StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hotfoot wrote:I don't know about you, but I don't see too many stories in the newspaper about a civilian fending off armed criminals with concealed handguns.

because believe it or not, it is not sensational enough to cover in the press. in the last six months alone I can recall a dozen instances where a criminal attempted to rob someone and failed because the "victim" was armed. and that is just in my city.

Meanwhile, do you have evidence that civilians carrying concealed handguns is directly responsible for a lower rate of violent crimes?

aside from personal experience, I don't think that there are any studies done on this subject.... I mean how could you study something that is largely unreported?

Dooey Jo wrote:

Durandal wrote:I've shot bows and compound bows. They're not things you "whip out".

General Zod wrote:Silence won't help much if it's sticking out like a sore thumb and can't be used in narrow spaces with much ease.

Allright, maybe "whip out" isn't the best way to describe it. But it's not exactly like I'd lose interest because it's taking so long

The family crossbow is sometimes described as a "crosspistol" - it's a small bow, but being a crossbow has a fairly powerful draw (I need a foot stirrup, leg and back muscles to draw and cock it). You can use it in a much tighter space than most bows, and yeah, it's as close to silent as makes no difference.

It hangs near the bed, with an arrow ready, but with the bow undrawn so it can't fire accidently. Once cocked, though, you might as well treat it as a gun - it does, after all, have a trigger. Don't point it at anything you wouldn't want to shoot.

Unfortunately, it's not the sturdiest construction - I'd much prefer a 'bow of the same size of better materials. At some point I'll have to retire it.

Is it a potential hazard? I suppose so - but I'd be much more concerned at a thief raiding the kitchen for my cooking knives. After all, most people know knives are kept in kitchens, and you don't have to figure out how they work before using them since they're such familar tools.

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.

I say that handguns have a legitimate use in Law Enforcement, then you make the ridiculous claim that carbines > handguns for all law enforcement needs. When that's smacked down, you move on to say that the needs of law enforcement then equal the needs of private citizens.

You had just posted that no civillian ever needs to carry one, if that is true I cannot fathom why law enforcement could use them instead of alternatives.

Let's review - law enforcement officers put themselves in harmful or dangerous situations to protect the civilian population. Civilians, ideally, should not be putting themselves in such situations in the first place.

Let's review this ain't an ideal world, the choice is not always there. Spend some time down in Detroit and tell me that civllians "put themselves" into these situations.

Let's review - law enforcement officers put themselves in harmful or dangerous situations to protect the civilian population. Civilians, ideally, should not be putting themselves in such situations in the first place.

So what? The point is handguns have civillian uses as well. There are times when even civillians can use a concealable, easy to wield handgun.

If vandals are on my property, I'd want good security before a handgun. Motion sensing lights, strong doors and locks, and a panic button to summon the police. Meanwhile, weapons kept in bedrooms to protect against violent attacks, more often than not, end up being used against the victim, not against the assailent. Any weapon you keep near you is a weapon the criminal can use against you in a struggle, be it a gun or a knife.

Do you have any idea how much all that costs? Sorry but for some people that just isn't an option, particularly in areas where the police fear to tread (yeah a panic button and motion sensors, good luck waiting the 20 minutes or more it will take for the cops to arrive).

I'd like to see your source for weapons getting used against the victim, that reeks of unsubstantiated BS.

You want "what if?" scenarios? Fine. What if your kid gets attacked, and the attacker uses them as a human shield once you pull your piece? What are you going to do?

Have one more option than a guy without a gun. Just because you have a gun, even have one on your person does not mean you need to shoot or use it. If it isn't safe to be used, you simply leave it alone and you are where you would be if you didn't have the gun. Don't be stupid, nobody here is advocating trying to shoot your way out of every problem, but it is nice to have the option if it becomes needed.

It seems to me that the risk/benefit ratio of civilians owning handguns for "protection" does not offer a noticably positive gain, and collectors risk having their collections stolen and used illegally. If the risks outweigh the costs, why allow it? It's not that they can't be useful in certain situations, but they don't seem to be useful enough to outweigh the risks.

The insurance on my firearms is sufficiently low that actuaries completely discount that cost.

I don't know about you, but I don't see too many stories in the newspaper about a civilian fending off armed criminals with concealed handguns.

Because it is so common it is no longer newsworthy. I know of several that happen up here in hippy wonderland Ann Arbor that didn't make the papers and this is a pissant town for criminals.

Meanwhile, do you have evidence that civilians carrying concealed handguns is directly responsible for a lower rate of violent crimes?

Not my burden of proof. You claimed the costs outweight the benifits, this in the face of a correlation going the other way in the states.

Do you bother to do ANY fact-checking before pulling these arguments out of your ass? I can buy an M1 Garand from the government for pretty damn cheap, as low as $300. A bog-standard Beretta 9mm, cheap as I can find, costs $500.

Why yes you can be WWI era rifle cheaper than you can buy a modern Beretta which is not only semi-automatic but has numerous other improvemens as well, try comparable guns.

My numbers come from my personal stash of weapons, handguns have been cheaper then getting comparable rifles (semi auto, etc.).

Hotfoot wrote: Never mind that you have to jump through more hoops to get a handgun permit than a rifle permit, and more to the point, a concealed carry permit is the hardest permit to get, taking time, money, and extensive background checks.

I didn't have to jump through any hoops, here in central Michigan. When I bought my rifle, I put down my cash, filled out all my paperwork at the store, took about 10 minutes and I was the owner of Savage 110C. When I got my handgun, I checked over what was at the gun shop, asked them to hold the one I wanted. Then I went to the county sheriff’s office, applied for a handgun permit and was given said permit in about 10 minutes. To be honest I was quite surprised and a bit shocked it was so quick. I was expecting it would be at least a week for a background check to go through, so feeling lucky I didn't push the issue. I went back to the gun store, put down the cash, filled out the paperwork and walked out with my H&K USP 40. Went back to the Sheriff to register my gun's SN with my permit and was set, all said in done I had my gun in 3 hours. Can I point out again that I was a bit freaked at how easily I had purchased a handgun.

