the bluing started wearing off. Beretta's good about it too.

2. Name: just like any other company, gouging can come from just having a brand named stamped on them. Look at the XD. It's a Croation gun that would have run you 200 bucks before Springfield Armory bought them out and stamped their logo on. They'll run you 400 now (still worth it). I find Glock and many Beretta's in this catagory as well: My 96 ran me right at $600 and it's not a very impressive pistol.

3. Modifications: my Kimber compact ran my right around a grand. It came with the tritium sights and a trigger job (which is a smoother trigger than my stock colt). That requires more than just stamping one out on a press.

And these are just "stock" handguns. You don't even want to know the money many IPSC shooters dump into their weapons to decrease shooting times. And many of these shooters use TWO identical handguns (one as a backup in case one goes down in a match).

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

One thing I've always wondered about handguns is why they're so expensive. I mean, there are some great handguns out there, but they've never struck me as things which would be expensive to produce. They're basically molded metal and some springs. I can see paying maybe $100 for one, but some of them go for $500 or more. Is it just manufacturer profit reaping? Or is there some sort of massive tax that they have to cover? Or is there some expense in the manufacturing process that just can't be overcome?

Well, a typical handgun is a mechanism that harnesses and contains a small explosion to hurl a lead pellet at tremendous velocities. The barrel and the chamber which holds the cartridge must be rather precisely machined out of metal that's sturdy enough to withstand repeated physical and thermal stresses involved in shooting the gun (handgun propellant charges can develop on the order of 35,000 PSI.) With a revolver, you multiply this by anywhere from five to eight times, depending on how many firing chambers are bored into the cylinder. With semi-autos and autos, you have various interlocking safety mechanisms and springs which have to be matched to the forces generated by the range of ammunition that might be used with the semi-auto (so that it will cycle reliably every time the gun is fired. And of course, it has to do all this while being subjected to the sorts of abuses that the users of the gun will subject it to. (In this case, users are defined as police and military forces, who may subject their guns to frequent practice, harsh environments, and may or may not properly maintain their weapons.)

As a result, a typical handgun will require rather extensive design work, as well as precision machining. And, as Sea Skimmer mentioned, not many guns are produced per year. Outside police and military customers, not many civilians buy guns . . . and even the most avid civilian shooter will hold on to the weapons he or she buys for many years, replacing parts as they wear out (such as the barrel or recoil springs,) and not replacing the entire gun unless it malfunctions spectacularly. Though even a modestly used handgun, stored properly, can expect to persist for a century or more. Find an old Colt Single-Action Army (the so-called "Peacemaker") revolver in a box in the closet of your grandfather's house, with a bit of cleaning, it will reliably shoot through a brand-new box ammunition (And that ammunition is still made. This is not true of some oddball or poor-preforming loads, but the .45 Long Colt is neither.) Also, as was mentioned before, some handguns aimed at the civilian market tend to be somewhat different internally than the same guns produced by for military and law-enforcement customers. Guns from foreign manufacturers have additional requirements that they must meet in order to be sold to some civilian markets. (The BATF has a system where a firearm is assigned 'points' for various and sundry features which would mark it as a civilian weapon meant chiefly for target-shooting.)

As a result, low production volume + high-tolerance, precision machining = higher cost.

[Jedi Guardian]

I already do, or do you mean legally? Oh and I actually have a reason for using this icon come on, don't you wish you had this little guy's gun?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I already do, or do you mean legally?

What?

Please don't tell me you just did that...

[Aaron]

I already do, or do you mean legally? Oh and I actually have a reason for using this icon come on, don't you wish you had this little guy's gun?

Ok, that was a pretty dumb thing you just did. Admitting to criminal activity is a big no-no on the board and could have some major repercussions for you both on the board and in person as well.

[mingo]

I own 4 guns, 3 rifles and a shotgun. My wife owns one rifle and one shotgun. So many people view guns as evil entity that CAUSES bad things to happen. Folks, they're machines, like cars or lawnmowers or salad shooters. If you choose to, you can raise all kinds of hell with a gun, but the gun isn't gonna do it by itself. If you choose to, you can raise all kinds of hell with a crowbar.

[mingo]

I have one handgun: a Sig Sauer P226 .40 S&W. I own it purely for home defense. I don't "like guns" or particularly "enjoy" shooting it, nor do I hunt (which would be a silly use for a Sig anyway).

Moreover, I prefer it to a shotgun (such as a Remington 870) for several reasons:

1. it's lighter and smaller than a shotgun and therefore easier for me to wield in the narrow confines of my home.
2. it's loaded with hollowpoints that are more likely to stop my intended target while being less likely to penetrate walls and hit an unintended target. I don't trust light shotgun loads that are likely to spread or the heavier loads (00 buck, etc.) that are, again, more likely to penetrate walls.
3. it has a higher ammo capacity and rate of fire.

with the valid consern about unintended targets, consider Glazer safety rounds. They are designed to prevent this problem. Hollow points, while less likely to pass through walls after passing though a body, are not incapable of doing so. Glazer claims their slugs are

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I have one handgun: a Sig Sauer P226 .40 S&W. I own it purely for home defense. I don't "like guns" or particularly "enjoy" shooting it, nor do I hunt (which would be a silly use for a Sig anyway).

