How dangerous is having a gun in your house if you have children?

[Jzero]

Try going from one city to another with a wife, a daughter, two dogs and all the clothes, food, toys, etc... without an SUV. Then you will see a need for one.

You are beginning to grasp it.
I am single. I live smack between 2 bustling metropolises. I perceive no need for SUVs.
But some people need them. Why should YOU not be able to have an SUV just becuase *I* think it's wasteful and dangerous?

Not really. The justice system is based on this logic. Innocent until proven guilty. You and I just happen to have a different baseline assumption.

You start with the presumption that firearms are guilty of being universally dangerous and unnecessary.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Situation 1: Armed assailant vs armed homeowner <-- I'd put money on a well trained / properly prepared homeowner.

Of course you do. This is where you and I disagree. The big advantage the burglar has is that he knows everyone is a risk. He seems someone, he shoots. This is a huge drawback for the home owner because they need to make sure the person they see isn't someone they know.

 

[kaizersose]

many interviews have been conducted with jailed house robbers of all levels of expertise, as well as armed and unarmed. the two things all of them fear?
1. two well trained guard dogs, especially dobermans (they can take out one, but not two)
2. a practiced, armed homeowner.

most of the prisoners admitted that in either of those cases their first choice would be to flee.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Situation 1: Armed assailant vs armed homeowner <-- I'd put money on a well trained / properly prepared homeowner.

Of course you do. This is where you and I disagree. The big advantage the burglar has is that he knows everyone is a risk. He seems someone, he shoots. This is a huge drawback for the home owner because they need to make sure the person they see isn't someone they know.

I don't see how that is supposed to be convincing.
The assailant already has an advantage. You advocate that he should be given the further advantage of a guarantee that the victim will be unarmed?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Situation 1: Armed assailant vs armed homeowner <-- I'd put money on a well trained / properly prepared homeowner.

Of course you do. This is where you and I disagree. The big advantage the burglar has is that he knows everyone is a risk. He seems someone, he shoots. This is a huge drawback for the home owner because they need to make sure the person they see isn't someone they know.

This is Canada..but:
Text

Defending Canada's Heritage
- ----------------------------------------------
Letter to the Sarnia Observer

"Observer readers misinformed on the firearms debate"

Re. "Gun control major issue in Lambton" (Nov. 1), Peter Smith and other
writers are thoroughly misinformed on the Firearms Debate. "Gun control"
is an inappropriate, emotionally-loaded, anti firearms rights term wherein
"guns" are inherently bad and "control" is inherently good. Ergo, if you
are not in favor of gun control, then you must be in favor of chaos.
Right? Wrong.

Canada's 7 million responsible firearms owners (an average of 3 government
surveys) support reasonable and effective firearms legislation that reduces
crime and saves lives. Accordingly, the Canadian Institute for Legislative
Action has a mandate to defend Canada's cultural heritage, including its $6
billion/year shooting sports industry.

To clear the muddied waters on the firearms debate, the best way to know
the truth is through scientific research subject to peer review. Here are
3 essential truths seldom reported in the media.

1. "Guns Save 3,300 Lives Every Year." Mauser and Buckner (1997) verified
that Canadians use firearms for self-protection against animals and
criminals 64,000 times a year. For every life lost with a firearm in
Canada, 40 lives are saved.

2. "Criminals Fear Armed Homeowners" Wright and Rossi (1994) discovered
that criminals fear armed homeowners even more than the police. Criminals
can pick and choose when and where to strike, in the absence of police. If
homeowners are armed, criminals fear getting shot and simply gravitate to
safer activities, such as stealing cars. If citizens are disarmed,
however, criminals declare open season on defenseless civilians. Where gun
bans have been implemented, crime rates soar.

3. "Firearms Are a Net Benefit to Society" In the USA, Lott (1998) found
that wherever the levels of civilian firearms ownership were highest, crime
was lowest. Using FBI statistics for all 50 states and 3,054 counties over
an 18 year period, he found that the civilian ownership of firearms deters
violent crime and mass killings. For every life lost with a firearm in the
USA, Suter (1994) estimated that 65-75 lives are saved. Kleck (1998) noted
that Americans use firearms 2.5 million times a year to protect themselves
against criminals. Hence, firearms availability also saves lives.

Polls indicate that 80% of Canadians believe that violent crime is on the
rise in Canada and the USA. In truth, Statistics Canada (1998) reports
that crime has been declining for the past 8 years and in the USA for the
past 7 years (FBI Statistics). Why the gap? The prime culprit is
sensationalized media reporting of shootings to inflate television ratings
and to sell newspapers. Pity.