But I will add in 2 caveats, I bought my rifle back in 92, maybe the rules have changed since, but I do not believe so. I bought the USP just under 2 years ago, at the time I was doing tech support for the US Post Office, part of the job was a complete background search through the federal government. I'm guessing that when the Sheriff looked me up for my permit, all my info was already there and I was fast tracked.

Don't own any, because of living in my parents' house and/or a college dorm, neither of which allow them. So it would be just a waste of money to hide in the attic somewhere when I'm on campus most of the year. But in the future, why not? Might be fun, might be useful, and kids aren't in the forseeable future so it's not like there's any risk involved.

tharkûn wrote: You had just posted that no civillian ever needs to carry one, if that is true I cannot fathom why law enforcement could use them instead of alternatives.

Like to lie, do you? This is what I wrote, you illiterate moron:

Hotfoot wrote:I can't really think of a good reason for civilian ownership other than collecting, which is pretty weak

Can you see the difference yet, or do I have to spell it out for you? Where do I say that "no civilian ever needs to carry [a handgun]"?

Let's review this ain't an ideal world, the choice is not always there. Spend some time down in Detroit and tell me that civllians "put themselves" into these situations.

So what? The point is handguns have civillian uses as well. There are times when even civillians can use a concealable, easy to wield handgun.

Oh yay, let's make some appeals to emotion, instead of dealing with the point at hand. Meanwhile, did you REALLY need to quote the same text twice? Are you so incompetant you can't maintain your own train of thought without reminders?

Meanwhile, there are times I probably shouldn't use my seatbelt. There might even be times I SHOULD drive while intoxicated. Does the fact that such situations exist mean that they should be realistically expected to happen to enough people to make it a legal activity, or one that should be encouraged?

Do you have any idea how much all that costs? Sorry but for some people that just isn't an option, particularly in areas where the police fear to tread (yeah a panic button and motion sensors, good luck waiting the 20 minutes or more it will take for the cops to arrive).

A few thousand dollars for a full makeover with all the nice, fancy toys. Less without. What you would spend on guns, ammo, a gun safe, and so on, would probably be equivilant. And, here's the kicker, it's a damn sight easier to buy new locks and reinforce your door than it is to get a concealed carry permit.

Meanwhile, you're telling me that your standard crook is going to sit around and keep going about his business when alarms are blaring all around him and he's fully illuminated? Yeah, right.

I'd like to see your source for weapons getting used against the victim, that reeks of unsubstantiated BS.

The source I'm pulling from involves Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who as I understand is widely disputed because it's a controversial topic, but there you have it. I will freely admit that I have not done a full background check on his techniques, but he still seems to be reputable from what I can see.

Have one more option than a guy without a gun. Just because you have a gun, even have one on your person does not mean you need to shoot or use it. If it isn't safe to be used, you simply leave it alone and you are where you would be if you didn't have the gun. Don't be stupid, nobody here is advocating trying to shoot your way out of every problem, but it is nice to have the option if it becomes needed.

In the heat of the moment, a gun in the hands of a less than well trained individual can lead to poor decisions. Take in mind that every state has different laws about when it is acceptable to use deadly force, or to even threaten the use of deadly force.

The insurance on my firearms is sufficiently low that actuaries completely discount that cost.

Anecdotal evidence, and not at all a valid response. What your insurance company does is irrelevant - can you prove a positive societal trend DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE COST/RISK RELATIONSHIP OF PRIVATE CITIZENS OWNING HANDGUNS WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS AND ACTIVELY USING THEM.

Because it is so common it is no longer newsworthy. I know of several that happen up here in hippy wonderland Ann Arbor that didn't make the papers and this is a pissant town for criminals.

Hate to say it, but without proper documentation on a national scale, it's hard to really accept that at face value. It's rather like me asking a fisherman how big that fish that got away was.

Not my burden of proof. You claimed the costs outweight the benifits, this in the face of a correlation going the other way in the states.

Actually, I claimed that it's how it seems to me. Translation, that's my opinion. You're the one saying it DEFINATELY does. Burden of proof is on you. You're the one claiming that all your scenarios are so prevalent that of course civilians NEED guns. So where's the proof? Where's the direct correlation? You can cite trends, make all the anecdotal evidence claims you like, but so far, you've done little more than cite crazy examples that can be avoided by simple security measures, or claiming that the only way to stay alive in Detroit is to come packing (EVERYONE GETS MURDERED IN DETROIT!).

Why yes you can be WWI era rifle cheaper than you can buy a modern Beretta which is not only semi-automatic but has numerous other improvemens as well, try comparable guns.

The M1 Garand is semi-automatic, and is a high-powered, very accurate rifle. Now, about these "other improvements"?

Azazal wrote:I didn't have to jump through any hoops, here in central Michigan. When I bought my rifle, I put down my cash, filled out all my paperwork at the store, took about 10 minutes and I was the owner of Savage 110C. When I got my handgun, I checked over what was at the gun shop, asked them to hold the one I wanted. Then I went to the county sheriff’s office, applied for a handgun permit and was given said permit in about 10 minutes. To be honest I was quite surprised and a bit shocked it was so quick. I was expecting it would be at least a week for a background check to go through, so feeling lucky I didn't push the issue. I went back to the gun store, put down the cash, filled out the paperwork and walked out with my H&K USP 40. Went back to the Sheriff to register my gun's SN with my permit and was set, all said in done I had my gun in 3 hours. Can I point out again that I was a bit freaked at how easily I had purchased a handgun.

But I will add in 2 caveats, I bought my rifle back in 92, maybe the rules have changed since, but I do not believe so. I bought the USP just under 2 years ago, at the time I was doing tech support for the US Post Office, part of the job was a complete background search through the federal government. I'm guessing that when the Sheriff looked me up for my permit, all my info was already there and I was fast tracked.