Moreover, I prefer it to a shotgun (such as a Remington 870) for several reasons:

1. it's lighter and smaller than a shotgun and therefore easier for me to wield in the narrow confines of my home.
2. it's loaded with hollowpoints that are more likely to stop my intended target while being less likely to penetrate walls and hit an unintended target. I don't trust light shotgun loads that are likely to spread or the heavier loads (00 buck, etc.) that are, again, more likely to penetrate walls.
3. it has a higher ammo capacity and rate of fire.

with the valid consern about unintended targets, consider Glazer safety rounds. They are designed to prevent this problem. Hollow points, while less likely to pass through walls after passing though a body, are not incapable of doing so. Glazer claims their slugs are

Yes, especially as most hollowpoints marketed to civilians are derivations of law-enforcement rounds (or the exact same rounds as those marketed to law-enforcement. For example, Winchester Silvertip, Remington Golden Saber, Federal HydraShok, and CCI/Speer GoldDot are used by law-enforcement, and can also be had at your local gun-shopP . . . and those rounds are designed to penetrate light barriers (windshields, car doors and the like,) and still perform. Thin apartment walls are no barrier, if you miss, and hollowpoints do occasionally fail to expand and blast through the bad guy like they were solid slugs . . . meaning they could concievably carry enough energy to punch through drywall and injure one's neighbors.

Glaser Safety Slugs are, essentially, birdshot (#6 or #12) packed in a thin metal jacket, and capped with a polymer ball. Think of them as shotshells which burst open upon impact with the target. They are low-mass rounds, meaning they're only useful over relatively short ranges against unprotected targets, and if one hits a wall, it will generally explode into a spray of birdshot, which won't penetrate very far.

[Jedi Guardian]

Ok, that was a pretty dumb thing you just did. Admitting to criminal activity is a big no-no on the board and could have some major repercussions for you both on the board and in person as well.

Well as for the crminal activity I was just kidding.

[tharkûn]

Yes, because people have absolutely zero choice where to go or live and thus THEIR EXAMPLE IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A POLICE OFFICER. Or wait, IT'S NOT. This entire thread of you argument has been banked on your assumption that private citizens have the same needs and requirements for owning and carrying a handgun that police officers do.

Strawman. I did not say it was identical, I'm saying that some people need handguns for the same general reasons why police officers do - there are times when a handy concealable firearm is useful.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Concession accepted. The status quo reaffirms my position, not yours.

Fair enough, but again, I don't know if or what his bias may be. Like I've said multiple times, there's a lot of BS around this issue, and at this point, finding a reliable source is rather difficult. Kleck may be good, but right now, I can't be sure.

So how would one go about making you "sure"? I see no value in you posting if you are merely going to state 'your opinion' and then when actual data is put forth you merely shrug and say "I can't be sure".

Anecdotal Evidence which is an inrellevant tangent from the original point you were making, which was that PRIVATE CITIZENS ARE POLICE OFFICERS.

Strawman. The point is there are times when private citizens can use concealable firepower, for some of the same reasons that police officers can use it.

I can't believe you thought that was worthy of two seperate responses. I mean, what the hell? You have to respond three seperate times to a statement which essentially says, "Okay, want to lower the price total, here's a cheap way to secure your home."

Because essentially the arguement is flawed. Not everyone can do so, it is quite expensive anything that will really slow down a criminal with a crowbar, and somehow flashing lights and doors I need a crowbar/sledge to open are a better detterant than a gun ... all without any substantiating evidence.

Blah blah blah. Getting your first concealed carry permit takes longer than fixing a door, it involves you being put on a national database, and background checks. At least that's how it's supposed to go. If your local authorities cut corners, well, that's something else. I could have all my security gear installed for free with some nice extras by a contracter who owes me a favor.

Wow pulling facts out of your ass, again, color me surprised. These are the official steps to getting a CCW permit in Michigan (my state of residence): * Applicant files their application with the county clerk in the county in which the individual resides. This must include: (1) a copy of the certificate of completion of the pistol safety training course, and (2) a passport quality photograph.
* Applicant pays a fee of $105 to the county clerk at time of filing.
* Applicant receives a receipt for payment.
* Applicant provides receipt to the sheriff department or local police agency indicating application fee payment.
* Applicant has fingerprints taken by sheriff department or a local law enforcement agency. However, the local agency may charge an additional $15 for the taking of the fingerprints. [under an hour at this point]
* Sheriff department or local police agency forwards fingerprints to the Michigan State Police for processing. [this depends on how busy the state police are]
* Once county gun board receives the fingerprint comparison report, they will issue or deny the license within 45 days. [matter of minutes when they know you]

Note there is no national database nor background check. If you can get the state police to expedite their processing, theoreticly you could be done in minutes. For myself, my prints are on file (good for five years) and my comparison is already with the county gun board. Unless the Sheriff takes issue with it, I can be done faster there than with going through Home Depot. As I said you don't want to go there with me.

As far as fixing my door, I had to order mine as it wasn't carried in stock which actually took longer to arrive than my first CCW. Of course I went with a door that you can't break up with an ax or sledge easily.

Let's see - picking a store that's easy to knock off - short term. Thinking that you might eventually die in a shootout - long term. It's a no-brainer to pick a place that's easy to loot.

Really, then why do criminals still do smash and grab jobs on residential housing?

Also, you seem to have a mental block when I call criminals stupid. As I've said previously, if a criminal were smart, he'd be into embezzlement, knowing that the rewards for burglary, robbery, assault, and so on, are hardly worth the risks involved. Obviously, there are varying degrees of intelligence in criminals, but the fact that they've chosen a path that involves breaking and entering, armed robbery, and so on, is STUPID. Why pick a high risk lifestyle that could end you in jail or dead for rewards that can't even be assured?

And yet you expect them to be scared off by bright lights and the threat of the cops getting there before they can make off with something valuable.

Actually, he brought it up as a counterpoint, acknowledged that it was biased, and then brought in a much less biased source, not that you seemed to notice or care about the little things like that.

The odds that he and I haven't read the same source material are nil. His position and mine are quite close, because the same data backs them.

Military Training != Police Training, or don't you understand that distinction?

One does not need police training to safely and lawfully operate a firearm. If you hold otherwise, I expect you to follow the rules of the board and substantiate that claim before posting it.