The United Nations Index reports that of 170 countries, the 3 best
countries in which to live are Canada, the United States and Norway.
Another UN survey indicates that the 3 countries with the greatest number
of firearms are the United States, Norway and Canada.

 

[jlee]

What's more of a deterrent -- this, or someone in the corner with a cell phone?

Note: The above image is of an airsoft replica..definitely not to be used for any form of home defense. However, I don't have the real thing (No Berettas, anyways)..so that had to work.

 

[Tom]

A better question would be which makes a better target.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I would never fire on someone without yelling out to them that they need to identify themself and what they are doing in my home because I have a gun and I'm willing to use it. Everyone that knows me knows I have a gun. When my child is old enough to understand, she will know that if she ever hears those words to not take it as a joke.

What happens if they are listening to a walkman or deaf.

...you're saying if someone breaking into my house is wearing a walkman, how does he know I'm yelling at him?

Well, either knock him out or shoot him. He doesn't belong here.

No I'm saying a child is coming upstairs listening to a walkman or talking on the phone.

So, your child wakes up in the middle of the night, thirsty, and fumbles around for a walkman IN THE DARK, turns it up real loud, and leaves their room for the water, still without turning on a light.

OR

They are talking on the phone in complete darkness, and you are deaf, since you cant hear them talking into the microphone, or they have a headset over their ears with the other person talking loud enough and rapid enough to cover the sound of someone yelling something like "ID yourself, I have a gun!".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And maybe I should wear a chastity belt to bed all the time so Roseanne Barr doesnt rape me some night. One is only slightly more likely than the other.

If you have a deaf person in your house, and they are supposed to be there, you'll know about it. And you'll have to get a good look at your target before firing.

I dont see how any scenario you have advanced is plausible enough to be even worth considering. You dont like guns. Fine. You dont want your kids to touch guns. Fine. You want to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Not fine.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Mookow
So, your child wakes up in the middle of the night, thirsty, and fumbles around for a walkman IN THE DARK, turns it up real loud, and leaves their room for the water, still without turning on a light.

OR

They are talking on the phone in complete darkness, and you are deaf, since you cant hear them talking into the microphone, or they have a headset over their ears with the other person talking loud enough and rapid enough to cover the sound of someone yelling something like "ID yourself, I have a gun!".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And maybe I should wear a chastity belt to bed all the time so Roseanne Barr doesnt rape me some night. One is only slightly more likely than the other.

Okay. If these sceanarios are so rare, then why are so many people killed in this country every year by friendly fire?

 

[tnitsuj]

Depends on how much of an idiot you are.

I have no kids, but I keep all my guns in a locked closet with a solid core door and two good locks. I have another closet where I keep my ammo which also has a good solid door and two good solid locks.

As soon as I enter the house my Sig goes in a Gun Vault deluxe gun safe in an undisclosed secure location in the same condition that I carry it.

If I had kids I would probably have a real gun safe in the big closet, and I would definately teach them what to do if they ever found a gun as well as how to safely handle a gun..something along the lines of an Eddie Eagle type thing. If they are trained early, it is unlikely that they would end up shooting themselves.

In any case, if I had kids I would never have a loaded gun out in anything less than a gunvault type safe, I might not even keep a loaded gun in the house..haven't thought about it that much. I don't particularly see a reason to have a loaded gun in the house.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Mookow
So, your child wakes up in the middle of the night, thirsty, and fumbles around for a walkman IN THE DARK, turns it up real loud, and leaves their room for the water, still without turning on a light.

OR

They are talking on the phone in complete darkness, and you are deaf, since you cant hear them talking into the microphone, or they have a headset over their ears with the other person talking loud enough and rapid enough to cover the sound of someone yelling something like "ID yourself, I have a gun!".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And maybe I should wear a chastity belt to bed all the time so Roseanne Barr doesnt rape me some night. One is only slightly more likely than the other.

Okay. If these sceanarios are so rare, then why are so many people killed in this country every year by friendly fire?

How many is "so many?" Do you even know the number of "accidental shootings" that occur each year?