1. What I said previously is true, reinforced by your statement. Handguns are harder to obtain legally than rifles. You have to jump through more hoops to get them.
2. There is a difference between legally being allowed to buy handguns, own handguns, carrying handguns, and concealing a carried handgun. For example, my firearms liscense allows me to own all types of legally allowed firearms, longarm or handgun. However, I cannot legally buy a handgun without a handgun liscense. In New Jersey, you're lucky if you get your basic firearms permit processed in six months (it's supposed to take something like three weeks). Meanwhile, a concealed carry permit is much harder to get than the liscence to buy handguns.
3. States do vary their requirements. Also, not everyone follows the letter of the law when it comes to regulations. It's entirely possible your check went through so fast because the officers in question "knew" you were safe. New Jersey, by the way, is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to weapon laws (edged out by NYC, but that's not a state).

Azazal, I have it even easier to buy handguns. I walk into the gunshop, fill out the paperwork, and walk out with the pistol in 15 minutes.

When I was in Wyoming I got a paper liscense, went to the gunstore and bought a handgun with that paper liscense.

When I moved back to Montana I have my Wyoming liscense punched and had a paper liscense for Montana and again bought another handgun with it.

The only requirement for owning a gun in Montana or Wyoming is a clean record and a valid liscense.

Hotfoot wrote:

Why yes you can be WWI era rifle cheaper than you can buy a modern Beretta which is not only semi-automatic but has numerous other improvemens as well, try comparable guns.

The M1 Garand is semi-automatic, and is a high-powered, very accurate rifle. Now, about these "other improvements"?

his point is still valid Hotfoot. You are comparing an old outdated rifle to a newer and fairly popular handgun. A better comparison would be a Colt AR-15 and the Beretta. find a Colt AR-15 that is cheaper than a Beretta and you are gonna be looking for a while because they don't exist. And the reason I use Colt and not another knock-off is because Beretta is a name brand like Colt is.

if you still insist that just because the M-1 is a semi-auto, high powered and very accurate rifle that it can be compared to a modern handgun. Then lets also compare that to it to my Remington 7400 which is also a semi-auto, high powered and very accurate rifle. But the Remington 7400 is not $300, it is around $600.

The debunking of Kellerman's work

Gun control advocates used to claim that more guns meant more crime. Research demonstrated, though, that more guns meant less crime. As the criminology argument faded, gun control advocates began arguing guns were a public health problem.

But the public health argument is also bankrupt, according to Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., editor of the Medical Sentinel, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Faria lays out his reasoning in the Spring 2001 issue.

The U.S. public health establishment declared in 1979 that handguns should be eradicated, beginning with a 25 percent reduction by the year 2000. Since that time, hundreds of "scientific" articles have been published in medical journals supporting the notion that guns are a public health problem.

Faria's article spotlights many of the flaws of this research, including that of Dr. Arthur Kellerman of the Emory University School of Public Health. Since the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellerman used funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to publish research purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don't.

Dr. Kellerman claimed in a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine study that having a firearm in the home is counter-productive. He reported "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."
Dr. Faria points out that Dr. Kellerman's analysis ignored the vast majority of benefits from defensive uses of guns. Since only 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, Dr. Kellerman's study underestimated the protective benefits of firearms -- in terms of lives saved, injuries prevented and related medical costs -- by a factor of as much as 1,000.

In a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study, Dr. Kellerman again reported guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than the assailants. In addition to repeating the errors of his prior research, Dr. Kellerman used studies of populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction such as a history of arrest, drug abuse and domestic violence. Moreover, 71 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn't live in the victims' household, using guns presumably not kept in the home.

Dr. Kellerman's conclusions depend on an apparent higher rate of homicides among households with guns compared to households without guns (45 percent vs. 36 percent). But Dr. Kellerman ignored his own data indicating there were enough false denials of gun ownership to reverse this result.

Controversy has also swirled around Dr. Kellerman's claim that gun availability increases the risk of suicide. Dr. Faria says "the overwhelming available evidence compiled from the psychiatric literature is that untreated or poorly managed depression is the real culprit behind high rates of suicide."

Backing this up is the observation that countries with strict gun control laws and low rates of firearm availability -- such as Japan, Germany and the Scandinavian countries -- have suicide rates that are 2 time to 3 times higher than for the U.S. In these countries, people simply substitute for guns other suicide methods such as Hara-Kiri, carbon monoxide suffocation, hanging, or chemical poisoning.

Dr. Faria also cites the work of Florida State University professor Gary Kleck and Yale University professor John R. Lott Jr. as serious challenges to gun control advocates' claim that guns are a public health problem.

In his books Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns, Kleck reports that firearms are used defensively 2.5 millions times per year, dwarfing offensive uses by criminals. Kleck says that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun. The medical costs saved by the defensive use of guns are 15 times greater than the costs caused by criminal use of firearms, according to Kleck.

Lott reports in his book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws that neither state waiting periods nor the Brady Law are associated with a reduction in crime rates. However, laws that permit the carrying of concealed weapons are associated with a 69 percent decrease in death rate from public, multiple shootings such as those that occurred in Jonesboro, Arkansas and Columbine High School.

Some concerned with gun violence in society have, in desperation, signed on to the gun control agenda. They are willing to trade basic American rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment for less violence. But it's not a fair trade.

The myth-busting work of Dr. Faria and others exposes gun control not only as being unlikely to reduce violence but also as having adverse safety and economic consequences. Junk science-fueled gun control misfires as a public health strategy.

There are problems with the article (Lott's work is flawed as well, yet Fox doesn't tell you that), but the point is that Kellerman's work is flawed and that he is not a neutral observer but an advocate who carefully selects his data so as to arrive at his predetermined conclusion.

IMHO, Kellerman's the gun control movement's equivalent of John Lott (a well known pro gun researcher who got caught using a 'sock puppet' defense of his work. Google 'Mary Rosh' if you're interested in the details).
If you want to see the numbers for yourself, the Bureau of Justice Statistics is a good place to start that isn't partisan on the issue.

Can you see the difference yet, or do I have to spell it out for you? Where do I say that "no civilian ever needs to carry [a handgun]"?

\

Ahh I see, you wish to quibble over "no good reason" in spite of the fact that numerous reasons exist.

Oh yay, let's make some appeals to emotion, instead of dealing with the point at hand. Meanwhile, did you REALLY need to quote the same text twice? Are you so incompetant you can't maintain your own train of thought without reminders?