Haha, yes, I'm the one backpedalling. Strong words from a person who can't comprehend simple phrases without creating strawmen.

By the way, how many private citizens pull over drunk or reckless drivers again?

Speaking of strawmen ... the point is the cops have a good reason to use handguns - there are times when they want to have handy firepower availible that won't interfere with what else they are doing. These basic reasons carry over to some extent to civillians. Why you can only strawman civillians != cops is beyond me.

I can start using 22LR rifles, which I can get for roughly $160, and are semi-automatic.

Fine. Here's a Hi Point .380, 100 dollars. Here's an RG .22, 40 dollars (granted it is a revolver). Now you will be getting what you pay for to some degree, but these were found in under a minute and cheap pistols are far easier to come by that cheap rifles - namely because the market for cheap rifles is pretty much nonexistant.

Yes, that's right, I have no valid points at all. That's why even you were agreeing with me early on about home security. That's not a sweeping statement at all, now is it?

I take it you never covered the rhetorical devise known as hyperbole in English class?

Why, let's see, according to you, I don't own guns, I have no idea what gun laws are like (yeah, come to New Jersey, let's see how long you last), civilians do the same jobs as police officers, police officers should carry carbines with them at all times, Detroit is the leading cause of death in the world, because people can't help be go to the bad parts due to some magical force that makes them go there against their will, and anyone WITHOUT a gun is instantly shot dead by the gun-sensing criminals who can derive from a glance if you're packing or not. Criminals looking for their next crack fix spend the time to do research on the gun ownership statistics of a neighborhood before they rob it. Civilians are better off buying a cheap gun than securing their homes, leaving them with an unsecured house which can be entered easily by a home invader, but hey, if that home invader threatens your life, you can legally shoot him dead.

I said you admitted you did not posses a gun, that was an error on my part, I should have said you admitted you do not own a handgun, the type of gun under discussion as was evident by the context of the debate. You don't know gun laws as evidenced by your claims about a national database being used in the issuance of CCW permits. Civillians have good reasons for using handguns because there are times they can use a handy concealable weapon, like the cops. Detroit is a counterexample which readily shows your exclusive "opinion" to be BS and is handily supplemented by hard data you 'cannot be sure' about. Criminals looking for a crack fix hear about the other guys who go into certain neighborhoods and got shot, street reputations develop and they go elsewhere for easier prey. Civillians are better off doing both, but securing a giant glass door with a two-by-four is a joke. But hey if a home invader crosses the threshold I can legally shoot him dead, there is no duty to retreat here, but at least you have the brains to recognize this.

Either way, making your home more secure makes criminals less likely to attempt entry, much more than a gun will.

Evidence please, or are you going to make yet another positive claim, refuse to back it up and then pass it off as your "opinion"?

Security, by way of locks, alarms, and other measures, are all clearly visible around a house. This is a warning to criminals that entry is going to be difficult, and increases their chances of getting caught. It's all in plain sight, and makes an immediate impression.

So do warning signs that say intruders will be shot.

The problem is of course that people have started putting up fake signs and decals so that their deterrant value has declined.

Owning a gun for defense is not a deterrant against a specific home invader UNTIL YOU USE IT AGAINST THAT INVADER.

It is called herd immunity. If enough people have guns then your neighborhood builds a reputation and the crooks strike elsewhere. This was particularly obvious back when Detroit required all its cops to live within city limits, they mostly lived in a few specific neighborhoods near city limits that had astonishingly low crime rates. The crooks new that robbing those neighborhoods was far riskier than going elsewhere.

By the way, I see that you completely glossed over my point about homeowner's insurance. You know, the part about how it saves you money each year? What's the matter, is that not true? I mean, you did say I don't have any valid points at all. You spend three quote responses to make snappy responses about your el-cheapo pistol, but you can't respond to a legitimate point that saves you money on your insurance? What's this say about your level of honesty, Tharky-babe?

I received no discount on my home owner's insurance when I replaced el cheapo door with a reinforced one.

If I'm in a situation in which I have to choose between my life and killing the person threatening me, okay, fine, I'll take the shot, I don't have anything left to lose at that point. However, how often do such situations really occur?

According to sources I'm sure you will have trouble accepting, the safest course of action in violent rape attempts is to use a gun, preferably something the lady can carry in her car or handbag. Their numbers show this to be the course of action most likely to get you out of the rape alive, including not resisting. If we accept those figures it is pretty damn common.

[ClaysGhost]

My first poll - let's see if I can get this to work properly.

Would you consider owning a gun? For any reason, whether you currently own one or not. If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm more interested in opinion here than an actual debate (not that I could stop one from happening)

I don't own a gun, and I don't care about the option. Hm, unless having the option would mean arming the chavs, in which case I would be opposed.

[Hotfoot]

Strawman. I did not say it was identical, I'm saying that some people need handguns for the same general reasons why police officers do - there are times when a handy concealable firearm is useful.

Funny, I listed several specific reasons police officers required handguns, which you immediately claimed were all valid reasons private citizens required handguns.

Concession accepted. The status quo reaffirms my position, not yours.

The problem underlying the status quo goes far deeper than gun control laws, but that's another issue entirely.

So how would one go about making you "sure"? I see no value in you posting if you are merely going to state 'your opinion' and then when actual data is put forth you merely shrug and say "I can't be sure".

More than just making the data available, I'd like to see actual peer review by individuals on both sides of the debate who are in fact, qualified to review such material. I don't think that's such an unreasonable request.

Strawman. The point is there are times when private citizens can use concealable firepower, for some of the same reasons that police officers can use it.

Actually, you claimed that every reason a police officer needs a handgun applies to private citizens, so no, it's really not a strawman, it's you changing your argument. But since you can't even remember what I write, it's no great surprise you've forgotten your own words.