 

[Amused]

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates)

National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84

All Automobile.............................43,000

Falls............................................16,200

Poisoning by solids, liquids........11,700

Pedestrian..................................5,300

Drowning...................................3,900

Fires, burns................................3,600

Suffocation by ingested object....3,400

Firearms...................................600

Poisoning by gases, vapors.........400

All other causes.........................14,500

TOTAL.......................................97,300

 

[Amused]

Unintentional firearm deaths broken down by age:

0-4.........20

5-14.......60

15-24.....150

25-44.....190

45-64.....110

65-74......30

75+.........40

Total........600

 

[nan0bug]

I have a child, and the gun is as much for her benifit as it is mine. I live in a fairly sh!tty part of town, not the worst but pretty far from the best, and it has only been getting worse. I refuse to be a victim.

That doesn't mean I want to shoot someone. Just like a police officer would tell you, I really hope I am never in a situation where I am forced to use my weapon on anyone, no matter what they are doing. I would much rather someone steal my stuff and nobody gets killed than have to fire upon someone because they're stupid enough to try and hurt me or my family. However, I know the average response time for a police officer in this town is anywhere from 4 to 8 minutes. 4 to 8 minutes is enough time for a whole lot of different bad situations to develop.

When I look at "what if I don't have a gun, so I call 911, and on a whim the bad guy grabs my daughter as a hostage to get away when the cops do show up? what if I'm tied up and can't do anything about it?" and I compare that to "what if my daughter just so happens to be stumbling around the house in the dark @ 3am listening to a walkman on full blast, and doesnt hear the verbal warning, and doesnt hear the report from my 12 gauge warning shot", it's not very hard for me to make a decision.

An open question to all those who are against having guns at home -- If I can respect your reasons for not wanting guns in your household, why is it so difficult for you to respect what I want in my household?

(edit: yes thats right, 8 minutes. We have train tracks running through the center of town, and if theres something happening on the other side of the tracks that requires police attention when you call, you could be waiting a little while for your help if a train is going by)

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Mookow
So, your child wakes up in the middle of the night, thirsty, and fumbles around for a walkman IN THE DARK, turns it up real loud, and leaves their room for the water, still without turning on a light.

OR

They are talking on the phone in complete darkness, and you are deaf, since you cant hear them talking into the microphone, or they have a headset over their ears with the other person talking loud enough and rapid enough to cover the sound of someone yelling something like "ID yourself, I have a gun!".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And maybe I should wear a chastity belt to bed all the time so Roseanne Barr doesnt rape me some night. One is only slightly more likely than the other.

Okay. If these sceanarios are so rare, then why are so many people killed in this country every year by friendly fire?

Give me a figure, supported by the facts, for how many people are intentionally shot by someone "defending" their home, when if they knew their identity, would not have shot them? Not how often you think it happens, but how often you can prove/show it happens. I'll give you a hint, it is going to be under 600. 600 is the estimate of the number of accidental deaths, ie people who manage to shoot themselves while cleaning their guns (although I have never figured out how this is accomplished without intent to do so), and people who were shot supposed to get hit as a result of an intentional discharge, and any other time someone dies after being unintentionally shot. Not just the number killed by someone defending their house.

Now, lets compare that to the incidence of people being violated by Roseanne Barr. Realistically, my chances of either situations happening to me, or to anyone I directly know, is fairly comparable. Compared to the 1,000,000+ uses of guns to stop/directly deter crimes every year in this country, I have to say that having a gun is more likely to have a positive effect on my life.

So, again I say, you dont want to have/own/touch a gun, fine by me. I really dont care to change your mind, as having someone with a gun who is indecisive/hesitant in a dangerous situation probably makes it more dangerous. However, I havent seen you make a decisive case as to why anyone who wants one should be denied one, even if it is for the children

 

[Ylen13]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I would never fire on someone without yelling out to them that they need to identify themself and what they are doing in my home because I have a gun and I'm willing to use it. Everyone that knows me knows I have a gun. When my child is old enough to understand, she will know that if she ever hears those words to not take it as a joke.

What happens if they are listening to a walkman or deaf.

...you're saying if someone breaking into my house is wearing a walkman, how does he know I'm yelling at him?

Well, either knock him out or shoot him. He doesn't belong here.

No I'm saying a child is coming upstairs listening to a walkman or talking on the phone.

Unless you suspect that it's someone trying to rob you, why would you even be armed in this situation? You make it sound like nan0bug and others walk around like Wyatt Earp with a holster and a bullet belt waiting to pull and fire on anything that moves.

so that in case someone dose rob me at some point at my house i can self defendd my self and use deadly force is needed. Also in alot of arabic county ex palistine kids have access to guns but we don't hear that they killed each other for one simmpel reason thaty born with guns and they respect it for what it's. They know that it's not a toy and that it can kill someone

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Mookow
So, your child wakes up in the middle of the night, thirsty, and fumbles around for a walkman IN THE DARK, turns it up real loud, and leaves their room for the water, still without turning on a light.