Who said a thing about emotion? You said civillians put themselves in these situations, I point out that in certain parts of Detroit you don't have a friggen choice. Just because the real world doesn't always offer the options you'd like 'ideally' like doesn't make it an appeal to emotion.

Meanwhile, there are times I probably shouldn't use my seatbelt. There might even be times I SHOULD drive while intoxicated. Does the fact that such situations exist mean that they should be realistically expected to happen to enough people to make it a legal activity, or one that should be encouraged?

When you bring forth the evidence to back up your alleged cost benifit 'analysis' then you might have a point. As it stands you are just another guy who by his own admission does not own a gun and yet is confidant that "no good reason" exists.

A few thousand dollars for a full makeover with all the nice, fancy toys. Less without. What you would spend on guns, ammo, a gun safe, and so on, would probably be equivilant.

Hardly, one can get a decent handgun for around $150, a thousand rounds for around another hundred, and frankly one does not need a full fledged gun safe for a lone pistol.

And, here's the kicker, it's a damn sight easier to buy new locks and reinforce your door than it is to get a concealed carry permit.

This is a shall issue state, it is easier to get your conceal and carry permit than to reinforce your door. I've done both.

Meanwhile, you're telling me that your standard crook is going to sit around and keep going about his business when alarms are blaring all around him and he's fully illuminated? Yeah, right.

It is called a smash and grab. We have standard crooks who manage to break into jewelry stores with far superior alarms and illumination and still clean the place out. Indeed such criminals are exceedingly unlikely to negotiate at all - that takes too much time. Of course that would be when it might be useful to have something more persuasive than the threat that the cops will eventually get there.

I'd like to see your source for weapons getting used against the victim, that reeks of unsubstantiated BS.
The source I'm pulling from involves Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who as I understand is widely disputed because it's a controversial topic, but there you have it. I will freely admit that I have not done a full background check on his techniques, but he still seems to be reputable from what I can see.

Right a man who refuses to release his data is such a fine upstanding source. In reality Kellerman undercounts the defensive value of a gun by several orders of magnitude (only when a criminal is outright killed does the gun get any positive benifit in Kellerman's studies). Work by Gleck and Lott is both superior and more current - which not suprisingly shows far better results than Kellerman's trash.

In the heat of the moment, a gun in the hands of a less than well trained individual can lead to poor decisions.

Quite right. I'm supportive of mandatory firearms training. So much so that I think it should be given to all citizens, gun owners or not, and in the schools.

Anecdotal evidence, and not at all a valid response. What your insurance company does is irrelevant - can you prove a positive societal trend DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE COST/RISK RELATIONSHIP OF PRIVATE CITIZENS OWNING HANDGUNS WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS AND ACTIVELY USING THEM.

NOT MY BURDEN OF PROOF. You have made positive claims about the cost benefit relation, it is not my job to prove guns aren't a net hazard for owners.

Hate to say it, but without proper documentation on a national scale, it's hard to really accept that at face value. It's rather like me asking a fisherman how big that fish that got away was.

But of course. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns shows 25 to 75 lives saved for every life lost by civillian gun ownership. Of course this happens because Kleck documents oh 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use a year, but that is likely undercounting.

Translation, that's my opinion. You're the one saying it DEFINATELY does. Burden of proof is on you. You're the one claiming that all your scenarios are so prevalent that of course civilians NEED guns. So where's the proof? Where's the direct correlation?

Wow you are a little weasel, you have called me a liar even though it is just "your opinion" In any event states with "shall issue" conceal and carry laws have a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate. But let me guess "your opinion" outweighs such facts.

The M1 Garand is semi-automatic, and is a high-powered, very accurate rifle. Now, about these "other improvements"?

The M1 Garand has an en bloc clip, a standard glock does not. The Garand is over 11 pounds, being made from low tolerance metal (though it was quite good back in the day) and wood. The Glock is a polymer framed pistol using modern steel. This of course ignores the market disparity. The m1 Garand was made in military quanities and is largely obsolete in that role, hence their is a glut of them on the market. The Glock on the other hand is the most popular handgun in the world and is still in active use by government forces hence the market is nowhere near as glutted the m1 Garand. If you want something similar you'd best look at Makarov surplus. Those come in at a fraction of the price of a Garand, the bullets are also cheaper. East European surplus makes them quite cheap.

Death from the Sea wrote:his point is still valid Hotfoot. You are comparing an old outdated rifle to a newer and fairly popular handgun. A better comparison would be a Colt AR-15 and the Beretta. find a Colt AR-15 that is cheaper than a Beretta and you are gonna be looking for a while because they don't exist. And the reason I use Colt and not another knock-off is because Beretta is a name brand like Colt is.

if you still insist that just because the M-1 is a semi-auto, high powered and very accurate rifle that it can be compared to a modern handgun. Then lets also compare that to it to my Remington 7400 which is also a semi-auto, high powered and very accurate rifle. But the Remington 7400 is not $300, it is around $600.

Fair enough, going straight to the Beretta USA website instead of a resale site, the cheapest Beretta (92FS) is $650. Compare that to the Remington 7500, and the pistol is still more expensive. If you'd like, you can compare higher quality pistols to higher quality rifles. Prices tend to increase accordingly.

For example, if you want to bring in a rifle that costs $1,200, I can bring in a pistol that costs $2,400. The most powerful civilian rifle may well be more expensive than the most powerful civilian pistol, but in the common ranges, from what I've seen prices tend to be very close, and in many cases, with higher prices for pistols than rifles.

Glocksman: Thanks for the info. To be honest, it's a touchy subject, and there's a TON of misinformation out there in both directions. Be that particular point right or wrong, I still think the best option for defending your house is to keep people from entering in the first place. For the price of a small arsenal, you can secure your house against all but the most dedicated of home invaders. If the evil murder/rapist/robber can't get in my house, I don't have to worry about using a gun to defend myself or my possessions. Sure, there's no such thing as a perfect defense, but I'd rather that than have to rely on shooting my way out of a situation.