Because essentially the arguement is flawed. Not everyone can do so, it is quite expensive anything that will really slow down a criminal with a crowbar, and somehow flashing lights and doors I need a crowbar/sledge to open are a better detterant than a gun ... all without any substantiating evidence.

First of all, the price of getting a gun to defend yourself is a cost you have to eat, wholly and completely. It can have additional insurance costs, which can be lessened or negated depending on your situation.

Meanwhile, securing your home after consultation with your insurance company can effectively pay for itself over time. Depending on your insurance company, the insurance you have, and your other conditions, you can save hundreds of dollars a year by securing your home. In truth, this gives you a much higher dollar limit when it comes to securing your home than just the cost of a gun, ammo, and miscellaneous costs of owning a gun. Plus, over time, it will pay for itself, so if you still want that gun, you can buy it with the money you would have spent on higher insurance.

Meanwhile, I know of no insurance rebate for having a weapon on the premesis for home defense.

* Once county gun board receives the fingerprint comparison report, they will issue or deny the license within 45 days. [matter of minutes when they know you]

Let's review, a $120 total cost, with a wait time of up to 45 days. We'll ignore your connections because, as I said, I could have a contractor on hand ready to install the gear for free the same day I make the call.

Note there is no national database nor background check. If you can get the state police to expedite their processing, theoreticly you could be done in minutes. For myself, my prints are on file (good for five years) and my comparison is already with the county gun board. Unless the Sheriff takes issue with it, I can be done faster there than with going through Home Depot. As I said you don't want to go there with me.

As far as fixing my door, I had to order mine as it wasn't carried in stock which actually took longer to arrive than my first CCW. Of course I went with a door that you can't break up with an ax or sledge easily.

Generally speaking, one that withstands being kicked in is sufficient, but hey, no wonder you're getting a skewed perspective. On the one hand, you're special ordering hardware without friends on the inside or ordering the hardware prior to showing up, while on the other side, your friends in the police department and government help you cut through the red tape. Hey, far be it from me to point out a poorly constructed example which is supposed to be in general terms while you keep it specific to yourself.

Really, then why do criminals still do smash and grab jobs on residential housing?

Most smash and grabs on residential houses take place during the daylight hours, when most people are away at work or at school, between 9AM and 3PM. The most common point of entry is through the front door. In other words, you won't be home. If your gun is not properly locked up in a safe (one that is too heavy to make off with or is bolted to the floor), you can kiss it goodbye and expect it to be used in a violent crime at a later date. The average take for a residential smash and grab is usually around $535 per incident.

It's more common, to be sure, but the take compared to that of a jewelry store robbery is miniscule. Also, due to the timing of the crime, the chances you have of being around when it happens are not that great. Owning a handgun only helps for entries when you happen to be home at the time, and in an area near where your gun is. It will not help much with home invasions where you are overpowered upon opening the door either.

So basically, we're looking at a rather small number of instances where it will be really essential for you to have a handgun in the house.

And yet you expect them to be scared off by bright lights and the threat of the cops getting there before they can make off with something valuable.

Let's review, again, the fact that home security measures are all clearly visible from outside the residence. The fact that you own a gun is not. A criminal can tell, AT A GLANCE, that attempting entry into a secured home is going to be more difficult than entry into an unsecured home. Criminals do not possess a sixth sense that lets them know which houses on the block have guns and which ones do not.

The odds that he and I haven't read the same source material are nil. His position and mine are quite close, because the same data backs them.

So you didn't actually read his post, you just did a Ctrl-F for your source's name, and now you're backpedalling.

One does not need police training to safely and lawfully operate a firearm. If you hold otherwise, I expect you to follow the rules of the board and substantiate that claim before posting it.

You'd be right if we were talking about a firing range. However, even police officers can end up losing control in a stressful situation, and can end up with criminals gaining access to their own weapons. By the FBI's UCR on Officers killed between 1994 and 2003, out of the 616 officers killed by criminals in that time, 52 were killed with their own weapons, and of those, 35 of those weapons were taken by the criminals from the scene of the crime.

Now, are you seriously going to tell me that civilians are going to have a better track record, only knowing the basics of firearm safety and operation? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, that they're not quite properly trained for dealing with criminals?

I would also like to point out that the objectives of military and police training are very different, with different objectives in mind.

Speaking of strawmen ... the point is the cops have a good reason to use handguns - there are times when they want to have handy firepower availible that won't interfere with what else they are doing. These basic reasons carry over to some extent to civillians. Why you can only strawman civillians != cops is beyond me.

It's not a strawman if you said it, which you did.

Let's consider a few scenarios, shall we? Police officer pulls someone over for a minor offense. Subject becomes unruly, anything from swinging fists to pulling out a gun. You telling me there's time for the officer to run back and get his carbine, or are you telling me he should go up to the car WITH his carbine?

Now a police officer is dealing with a subject in a crowded area, overpenetration could result in unintentional injuries, to say nothing of lawsuits. Which sort of round do you really think is going to minimize collateral damage, a subsonic pistol round, or a supersonic rifle round?

Let's say the next officer is plainclothes, he still needs a gun. You telling me that giving him a carbine isn't conspicuous? No, of course it's not, EVERYONE walks around with a carbine these days, it's only natural. This gets even better if the officer is undercover.

Handguns are easier to conceal and easier to bring to bear in a sudden situation. Thus, they are useful to law enforcement. If you decided to read that as "OMG HANDGUNS SHOULD BE THE ONLY WEAPON COPS USE", feel free to make an ass of yourself in the process.

This is what I don't understand, which of these cannot apply to civillians?

You then of course, went to go on and scream that certain areas of Detroit somehow equated to a police officer's duty to put himself in situations where use of a handgun is required. Yes, because part of a job description that can happen on a daily basis is equal to something that could maybe happen one day if you go to an area where you put yourself at greater risk.

