Poll: is a gun a good tool to have in a household?

[Mostly Harmless]

I personally am fine with it as long as it's for hunting purposes only and they have the filled out the proper paperwork. Other wise NO. It just scares me when I picture my autistic brother carrying around Semiautomatic pistol for "defense."

 

[Skalman]

Not all people lock their doors, in fact an unlocked door is almost as safe as a locked one, because everyone expects it to be locked so they don't go check if it actually is.

A) I beg to differ. I've seen people go up and down a community trying doors.

Then I am glad I do not live where you do.

i own a deer rifle for hunting purposes

Yes, rifle, not gun.
Rifles are most excellent for hunting and therefor has a purpose. A gun doesn't, not a "valid" one at least.

 

[maffro]

Last I checked the odds of someone accidentally shooting one of their housemates compared to the chance of them shooting an invading criminal was somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 to 1.

So because others are fools with guns you would take away my right to defend myself? I'm sorry but if some crazy drug addict is robbing me for money I want a means with which to defend myself or loved ones. Even if odds are i'll never have to use it I still wan't that option. It would also be really nice to be able to carry on campus. The way I feel is the government is responsible for many deaths in virginia for not permitting legal carry permit holder to have one on site.
Like people always say when seconds count the police are only minutes away. That's why I am proactive and take control of my safety rather than just hope nothing bad happens.

Let's be honest. If people were legally allowed to carry guns on site you think there would be less violence?

There are thousands of tiny conflicts that play out every day, every where. The less of those conflicts involve either person having the ability to instantly escalate that conflict to involve the loss of a life the better.

 

[MecaEcco]

sure...The end of a loaded gun is a great tool for driving stubborn nails into a wall

 

[aswiftlytiltingreality]

If you're keeping a gun in the house for protection learn how to shoot to kill. That way, you don't have to worry with having to put up with all the questions surrounding your shooting someone. If you can handle owning a gun responsibly and you don't have kids, I see no problem in someone owning a gun.

 

[wrightofway]

Nothing drives a nail like a 9mm bullet

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

What sort of household?

Single woman living alone in a bad neighborhood? Yeah, I'd want a gun, preferably a shotgun or a revolver. Something easy to use. Busy couple with a dozen kids they can't monitor effectively? Probably not. Family on a farm miles from any neighbors or police help? Might make sense to have some weapons around the place.

I wouldn't call it a "tool" unless you were planning to use it to drive nails or open beer cans, though.

Hate to break it to you mate however a shotgun is hardly "easy to use." If held incorrectly prior to pulling the trigger; thus not properly adjusting for the recoil, you are likely to harm yourself more then your target. Of course if your aim is impressive... well disagree the "more then your target" portion of my previous sentence. Nonetheless a shotgun has such a powerful recoil it could theoretically break your arm if held incorrectly. There is a reason it is considered such a powerful weapon.

Now on the topic at hand, I support guns myself; probably due to my immense enjoyment of weapons in general, be they from medieval times or modern. I am - or going to be - a collector and while unlikely to keep a majority loaded, I do intend to have quite a number of guns in my household.

 

[JaggedIron]

Kids that accidently kill themselves with a gun, well thats just Evolution theory in action, DARWIN AWARD.

Guns don't kill people, minorities kill people.

 

[DaBigCheez]

now that i think about it if you shoot an intruder then call the police all they find is a dead stranger and you holding a gun
I know that actually calling the police would take off suspicion but then a serial killer could bring a victim into house,claim the victim broke in and they would get away with it

Call me optimistic, but I'd like to believe that police detectives would at least stand some chance of, well, detecting such foul trickery before accepting the story outright.

Also...if they're only doing this once, are they really a serial killer? If they're doing it multiple times, why hasn't anyone gotten suspicious? If they're only doing it for one of their kills, why would they deliberately draw a police investigation onto themselves?

 

[gamebrain89]

Number one: A gun is not a tool, a gun is a weapon. It serves no purpose as a tool.

Number two: Weapons are used to kill things. so unless you really need to kill something, you have no need for a weapon.

Number three: A Gun shouldn't even be in your house unless you're working in law enforcement and/or the military.

Number four: and don't come say it's for hunting purposes. You don't hunt with a gun, you use a rifle or possibly a bow.

Number five: self defense isn't a valid reason either, you're better of with a baseball bat or go learn a martial art.

Edit: Guns should only be allowed to people who actually need them, i.e police and military. Can't really understand how you in America are so fixated with the right to own guns. Most parts of the world doesn't allow civilians to own guns and the percentage of murders involving guns in all those countries are alot lower than in the states.
Just accept it, legalizing guns leads to more deaths.