Outside of the home, well, it's a crap shoot, far as I can see. If I'm in a situation where a stupid punk has a gun drawn on me, the last thing I want to do is to try and draw my own gun and get into a shootout with a fucking moron who doesn't care about consequences. When did running or submitting to loss of property stop being an option? I'm a decent shot, don't get me wrong, and yes, I own guns, but if I never have to be in a situation where I actually shoot another person, I'll be very happy. I certainly don't want to escalate the conflict to the point where the other guy decides to actually shoot me.

tharkûn wrote:Ahh I see, you wish to quibble over "no good reason" in spite of the fact that numerous reasons exist.

Do you have the capability for forming a coherant position, or are you content to run in circles forever?

Who said a thing about emotion? You said civillians put themselves in these situations, I point out that in certain parts of Detroit you don't have a friggen choice. Just because the real world doesn't always offer the options you'd like 'ideally' like doesn't make it an appeal to emotion.

First off, learn to read and to type. I said they don't willfully put themselves in those sorts of situations, those situations can be forced on them. Now, unless you are seriously telling me that EVERY SINGLE PERSON that enters those "certain areas" of Detroit is subjected to violent crime, and that people are forced AGAINST THEIR WILL TO ENTER THESE AREAS, you're full of shit. You're banking on the feeling that since Detroit is a dangerous place, some places are so dangerous that you can't help but be put in danger of them. Never mind that people have choices about where they decide to go - if that area of Detroit is so fucking horrible, then people would likely know about it, and sensible people would choose NOT to go there. If things were as bad as you imply, damn near everyone there would be dead anyway.

When you bring forth the evidence to back up your alleged cost benifit 'analysis' then you might have a point. As it stands you are just another guy who by his own admission does not own a gun and yet is confidant that "no good reason" exists.

Holy shit, you really are illiterate. Where do you get this shit? Do these revelations come to you in the night, in fevered dreams of the great old ones, who threaten to take what is left of your shattered mind to fuel their dreams made flesh of agony riding on eternal waves of marrow suckled from the bones of the stillborn? I DO OWN GUNS. MULTIPLE. THEY ARE ALL LONGARMS. THE ONLY REASON I DO NOT OWN A HANDGUN IS BECAUSE IT IS A HUGE PAIN IN THE ASS TO GET CERTIFIED IN NEW JERSEY.

I still don't see any really good reasons for civilian ownership, and you've yet to provide any solid evidence for one other than fearmongering and out of your ass statements. Not that you seem to actually care what I actually type, at this point, you're just responding like a form letter, no matter what I put here, you'll just come back with your standard canned reponses, won't you? At least the other people in this thread have made solid contributions and provided information and evidence, you've just sat here and spewed drivel like the broken spin machine you are.

Hardly, one can get a decent handgun for around $150, a thousand rounds for around another hundred, and frankly one does not need a full fledged gun safe for a lone pistol.

Suppose that depends on how you define decent, even glocks cost more than $150 at last check. But hey, want to go the cheapo route? If you do the work yourself, the locks and deadbolts can be purchased for about $30-50 per door, sliding glass doors can be secured by a 2x4, windows can be secured for a few dollars for your entire house, you can get a decent security system linked to the police, fire, and ambulance for $99. If you know what you're doing, you can make your own motion sensor lights for about $50. Plus, and here's the best part - securing your home can improve your homeowner's insurance, saving you money every year. It's a home improvement that can pay for itself. For a few thousand dollars, you can get all the fancy stuff, like glassbreak sensors, keyless deadbolts, and so on.

This is a shall issue state, it is easier to get your conceal and carry permit than to reinforce your door. I've done both.

Tell you what. I'll go to home depot, you go to your local government building. We'll see who's done first.

It is called a smash and grab. We have standard crooks who manage to break into jewelry stores with far superior alarms and illumination and still clean the place out. Indeed such criminals are exceedingly unlikely to negotiate at all - that takes too much time. Of course that would be when it might be useful to have something more persuasive than the threat that the cops will eventually get there.

Yes....because jewelry stores and homes are similar targets. Let's see. One has nobody inside at night, the other has people inside. One has huge amounts of high-priced, easy to carry valuables that will sell quickly, the other, well, who knows? One has the goods past two layers of glass, the other, well, you'll be stumbling around in the dark, in an area where lots of people have a chance of seeing you.

Yeah, you're right, robbing a jewelry store is JUST like robbing a residential home.

Stores are designed to display their goods. This naturally makes them much more vulnerable to attack. Homes are not, and can be secured much more easily. Well, unless you live in a glass house, but those aren't too common.

Right a man who refuses to release his data is such a fine upstanding source. In reality Kellerman undercounts the defensive value of a gun by several orders of magnitude (only when a criminal is outright killed does the gun get any positive benifit in Kellerman's studies). Work by Gleck and Lott is both superior and more current - which not suprisingly shows far better results than Kellerman's trash.

I'm more inclined to believe Glocksman's sources over yours, to be honest. He at least seems to be interested in getting to the point of things.

Quite right. I'm supportive of mandatory firearms training. So much so that I think it should be given to all citizens, gun owners or not, and in the schools.

You know, I'd be willing to bet that the firearms training that a hunter has to go through is vastly different from the training of a police officer, and if you ask me, it's police officer training that is required for the situations you've been posing. Simple training isn't enough.

NOT MY BURDEN OF PROOF. You have made positive claims about the cost benefit relation, it is not my job to prove guns aren't a net hazard for owners.

Translation: "I'm right even though I don't support any of my arguments or even bother reading what you write, hahaha noob."

But of course. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns shows 25 to 75 lives saved for every life lost by civillian gun ownership. Of course this happens because Kleck documents oh 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use a year, but that is likely undercounting.

Okay. Now how do I know Kleck isn't as biased as Lott or Kellerman?

Wow you are a little weasel, you have called me a liar even though it is just "your opinion" In any event states with "shall issue" conceal and carry laws have a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate. But let me guess "your opinion" outweighs such facts.

Weasel? Sorry, I can't help but laugh, since you CLEARLY do not know how to read. I've been pretty clear that this is how things seem to me. I've tried to avoid stating things as facts because to be perfectly blunt, there's a lot of bullshit out there, and you seem to be pouring it like it's a fine wine.