Fine. Here's a Hi Point .380, 100 dollars. Here's an RG .22, 40 dollars (granted it is a revolver). Now you will be getting what you pay for to some degree, but these were found in under a minute and cheap pistols are far easier to come by that cheap rifles - namely because the market for cheap rifles is pretty much nonexistant.

From the same site, a $90 rifle . Of course, this site is essentially an eBay for guns, so take what you get, I suppose.

I take it you never covered the rhetorical devise known as hyperbole in English class?

A-hem, to paraphrase your own divine self:
"Ahh I see, you wish to quibble over "no good point" in spite of the fact that numerous points exist."

So I guess now I should come down on you, demanding evidence to support your opinion? Should I scream of backpedalling? Or maybe, just maybe, you can get a clue through your head and stop being such an idiot.

I said you admitted you did not posses a gun, that was an error on my part, I should have said you admitted you do not own a handgun, the type of gun under discussion as was evident by the context of the debate. You don't know gun laws as evidenced by your claims about a national database being used in the issuance of CCW permits.

NICS isn't a national database? Why, I'd bet even Michigan requires its use to buy a handgun.

Civillians have good reasons for using handguns because there are times they can use a handy concealable weapon, like the cops. Detroit is a counterexample which readily shows your exclusive "opinion" to be BS and is handily supplemented by hard data you 'cannot be sure' about.

How, exactly, does Detroit serve as a counterexample? All you've done is scream how certain areas of Detroit equate to service on a police force, with no actual evidence to back it up or even any reasoning behind what you're saying. Hell, I can barely understand you when you ramble about it. YOU HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, despite multiple requests for you to clarify what your point is.

Criminals looking for a crack fix hear about the other guys who go into certain neighborhoods and got shot, street reputations develop and they go elsewhere for easier prey. Civillians are better off doing both, but securing a giant glass door with a two-by-four is a joke. But hey if a home invader crosses the threshold I can legally shoot him dead, there is no duty to retreat here, but at least you have the brains to recognize this.

Yes, because crack fiends have an anti-neighborhood watch, where they discuss which places have the most guns. Keep deluding yourself. Sure, the information may find its way to criminal ears and affect crime, but unless you're seriously telling me that an unknown factor is going to make more of a differance than a factor seen clearly FROM THE STREET in short term decisions, a concession will be in order.

Meanwhile, a two-by-four in a glass door is just an example of how to better secure your home. Is it perfect security? No, it's not, but it's a damn sight better than not having it there. Obviously, NOT HAVING A SLIDING GLASS DOOR IS BETTER. If that's too much of a hassle, the option of putting smash-resistant glass in the door also exists. Or you could just get an alarm system with glassbreak sensors (no, not the kind with the metal strips on the glass), and position one by the glass door.

Evidence please, or are you going to make yet another positive claim, refuse to back it up and then pass it off as your "opinion"?

Gee, I dunno, but the fact that homeowner's insurance will reduce the cost of your insurance against loss of personal property if you secure your house seems to indicate to me that secure houses stand less risk of burglary than an unsecured house. You think that maybe some case studies have been done concerning better security and reduced crime? Police departments suggest various security measures based on their own experiences.
Of course, the simple fact that locking your door will cut down on the number of people who can enter your house without your permission shouldn't require a huge amount of thought before you realize it's a pretty straight forward proposition.

So do warning signs that say intruders will be shot.

The problem is of course that people have started putting up fake signs and decals so that their deterrant value has declined.

Your own argument is defeated. Concession accepted. ACTUAL locks and security systems clearly visible from the street trump bluff attempts of "intruders will be shot" and "beware of dog".

It is called herd immunity. If enough people have guns then your neighborhood builds a reputation and the crooks strike elsewhere. This was particularly obvious back when Detroit required all its cops to live within city limits, they mostly lived in a few specific neighborhoods near city limits that had astonishingly low crime rates. The crooks new that robbing those neighborhoods was far riskier than going elsewhere.

What's this? Hard claim? Data please.

I received no discount on my home owner's insurance when I replaced el cheapo door with a reinforced one.

Did you bother talking to your insurance company about it? Did you have a security professional come by to assess your house? Most insurance companies will do this, and offer reduced rates to people who secure their homes.

According to sources I'm sure you will have trouble accepting, the safest course of action in violent rape attempts is to use a gun, preferably something the lady can carry in her car or handbag. Their numbers show this to be the course of action most likely to get you out of the rape alive, including not resisting. If we accept those figures it is pretty damn common.

Stop evading, you didn't answer the question - HOW OFTEN DOES IT REALLY HAPPEN?

[Beowulf]

NICS checks whether you exist in the database. It doesn't add you to it. The database contains people who are prohibited from owning a firearm, not people who are permitted to own one.

Record information that would exhibit and/or clarify an individual's prohibitive status pursuant to the Brady Act is vital to the NICS in order to determine subject eligibility to receive and/or possess a firearm. Records contained within the databases searched by the NICS include those of the Interstate Identification Index (e.g., millions of criminal history records), the National Crime Information Center (e.g., protection orders and active felony or misdemeanor warrants) and the NICS Index, a database created solely for the use of the NICS which contains information provided by local, state and federal agencies pertaining to persons prohibited under federal law from receiving or possessing a firearm. Additionally, and as mandated by ATF Regulations, a fourth search of the applicable databases via the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be conducted for background checks initiated on all non-United States citizens.

Also, NICS is checked for all firearms, not just handguns.

[Flagg]

If you're interested in Florida's experience with CCW, their department of state has a stats page with lots of info.

Interesting, though where's the data on total firearms permits of all classifications, not just those with CCW?

I'll definately look through this site more though, thanks again.