I agree with you on certain hand guns and assault rifles, there is no need for civilians to have those types of weapons. However, some handguns are made predominantly for hunting, and hunting with a handgun is an accepted pratice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting Edit, changed to a different link. And, um, a rifle is a gun(sorry, was too tempting to pass up).

 

[philios82]

Kids that accidently kill themselves with a gun, well thats just Evolution theory in action, DARWIN AWARD.

Guns don't kill people, minorities kill people.

Thats got to be one of the most offensive and ridiculous statements I've ever read. Kids don't accidently kill themselves with guns through stupidity (not their own anyway), did you never get hurt as a kid because you were playing with something dangerous (like a hammer, matches etc)? It's called curiosity and it's a natural part of childhood development, the difference is being curious about a gun is often fatal. And as for that last bit, was that supposed to be a dig at ethnic minorities? If so thats just unbelievably racist and idiotic. If you weren't talking about ethnic minorities then I appologise, you're not a racist you're just an idiot.

 

[Jursa]

If guns are illegal for citizens, like example - Japan, then I think guns are unnecessary. However I see no reason why a person with no psychological problems or criminal record can't be allowed to have a gun in today's society. I vote tazers tho. Relatively safe and a great defence.

 

[Skalman]

Number one: A gun is not a tool, a gun is a weapon. It serves no purpose as a tool.

Number two: Weapons are used to kill things. so unless you really need to kill something, you have no need for a weapon.

Number three: A Gun shouldn't even be in your house unless you're working in law enforcement and/or the military.

Number four: and don't come say it's for hunting purposes. You don't hunt with a gun, you use a rifle or possibly a bow.

Number five: self defense isn't a valid reason either, you're better of with a baseball bat or go learn a martial art.

Edit: Guns should only be allowed to people who actually need them, i.e police and military. Can't really understand how you in America are so fixated with the right to own guns. Most parts of the world doesn't allow civilians to own guns and the percentage of murders involving guns in all those countries are alot lower than in the states.
Just accept it, legalizing guns leads to more deaths.

I agree with you on certain hand guns and assault rifles, there is no need for civilians to have those types of weapons. However, some handguns are made predominantly for hunting, and hunting with a handgun is an accepted pratice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting Edit, changed to a different link. And, um, a rifle is a gun(sorry, was too tempting to pass up).

Right, so when people say "gun" I take it they mean handgun not firearm, but that may just be a mistake on my part. None the less, why go hunting with a handgun when a rifle does a much better job?

 

[vxicepickxv]

I said no, because the general populace doesn't have a need for a gun.

That being said, the key to proper gun use and ownership is education. If you know how to properly use a gun, then you know when to use it, and when not to use it.

 

[Hawks_Pride]

A gun? No.
A rifle, shotgun, or pistol? Yes.
An assault weapon? No.

Now, I'll clarify my definitions of the preceding terms.

-Gun = Artillery piece. (Modern examples are illegal for civilian posession, and way too expensive, besides)
-Rifle = A firearm designed to be used with two hands, intended to project accurate fire out to 300 yards or so.
-Shotgun = A firearm designed for two-handed use, projecting a narrow cone of fire, and with a maximum distance of about 25 yards or so.
-Pistol = A firearm designed to be able to be used effectively with one hand (though two are still preferable), maximum range of 50 yards.
-Assault weapon = Rocket launcher (illegal for civilian posession)

Those of you with military experience will understand why I define them so. Please explain it to those who do not, 'cause I don't have the patience for it.

A rifle, a shotgun, a pistol, or some combination thereof can be a very good deterrant to someone breaking in and wanting to steal stuff. Especially with subtle advertisements to that fact (say, by taking delivery of NRA magazines to your street address, as opposed to a PO box, if you live in a house).

You folks who've been saying a gun is more likely to kill someone else in the house need to check your facts. The oft-parroted study you're citing whether you know it or not was flawed, and has been repeatedly discredited. (If you take issue with my grammar in that statement, PM me, and I'll explain it)

More gun control laws will not solve gun crime problems. ENFORCEMENT of EXISTING LAWS will. In Florida, where I live (not entirely by choice), there are two laws that I'm very fond of. The first is a 'Castle' doctrine, which is well-documented elsewhere, so I won't bother with it. Another is popularly known (with good reason) as 10-20-Life; Say someone commits a crime. Gets busted. Standard punishments apply. If they draw a gun, they get another mandatory decade slapped onto their sentance. Fire it, two decades, also mandatory. Hit someone (whether they live or die), and you get Life. Long as I'm here, let's see what you folks think about that particular law.

Sorry in advance for any potential thread-jacking.