I may be wrong about some things, but at least I'm capable of communicating above a third grade level, something you don't seem capable of.

The M1 Garand has an en bloc clip, a standard glock does not. The Garand is over 11 pounds, being made from low tolerance metal (though it was quite good back in the day) and wood. The Glock is a polymer framed pistol using modern steel. This of course ignores the market disparity. The m1 Garand was made in military quanities and is largely obsolete in that role, hence their is a glut of them on the market. The Glock on the other hand is the most popular handgun in the world and is still in active use by government forces hence the market is nowhere near as glutted the m1 Garand. If you want something similar you'd best look at Makarov surplus. Those come in at a fraction of the price of a Garand, the bullets are also cheaper. East European surplus makes them quite cheap.

Anyone else notice how he went from Beretta to Glock all of a sudden?

You know, you do have some valid points Tharky-babe, but you seem to refuse to have any sort of coherant system in employing them. You can't stay on track or on topic, your analogies suck ass, you make shit up as it suits you, both about your own points and about my points, you make shitty strawmen, and either you can't comprehend what you read worth a damn, or you're a near-pathological liar.

Hotfoot wrote:I still think the best option for defending your house is to keep people from entering in the first place. For the price of a small arsenal, you can secure your house against all but the most dedicated of home invaders. If the evil murder/rapist/robber can't get in my house, I don't have to worry about using a gun to defend myself or my possessions. Sure, there's no such thing as a perfect defense, but I'd rather that than have to rely on shooting my way out of a situation.

I think most, if not all, of us here would agree it's better to avoid the confrontation.

However, not everyone has the option of modifying the property where they live. Renters, for example, may not be able to make heavy security installations simply because they don't own the place - yet they deserve to be safe as much as the owner of a million dollar mansion. If you live in close quarters, such as a mobile home park, your motion sensors and such might be continually set off because your neighbors are in such close proximity. Some communities sharply limit what you can do with your property, which might bar some times of security.

A gun is an option, not a mandate (except for that one community in Georgia that passed an ordinance requiring residents to own guns.)

Outside of the home, well, it's a crap shoot, far as I can see. If I'm in a situation where a stupid punk has a gun drawn on me, the last thing I want to do is to try and draw my own gun and get into a shootout with a fucking moron who doesn't care about consequences. When did running or submitting to loss of property stop being an option? I'm a decent shot, don't get me wrong, and yes, I own guns, but if I never have to be in a situation where I actually shoot another person, I'll be very happy. I certainly don't want to escalate the conflict to the point where the other guy decides to actually shoot me.

It's always your choice to draw and use or leave it in the holster. Again, the gun is an option - if you'd rather surrender your wallet than kill another human being that's OK by me.

Personally, given the option I prefer to run away, too - but if I'm backed into a corner and need to fight that's a different story.

You're banking on the feeling that since Detroit is a dangerous place, some places are so dangerous that you can't help but be put in danger of them.

No I'm banking on the fact that you said "No good reason" exists. Half of Detroit stands as a near perfect case example that good reasons DO exist. Once we've established that point then you can haggle when the cost benifit ratio is applicable, your initial BS however is handily refuted by one counter example, let alone entire neighborhoods worth.

I still don't see any really good reasons for civilian ownership, and you've yet to provide any solid evidence for one other than fearmongering and out of your ass statements. Not that you seem to actually care what I actually type, at this point, you're just responding like a form letter, no matter what I put here, you'll just come back with your standard canned reponses, won't you? At least the other people in this thread have made solid contributions and provided information and evidence, you've just sat here and spewed drivel like the broken spin machine you are.

1. It is incumbent upon those who would restrict liberty to prove an advantage in reducing freedoms.
2. I have already cited sources which show significant savings in human life and healthcare costs, Kleck is rather convincing there.
3. I'm sorry that I let my real world experience in Detroit interfere with your unsubstantiated theory that civillian ownership of handguns is risky.

Suppose that depends on how you define decent, even glocks cost more than $150 at last check.

East European military surplus. The biggest problem is that caliber is not the greatest.

But hey, want to go the cheapo route?

Whatever, just because there are ways to get guns at a relatively cheap costs, particularly if you aren't going to be firing off hundreds of rounds regularly, doesn't mean quality has gone out the window. Cheap handguns come from Bryco or similar, dropping to under 100 for the really cheap crap.

If you do the work yourself, the locks and deadbolts can be purchased for about $30-50 per door, sliding glass doors can be secured by a 2x4, windows can be secured for a few dollars for your entire house, you can get a decent security system linked to the police, fire, and ambulance for $99. If you know what you're doing, you can make your own motion sensor lights for about $50.

That is your idea of security? Deadbolts are all well and good, until you realize that lightweight doors can be broken right around the deadbolt, security sliding glass doors - here's a hint crooks tend not to mind breaking glass. Get over it, guns a far cheaper than up armoring your house. Of course you left out the most effective crime deterrant : Bewarre of Dog.

Tell you what. I'll go to home depot, you go to your local government building. We'll see who's done first.

I'm already on file, and personal friends with local authorities, don't even bother to go there.

Yes....because jewelry stores and homes are similar targets. Let's see. One has nobody inside at night, the other has people inside. One has huge amounts of high-priced, easy to carry valuables that will sell quickly, the other, well, who knows? One has the goods past two layers of glass, the other, well, you'll be stumbling around in the dark, in an area where lots of people have a chance of seeing you.

Yeah, you're right, robbing a jewelry store is JUST like robbing a residential home.

Stores are designed to display their goods. This naturally makes them much more vulnerable to attack. Homes are not, and can be secured much more easily. Well, unless you live in a glass house, but those aren't too common.

Stores spend ubiquitiously more on security, and yet crooks whom you have previously characterized as stupid, still manage to go for a smash and grab. I do love how criminals are intelligent and foresighted enough to intelligently pick targets based on the ease of looting the place, but stupid and short sighted enough to not care about dying

If crooks are dumb then you can expect some idiots to tray smash and grab even against a protected home. If crooks are smart then they will avoid neighborhoods with high gun ownership reputations.

I'm more inclined to believe Glocksman's sources over yours, to be honest. He at least seems to be interested in getting to the point of things.