You don't need a permit to own a gun in Florida, only to carry concealed, or if you work as a security guard with the class D license you need a class G, even if you have a concealed carry permit.

[The Nomad]

I don't want to own a gun right now. If I had, I'd be in jail by now ( unless you consider head-shooting drunkards performing public opera at 3 am right beneath my flat's windows a form of self defence ).

[LadyTevar]

I envy WWII riflemen; that Garand is just a great weapon.

I've heard that. It's definately a rifle I'd love to own and take shooting.

My dad had one, I think my big brother has it now. I never got to shoot it

[tharkûn]

Funny, I listed several specific reasons police officers required handguns, which you immediately claimed were all valid reasons private citizens required handguns.

You listed scenarios, scenarios in which police officers get value from having handy firepower. The same underlying reasons of why handy, concealable firepower can be useful for cops can apply to some civillians.

More than just making the data available, I'd like to see actual peer review by individuals on both sides of the debate who are in fact, qualified to review such material. I don't think that's such an unreasonable request.

If you can find honest scholars on the otherside, there is no reason why they cannot review Kleck's work. He has released his data and pulls heavily from national stastistics, somehow if there were a glaring flaw in his work I'd think anti-gun lobbies would have found it by now (much as happened to other sources on both sides of the debate).

Actually, you claimed that every reason a police officer needs a handgun applies to private citizens, so no, it's really not a strawman, it's you changing your argument. But since you can't even remember what I write, it's no great surprise you've forgotten your own words.

I'm sorry I overestimated your ability to carry on an intelligent debate. I was talking about underlying reasons, not the immediate and I thought that would be obvious even to someone like yourself.

First of all, the price of getting a gun to defend yourself is a cost you have to eat, wholly and completely. It can have additional insurance costs, which can be lessened or negated depending on your situation.

Meanwhile, securing your home after consultation with your insurance company can effectively pay for itself over time. Depending on your insurance company, the insurance you have, and your other conditions, you can save hundreds of dollars a year by securing your home. In truth, this gives you a much higher dollar limit when it comes to securing your home than just the cost of a gun, ammo, and miscellaneous costs of owning a gun. Plus, over time, it will pay for itself, so if you still want that gun, you can buy it with the money you would have spent on higher insurance.

Meanwhile, I know of no insurance rebate for having a weapon on the premesis for home defense.

I'm getting tired of this debate. You refuse to acknowledge that cost issues exist with this, and tell me that "securing" your home is more cost effective due to insurance payback which may or may not be a given depending on your insureance company. Let's ignore the disparity in costs for a moment, let's say that it is true that dollar for dollar you get more out of reinforcing your door, etc. than owning a gun. So what? Does that mean that taking the additional step of buying a gun decreases your safety? Not according to the hard data. Does that mean that having a gun in the event you have a run in with criminals who are not stopped by a two-by-four in the sliding door is a bad thing?

You stated that there is no good reason, and are arguing that another option is superior, even though the two are not mutually exclusive.

]
Let's review, a $120 total cost, with a wait time of up to 45 days. We'll ignore your connections because, as I said, I could have a contractor on hand ready to install the gear for free the same day I make the call.

For a CCW. 45 days is normally quite long, this is a shall issue state and it is readily apparent wether or not the board has any choice or not. Mostly the time limit exists for the less populous counties where the board meets very infrequently.

You'd be right if we were talking about a firing range. However, even police officers can end up losing control in a stressful situation, and can end up with criminals gaining access to their own weapons. By the FBI's UCR on Officers killed between 1994 and 2003, out of the 616 officers killed by criminals in that time, 52 were killed with their own weapons, and of those, 35 of those weapons were taken by the criminals from the scene of the crime.

Now, are you seriously going to tell me that civilians are going to have a better track record, only knowing the basics of firearm safety and operation? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, that they're not quite properly trained for dealing with criminals?

Yes civillians are. Civillians are not going to be grappling with criminals while wearing an exposed holster in an attempt to arrest the criminals. Instead civillians are going to be standing off and shooting, or standing off and not drawing. Due to the requirement of police officers to subdue unarmed suspects they are exceedingly more likely to be in close proximity where their gun can be taken either from the holster or out of the officer's hand.

In any event it is not my burden of proof to show that civillians will not have death rates from their own guns comparable to or exceeding those of the police. It is yours to show that such occurs given the millions of times civillian guns are used in self-defense.

You then of course, went to go on and scream that certain areas of Detroit somehow equated to a police officer's duty to put himself in situations where use of a handgun is required. Yes, because part of a job description that can happen on a daily basis is equal to something that could maybe happen one day if you go to an area where you put yourself at greater risk.

Irrelevent. Why should people have to accept risks, particularly in areas like Detroit, when they have the means not to have run it in the first place? Perhaps you are comfortable living with a two-by-four as your protection, why should others have to limit themselves because of your "opinion"?

From the same site, a $90 rifle . Of course, this site is essentially an eBay for guns, so take what you get, I suppose.

I can find you even cheaper pistols than those I already cited. We can go from zip guns to sniper rifles, but I'm tired of you continiously changing the goalpost when I show objectively cheaper guns. Make your best effort and when I find cheaper handguns, this time, please be kind enough to conceed.

NICS isn't a national database? Why, I'd bet even Michigan requires its use to buy a handgun.

You are now mixing up two seperate processes. Buying a handgun and getting a CCW. The former requires a check on a national database, however it is cheap and quick. The later does not go through a national database and is moderately longer on average and more expensive.

How, exactly, does Detroit serve as a counterexample? All you've done is scream how certain areas of Detroit equate to service on a police force, with no actual evidence to back it up or even any reasoning behind what you're saying. Hell, I can barely understand you when you ramble about it.