 

[colourcodedchaos]

OK, first off, guns are bad. They are simply instruments of death, destruction and torture. Tasers are merely guns that didn't eat their vegetables.

Now, I understand that shooting is a sport. And indeed, my country used to win Olympic golds in it before the Hungerford disaster of 1986 (though I might have got that date slightly off). But I believe that firm gun control is the hallmark of a civilised society.

Soldiers and armed police have guns. Are you a soldier or policeman? No? Then you DO NO GET A GUN. It's bloody basic, people. The problem is imports, and whack down mandatory life imprisonment (min. 55 years) for gun-running and that'll die off.

Also, a little-known fact for all the 2nd-Amendment-quoters out there: Britain had a right to bear arms but it was repealed about 175 years ago, because they saw it was a bad idea.

 

[gerrymander61]

Lol@ all the people who insist that they would use a melee weapon or "martial arts" against an armed intruder. For one, they'd be too busy cowering in a corner and soiling themselves and for two, if they actually worked up the courage to confront the intruder, they'd have an easy time taking YOU down since, well, you were an idiot and brought a knife (or worse) to a gun fight.

Thats got to be one of the most offensive and ridiculous statements I've ever read. Kids don't accidently kill themselves with guns through stupidity (not their own anyway), did you never get hurt as a kid because you were playing with something dangerous (like a hammer, matches etc)? It's called curiosity and it's a natural part of childhood development, the difference is being curious about a gun is often fatal. And as for that last bit, was that supposed to be a dig at ethnic minorities? If so thats just unbelievably racist and idiotic. If you weren't talking about ethnic minorities then I appologise, you're not a racist you're just an idiot.

It's not racist if it's true....
Oh, and about kids being dumb, if you're too dumb to educate your kids and they off themselves, then it IS evolution because whatever trait you had that made you less likely to educate your kids is being selected against. The people who kill others with guns are the ones who are still awed by the power of a gun because they haven't been taught how to treat one properly.

 

[Hawks_Pride]

OK, first off, guns are bad. They are simply instruments of death, destruction and torture. Tasers are merely guns that didn't eat their vegetables.

Now, I understand that shooting is a sport. And indeed, my country used to win Olympic golds in it before the Hungerford disaster of 1986 (though I might have got that date slightly off). But I believe that firm gun control is the hallmark of a civilised society.

Soldiers and armed police have guns. Are you a soldier or policeman? No? Then you DO NO GET A GUN. It's bloody basic, people. The problem is imports, and whack down mandatory life imprisonment (min. 55 years) for gun-running and that'll die off.

Also, a little-known fact for all the 2nd-Amendment-quoters out there: Britain had a right to bear arms but it was repealed about 175 years ago, because they saw it was a bad idea.

Call me paranoid, but I don't want to be at the mercy of the government. If I am, then it becomes all too easy for them to abuse their authority. An armed person is a citizen. A disarmed one is a subject. (Please forgive the cliche)

And actually, colourcodedchaos, I was well aware of the British right to bear arms. And I really think it's a bad thing that they let it be repealed. I won't get into why, but it has something to do with my previous statement.

EDIT: And what about people who are incapable of joining the armed services or police, and yet are capable of operating a firearm safely?

AND AGAIN, WITH UNRELATED DRIVEL: You got the date right, I think, CCC. And I'm actually quite impressed with the resiliency of your firearms manufacturers, to say nothing of the quality of their products.

 

[pingnak]

No! I say keep a CROSSBOW under your bed! Hard to mistake whether it's loaded. Too cumbersome for suicide. According to draw force, loading may be impossible for small children. Though perhaps still prone to some of the same kinds of 'accidents' you could pull off with a firearm, if you're a big enough klutz.

Much more fun to see the bolt stickin' out of an intruder's head or chest. Won't wake the neighbors... OK, well maybe the screaming might. Less likely to go through your intended victim, out through your wall and through a neighbor's window into a baby. (Of course, there are 'glaser' rounds for guns.)

Even legal in the UK, though using it to defend your life is questionable there. UK law seems to be all about the right to break into homes, steal, rape and kill people, not for defending against such mayhem.

May not have the intimidation potential of a gun. Less 'stopping power' than a big gun. Most people don't recognize how deadly a weapon it can be. Of course, this can be useful at trial, where you claim you didn't think it would really hurt him that much.

Then again, nothing can beat a shotgun for stopping power, lethality and pure intimidation. Just the 'click-clack' of chambering a round will tell all but the most homicidal/suicidal intruders it's time to run away. If they don't run away from your boom stick, well then you know they WANT to be shot.

A bit messy, though.

So, generally speaking, YES on deadly weapons, even if it's not a firearm.