We are citing the same sources

You know, I'd be willing to bet that the firearms training that a hunter has to go through is vastly different from the training of a police officer, and if you ask me, it's police officer training that is required for the situations you've been posing. Simple training isn't enough.

You know I'd be willing to bet I'd support firearms training up to and including basic military level for the population at large. Barring concerns not relevant to this discussion, I'm perfectly happy with the Swiss or Israeli models.

Translation: "I'm right even though I don't support any of my arguments or even bother reading what you write, hahaha noob."

Translation: I know I should have to post actual proof backing up "my opinion", especially because I made a rather broad and sweeping claim from which I'm trying to backpedal without looking like too much of a moron. Instead of actually proving my opinion has merit, as per SDN policy, I'll demand my opponent prove it doesn't.

Okay. Now how do I know Kleck isn't as biased as Lott or Kellerman?

Unlike Kellerman, Kleck has the raw data reviewable.

Anyone else notice how he went from Beretta to Glock all of a sudden? Rolling Eyes

Brain misfire, I'm blaming it on seeing Glocksman's name.

In any event you still are comparing an old gun with old technology, against a new gun with newer technology. The Beretta is still handily lighter than Garand even when accounting for long vs. short gun. The Beretta sports a far superior clip. The manfacturing tolerances on the Beretta are far tighter than they were on the Garand. And of course pricing is skewed by the fact that the Garands had all the war surplus dumped onto the market while Beretta 9 mms are still in NATO service and quite popular. I already listed a gun that was somewhat old (though not quite as old as the Garand), mass military surplus, and is not built with modern convenience/standards. I can't help it that you can't get it through your skull that such cheap and effective handguns exist.

You know, you do have some valid points Tharky-babe, but you seem to refuse to have any sort of coherant system in employing them.

Thank you, you have no valid points which goes splendidly with your non-existant system for making a point beyond "but my opinion is". You'd go much further if you'd just admit that you don't know all there is to know about handguns and the purchase thereof. You'd also go further if you took the time to substantiate broad sweeping opinions rather than react poorly when actual facts contradict said opinions.

There's no damn good reason for civilians to own guns at least where i live. The amount of guns out there is very small and the lower the number stays the better. In places like the US it might be different because there are a lot more guns around. But here legalizing guns would only lead to an increase in the total amount and therefore make everything unsafer.
Also, I don´t need guns, burglar alarms or similar crap. This safty über alles crap is getting on my nerves lately. The luxury of not thinking about locking my door, not turning on my burglar alarm, not worrying about stuff that´s very unlikely to happen anyway exeeds the luxury of minimizing the chance of being robbed.
And i´ve been robbed (lots of money, technical devices and a whole bunch of CDs from my car), so i know what i´m talking about.

General Zod wrote:Silence won't help much if it's sticking out like a sore thumb and can't be used in narrow spaces with much ease.

Perhaps, but I can use it in my backyard without disturbing the neighbours, and it won't hurt my ears.

Broomstick wrote:The family crossbow is sometimes described as a "crosspistol" - it's a small bow, but being a crossbow has a fairly powerful draw (I need a foot stirrup, leg and back muscles to draw and cock it). You can use it in a much tighter space than most bows, and yeah, it's as close to silent as makes no difference.

It hangs near the bed, with an arrow ready, but with the bow undrawn so it can't fire accidently. Once cocked, though, you might as well treat it as a gun - it does, after all, have a trigger. Don't point it at anything you wouldn't want to shoot.

You have a crossbow near the bed? That's awesome! If crossbows counts as guns, I might reconsider my position...

I own a few:
Beretta 96 .40 cal
Beretta CX4 Storm 9mm Carbine (gave my .45 model to my dad, 9mm is cheaper to shoot)
Beretta PX4 Storm (my new carry weapon)
Colt .45 1911
Kimber Compact Tactical Ultra .45 1911
Beretta Neos .22 cal
S&W .357 Magnum
SA XD .40 cal (with a 9mm conversion barrel).
Mossberg 12-gauge pump

It's a hobby. I enjoy shooting IDPA and IPSC recreationally. Never been big into rifles, I dont hunt.

tharkûn wrote:No I'm banking on the fact that you said "No good reason" exists.

Again with the lying. If you're going to quote me, use what I actually wrote, shithead.

Half of Detroit stands as a near perfect case example that good reasons DO exist. Once we've established that point then you can haggle when the cost benifit ratio is applicable, your initial BS however is handily refuted by one counter example, let alone entire neighborhoods worth.

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.

1. It is incumbent upon those who would restrict liberty to prove an advantage in reducing freedoms.

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

2. I have already cited sources which show significant savings in human life and healthcare costs, Kleck is rather convincing there.

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.

3. I'm sorry that I let my real world experience in Detroit interfere with your unsubstantiated theory that civillian ownership of handguns is risky.

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

East European military surplus. The biggest problem is that caliber is not the greatest. Whatever, just because there are ways to get guns at a relatively cheap costs, particularly if you aren't going to be firing off hundreds of rounds regularly, doesn't mean quality has gone out the window. Cheap handguns come from Bryco or similar, dropping to under 100 for the really cheap crap.

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."

That is your idea of security? Deadbolts are all well and good, until you realize that lightweight doors can be broken right around the deadbolt, security sliding glass doors - here's a hint crooks tend not to mind breaking glass. Get over it, guns a far cheaper than up armoring your house. Of course you left out the most effective crime deterrant : Bewarre of Dog.

Dogs cost lots of money, adoption fees, food, maybe some toys, vet bills, it comes to the hundreds of dollars per year mark very easily. On top of that, I've seen multiple burglaries with dogs present, they really aren't that much of a deterrant once the crook is inside. I could argue that just getting a fresh home security sticker and lawn sign acts as a deterrant as well, but frankly the point is that any secruity modifications you make to your house make it less palatable to a thief, who will want a fast, easy score.

I'm already on file, and personal friends with local authorities, don't even bother to go there.

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.