There are places in Detroit where it is good to have handy, concealable firepower. If you have some vandals it is nice to be able to deal with them rather than wait the 20 minutes for the cops to show up. Likewise there are innumerable petty thugs armed with crowbars and the like who like to break into homes. Again in these situations handguns are useful.

Yes, because crack fiends have an anti-neighborhood watch, where they discuss which places have the most guns.

No they discuss the unfortunate demise of mutual friends and reputations are built. For instance if a gang moves into a certain block of housing word gets out on the street in quite quick time that robbing those houses is a BAD idea. This normally happens because a few guys get shot at and don't keep their mouths shut.

Sure, the information may find its way to criminal ears and affect crime, but unless you're seriously telling me that an unknown factor is going to make more of a differance than a factor seen clearly FROM THE STREET in short term decisions, a concession will be in order.

Not my burden of proof. I expect you will provide quantitative proof that street visible tactics, like using a two-by-four, are superior to gun ownership. You claimed it was superior, not I, so you get to prove it.

Gee, I dunno, but the fact that homeowner's insurance will reduce the cost of your insurance against loss of personal property if you secure your house seems to indicate to me that secure houses stand less risk of burglary than an unsecured house. You think that maybe some case studies have been done concerning better security and reduced crime? Police departments suggest various security measures based on their own experiences.

And the goalpost shifts. You specificly stated "much more than a gun will." thus you are required to provide comparative data. I await you actually substantiating your position for once in the thread or conceed; of course I expect that yet again you will refuse to meet your burden of proof.

Of course, the simple fact that locking your door will cut down on the number of people who can enter your house without your permission shouldn't require a huge amount of thought before you realize it's a pretty straight forward proposition.

Ahh but saying it is more effective than another tactic is not so straight forward. You made a quantitative comparative claim, now don't shift the goalpost.

Your own argument is defeated. Concession accepted. ACTUAL locks and security systems clearly visible from the street trump bluff attempts of "intruders will be shot" and "beware of dog".

visible security systems mean easily cut security systems, unless you have a good one which operates deadman. Visible locks are a joke, any hardware store in the country carries something called "bolt cutters" which readily trash visible locks.

Further they do sell fake security boxes which are notheless visible from the street.

What's this? Hard claim? Data please.

I'm pulling from the Michigan Metropolitan Information Center at Wayne State University.

Did you bother talking to your insurance company about it?

Yes.

Did you have a security professional come by to assess your house? Most insurance companies will do this, and offer reduced rates to people who secure their homes.

I had a security professional install the door as well as the safe (which is bolted to the foundation). My insurance company did not give me a reduced rate.

Stop evading, you didn't answer the question - HOW OFTEN DOES IT REALLY HAPPEN?

According to Kleck, about 200,000 times per annum guns are used for rape prevention. Do I really need to run the numbers beyond that point or can we just get to the part where you "can't be sure" so you can ignore Kleck's data without specific criticism merely to keep you unsubstantiate opinions in tact?

[Stark]

Aren't glaser rounds flawed in that the shell containing the bits is extremely delicate, so you they may prematurely rupture or become damaged in rough handling?

[Hotfoot]

Okay, I'm getting a little tired of the back and forth here Tharky-babe. Every time I bring up a valid point, you gloss over it like it doesn't exist, distort it into some strawman you can easily dismiss, or completely evade it.

Last I checked, bolt cutters do not work against deadbolts, yet they are visible from the street. You have to be a raging moron not to realize what I was talking about.

Nice to see you completely gloss over the fact that securing your home makes the chance of burglary or invasion go down.

When you have evidence of gun-sense, please, let me know. Until then, I'll take real, immediate, physical deterrants to keep people out of my house over the possible threat of a gun that won't act as deterrant until after someone breaks into my house and forces me to use it. Let's see, something that stops someone from breaking in, or something that only works after they've broken in...which is the greater deterrant, I wonder? Which is the first step you should take when considering home security? What about the pages I cited with case studies on the effectiveness of improved security?

Multiple insurance companies offer discounts for installing proper security systems. The fact you didn't qualify tells me you didn't meet the requirements of the insurance company, or you already met it. Maybe your company doesn't offer it, but if that's the case, you need to consider your insurance company. If it does, then you need to learn to communicate better with it.

Anyway, I'm getting really tired of the lies, misrepresentations, and double standards.

I'll leave you with this, since you fail to understand plain sight.

Providing locks and improved security to access points is a commonly used burglary prevention tactic. The installation of improved locks and doors at two English public housing complexes was evaluated by Tilly and Webb (1994). Both studies used a pre-post design compared to a control area. In one complex burglaries declined 59 percent. In the other, burglaries decline over 90 percent relative to the control area.

The main article and all sub-articles can be found here.

[tharkûn]

Okay, I'm getting a little tired of the back and forth here Tharky-babe. Every time I bring up a valid point, you gloss over it like it doesn't exist, distort it into some strawman you can easily dismiss, or completely evade it.

I'm getting very tired of you making this insubstantial posts every time I challenge you to provide an evidentiary basis for anything you say. So long as you decline to back up your claims with appropriate evidence, you have no valid points.

Last I checked, bolt cutters do not work against deadbolts, yet they are visible from the street. You have to be a raging moron not to realize what I was talking about.

That depends on the deadbolt and the lighting. That also assumes that the crooks are going to walk up to the front door, rather than come around to the side door or through a sliding door secured with a two-by-four.

Nice to see you completely gloss over the fact that securing your home makes the chance of burglary or invasion go down.

You are shifting the goalpost here. You claimed it was superior not that is was good. Obviously I think securing one's home is a good idea and a valid investment, what I get tired of is your BS fallacy that mechanical security precludes any need for guns - the two can compliment each other - and your claims that your way is so superior that it obviates any legitimate 'need' for a handgun.

When you have evidence of gun-sense, please, let me know. Until then, I'll take real, immediate, physical deterrants to keep people out of my house over the possible threat of a gun that won't act as deterrant until after someone breaks into my house and forces me to use it.

Like it or not word of mouth does carry around. Police use this all the time by setting up high profile stings in certain hard hit areas so the crooks move elsewhere. Obviously no "police sense" is needed and the system works to some degree even though it has no direct deterrant effect. The same type of thing can occur with guns. Criminals do talk and word does get around.

Let's see, something that stops someone from breaking in, or something that only works after they've broken in...which is the greater deterrant, I wonder? Which is the first step you should take when considering home security? What about the pages I cited with case studies on the effectiveness of improved security?

The case studies you cited were for mechanical protection vs a control (i.e. do nothing). They give no evidence of a superior performance with respect to guns (such a thing is entirely possible, but you still have to prove it first). Certainly they do nothing to avert crimes committed by aquaintances who are allowed within the premises (such crime is unfortunately quite common).

Multiple insurance companies offer discounts for installing proper security systems. The fact you didn't qualify tells me you didn't meet the requirements of the insurance company, or you already met it. Maybe your company doesn't offer it, but if that's the case, you need to consider your insurance company. If it does, then you need to learn to communicate better with it.

I suspect I'm already at the bottom of the rates. I live in a neighborhood where the neighborhood watch has an anti-littering campaign. I asked as was told I wouldn't get a knockdown even though I was reinforcing the door and putting up a gated fence in the back (tall enough for clothing optional activity).

Anyway, I'm getting really tired of the lies, misrepresentations, and double standards.

Then I suggest you stop using them. I am tired of you incessantly using them as well. It isn't that hard you read bad numbers from a less than honest researcher. You've now heard of better numbers from multiple people, concession that your opinion was in error isn't the end of the world.

I'll leave you with this, since you fail to understand plain sight.

Again this does nothing to substantiate your claim that such things are more effective than guns.

[FOG3]

And is the preferred weapon of idiots who engage in drunken shootouts at nightclubs because it can be easily concealed, hence carried around everywhere. Yippee! Obviously you were too fucking stupid to understand my reservations about handguns without me having to spell them out for you.

A interesting thought, but it seems to me by the same fundamental principle used in it, one should ban the private ownership of automobiles. Afterall, while inconvenient, public transport is fully capable of getting you from A to B. Plus it avoid the considerable deaths caused automobiles, the extra air polution they put out, and what not. It's not like they (cars) are lowering the crime rate, or anything.

[Darth Wong]

And is the preferred weapon of idiots who engage in drunken shootouts at nightclubs because it can be easily concealed, hence carried around everywhere. Yippee! Obviously you were too fucking stupid to understand my reservations about handguns without me having to spell them out for you.

A interesting thought, but it seems to me by the same fundamental principle used in it, one should ban the private ownership of automobiles. Afterall, while inconvenient, public transport is fully capable of getting you from A to B.

Only at a far greater consumption of time (excepting remote areas where it doesn't work at all), and time is money. There is a real economic imperative to allow private automobile ownership, despite the carnage wrought by it, because like it or not, human life has a certain dollar value as far as society is concerned. There is no such corresponding economic imperative for handguns. If you got rid of cars, you would need an enormously improved public transportation system. There is no such infrastructural requirement for getting rid of handguns, so the only real technical problem is the practical issue of black-market activities undercutting any implementation scheme.

Plus it avoid the considerable deaths caused automobiles, the extra air polution they put out, and what not. It's not like they (cars) are lowering the crime rate, or anything.

If you honestly don't see how cars are economically important, especially in a spread-out country like Canada or the USA, you haven't been thinking hard enough.

[StimNeuro]

And is the preferred weapon of idiots who engage in drunken shootouts at nightclubs because it can be easily concealed, hence carried around everywhere. Yippee! Obviously you were too fucking stupid to understand my reservations about handguns without me having to spell them out for you.

A interesting thought, but it seems to me by the same fundamental principle used in it, one should ban the private ownership of automobiles. Afterall, while inconvenient, public transport is fully capable of getting you from A to B.

Only at a far greater consumption of time (excepting remote areas where it doesn't work at all), and time is money. There is a real economic imperative to allow private automobile ownership, despite the carnage wrought by it, because like it or not, human life has a certain dollar value as far as society is concerned. There is no such corresponding economic imperative for handguns. If you got rid of cars, you would need an enormously improved public transportation system. There is no such infrastructural requirement for getting rid of handguns, so the only real technical problem is the practical issue of black-market activities undercutting any implementation scheme.

Actually, you would have to improve police response time in remote areas, which would require some change to infrastructure. I'm a small guy (130lbs) and I live pretty far out from a city. If someone decides to break through a window and come into my house, it'll take a good 15 minutes for the police to show up. I know, I've had the alarm go off multiple times over the past 10 years and they've always taken about that long to get there. If a burglar comes in and is armed with nothing more than knife, there's not much I can do to him while I wait for the police to arrive. A handgun would make the best defense in my situation, because the structure of the house makes it very difficult to rifle or shotgun. The pistol's smaller size makes it ideal for home defense.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, you would have to improve police response time in remote areas, which would require some change to infrastructure. I'm a small guy (130lbs) and I live pretty far out from a city. If someone decides to break through a window and come into my house, it'll take a good 15 minutes for the police to show up.

Then you grab your shotgun. There's still no need for a handgun.

I know, I've had the alarm go off multiple times over the past 10 years and they've always taken about that long to get there. If a burglar comes in and is armed with nothing more than knife, there's not much I can do to him while I wait for the police to arrive. A handgun would make the best defense in my situation, because the structure of the house makes it very difficult to rifle or shotgun. The pistol's smaller size makes it ideal for home defense.

Oh puh-lease, the idea that anything bigger than a handgun won't be effective in home defense is ridiculous.