Stores spend ubiquitiously more on security, and yet crooks whom you have previously characterized as stupid, still manage to go for a smash and grab. I do love how criminals are intelligent and foresighted enough to intelligently pick targets based on the ease of looting the place, but stupid and short sighted enough to not care about dying

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. It requires considerable more forethought to think, gee, I read in the newspaper recently that this area has a particularly high number of people with concealed carry permits. Maybe I should be careful when I mug someone for my crack fix, they may have a bloody dangerous weapon which could shuffle off my mortal coil.

Meanwhile, just because a store spends more on security does not make the security better, it all depends on how it is implemented and how effective it is for the store front. As I've mentioned, it's much easier to secure a home than it is to secure a store - one is meant to shelter, the other is ment to display.

Invading a home can be a crap shoot. You don't know what they do or don't have unless you case the place, or often if there is someone home or not (burglars don't want company), the best stuff is often checkbooks and credit cards, with perhaps some electronics. A jewelry store is a known factor, THEY CARRY LOTS OF JEWELRY. Jewelry is easy to carry, easy to sell, and fetches a high price.

If crooks are dumb then you can expect some idiots to tray smash and grab even against a protected home. If crooks are smart then they will avoid neighborhoods with high gun ownership reputations.

And you do get idiots who try to smash and grab against a protected home. These idiots either run away very fast when the alarm goes off, or stay and get caught by police. You also have idiots who go into neighborhoods with high gun ownership reputations. If these people didn't exist, your entire argument about guns actually being used in these situations disappears entirely.

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?

But hey, that doesn't matter, because you don't care what was said, so long as you can make a new strawman, right? (P.S. OMG UR MY HERO PLS MAKE TWELVE RESPONSES TO THIS ONE RESPONSE)

We are citing the same sources

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.

You know I'd be willing to bet I'd support firearms training up to and including basic military level for the population at large. Barring concerns not relevant to this discussion, I'm perfectly happy with the Swiss or Israeli models.

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

Translation: I know I should have to post actual proof backing up "my opinion", especially because I made a rather broad and sweeping claim from which I'm trying to backpedal without looking like too much of a moron. Instead of actually proving my opinion has merit, as per SDN policy, I'll demand my opponent prove it doesn't.

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?

Unlike Kellerman, Kleck has the raw data reviewable.

A point in his favor.

In any event you still are comparing an old gun with old technology, against a new gun with newer technology. The Beretta is still handily lighter than Garand even when accounting for long vs. short gun. The Beretta sports a far superior clip. The manfacturing tolerances on the Beretta are far tighter than they were on the Garand. And of course pricing is skewed by the fact that the Garands had all the war surplus dumped onto the market while Beretta 9 mms are still in NATO service and quite popular. I already listed a gun that was somewhat old (though not quite as old as the Garand), mass military surplus, and is not built with modern convenience/standards. I can't help it that you can't get it through your skull that such cheap and effective handguns exist.

So do cheap and effective rifles. You can't get that through your head? Fine, you want an el-cheapo surplus pistol with shitty caliber? I can start using 22LR rifles, which I can get for roughly $160, and are semi-automatic.

Thank you, you have no valid points which goes splendidly with your non-existant system for making a point beyond "but my opinion is". You'd go much further if you'd just admit that you don't know all there is to know about handguns and the purchase thereof. You'd also go further if you took the time to substantiate broad sweeping opinions rather than react poorly when actual facts contradict said opinions.

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?

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.

Wait, let's review that last part, shall we? Now, this depends on what state you live in, but the laws for the use of deadly force are different everywhere you go. In New Jersey, for example, unless your life is in danger, shooting someone is a no-no. They could be up to their necks in all your worldly possessions, walking out your front door, and you cannot legally shoot them. If you do, you can be tried and convicted, and you'll spend more time in prison than the guy who would have stolen your stuff. Now, in some other states, simply being on the property is signing away your right to life, but the truth is that the laws run the gamut between the two.

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

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

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?

Broomstick wrote:I think most, if not all, of us here would agree it's better to avoid the confrontation.

However, not everyone has the option of modifying the property where they live. Renters, for example, may not be able to make heavy security installations simply because they don't own the place - yet they deserve to be safe as much as the owner of a million dollar mansion. If you live in close quarters, such as a mobile home park, your motion sensors and such might be continually set off because your neighbors are in such close proximity. Some communities sharply limit what you can do with your property, which might bar some times of security.

As far as renting is concerned, generally speaking, if you talk it over with your landlord and make sure they still can have access to the rented space in an emergency, they can often be quite agreeable, especially if you're footing the bill. After all, a more secure place can be rented for a better price when you're gone.

As far as mobile home parks, granted, that's a much harder case, I'll freely admit ignorance in that matter. Motion sensor lights on the outside would be a irritation, but it's entirely possible for the park itself to have lights anyway. Sensors inside the Mobile home are of questionable utility, but in this case, I'd imagine just having an alarm system that can be triggered with the press of a button would be much more useful - the alarm will alert the very nearby neighbors, making the situation less than palatable for the intruder. Other than that, I don't really know about security measures for such living conditions.

A gun is an option, not a mandate (except for that one community in Georgia that passed an ordinance requiring residents to own guns.)

I find that part about the community funny, to be honest. But you're right, it is an option. I honestly don't like it as an option, and as far as I knew coming into this, the direct correlation between concealed carry permits and actual crime stopped by such weapons is non-existant. Now, I've got multiple people telling me that people do actively use their concealed carry permits, but it's not commonly reported. That may be, but without the reports, it's difficult to accept, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.

It's always your choice to draw and use or leave it in the holster. Again, the gun is an option - if you'd rather surrender your wallet than kill another human being that's OK by me.

Personally, given the option I prefer to run away, too - but if I'm backed into a corner and need to fight that's a different story.

I suppose, but I'd rather not put myself in the position where I'll be backed into a corner. For example, if I know an area is a high crime risk, I won't go there.

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?

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

Glocksman wrote: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.

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?

Durandal wrote: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?

I've tried to rationalize it away using computers, handguns are like laptops and rifles are like desktops. To get "equal" performance from the smaller, more compact and portable option, you have to pay more. Sure it's a bullshit analogy, but it's about the only way I can get it to make sense to me.


*spelling edit*