OR

They are talking on the phone in complete darkness, and you are deaf, since you cant hear them talking into the microphone, or they have a headset over their ears with the other person talking loud enough and rapid enough to cover the sound of someone yelling something like "ID yourself, I have a gun!".

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And maybe I should wear a chastity belt to bed all the time so Roseanne Barr doesnt rape me some night. One is only slightly more likely than the other.

Okay. If these sceanarios are so rare, then why are so many people killed in this country every year by friendly fire?

Actually, more children drown in swimming pools each year than are killed by firearms let alone by 'friendly fire.'

 

[astros67]

i dont think this thread will ever end....
so here is some fuel for the fire

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: nan0bug
I would never fire on someone without yelling out to them that they need to identify themself and what they are doing in my home because I have a gun and I'm willing to use it. Everyone that knows me knows I have a gun. When my child is old enough to understand, she will know that if she ever hears those words to not take it as a joke.

What happens if they are listening to a walkman or deaf.

Now, you're just being a tool.
More children are killed in traffic accidents involving alcohol than any gun statistic.
Try protecting them with your draconian outlook.

 

[Talon02]

They make thumbprint safes that are big enough for a loaded pistol.

So unless your child or the intruder physicalllly puts your thum on the safe, it cannot open. I think its a great idea, safety and accessibility all in one.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
I really didn't want to get in on this idiotic debate, but some things are just bugging me.

Originally posted by: brunswickite
isnt there a statistic somewhere that says you are more likely to shoot a family member then an intruder?

Yes, there is. It's something like 90+% of the time your gun will be used against you or your family member rather than an intruder. That statistic is misleading because it implies that someone else is getting ahold of your gun and using it against you. In fact, most of those cases where the gun is used against you it is suicide, and most of the cases where it is used against a family member it is the gun owner intentionally murdering their family member for whatever reason. You can't blame the guns there - if you want to kill yourself or a family member, you're going to do it with or without a gun.

Originally posted by: jumpr

Guns aren't inherently "dirty," that is just how they are often portrayed.

Incorrect. Guns are made for killing. I can't think of an instrument that's more dangerous to human life than a gun. It has one purpose - to lodge bullets into humans, animals and targets. Cars are made for driving. Knives are made for cutting food, and scissors are made for cutting paper and other materials.

But guns are made for killing. That's all I need to believe that guns are 'dirty.'

Well, I can understand your objetion to guns' being used to kill animals if you are a vegetarian. That's your right and all that. And I can understand your objection to guns' being used to kill innocent humans. I'm not sure why you consider target shooting to be killing, but hey whatever. However, I do have to say that in this day and age, there are bad people. Those bad people occasionally try to do harm to good people. And if I'm that good person that is being harmed, then you can be for darned sure that I'm going to use my gun to stop those "evildoers" from doing me harm, as is my right. Fortunately that situation has never come up, and I don't expect it to.

I and my relatives don't own guns for self-defense. We don't own them for hunting. We own them for target shooting. But why, oh why would we want to shoot targets if not to hone our skills so we could eventually use our guns to kill things? I'll tell you why - because it is FUN. Most people who have fired a gun will tell you that target shooting is actually a very enjoyable activity. Neither my gun nor any of my father's guns have ever been fired at a living creature, human or animal. I have lived in a house with guns for my entire life. I started shooting BB guns (with close supervision) when I was about 8. I graduated to a .22 when I was 11 or 12. Didn't buy a gun of my own until I was 20, but I've fired countless other guns in between. I did not grow up to be a terrible violent person because I grew up around guns. There was never the possibility of me or my brothers getting to the guns, because they were kept locked in cases and with trigger locks. The keys to the trigger locks on the guns in one case were kept in the othere case. The keys to the cases themselves were kept hidden. So far we're all still alive.

And in case you're wondering, I live in New Jersey.

Yep, I grew up being taught pretty much as mugsy did. I've owned/still own all sorts of guns over the past 14 years. I've fired them countless times (and it is great fun) but never have they been fired in anger or at another person. Now I have a 1 year old son at home. I changed nothing. My guns are in a gun safe just as they were before my son was born (I just don't want them stolen to be used to commit crimes or to kill someone). When he is old enough I will teach him how to handle a gun and the proper respect for guns and shooting. I think this is the best thing you can do for a child.

 

[Mookow]

bump

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Don't kid yourself. It was intended as an insult.

Because you deserve to be insulted.

Why because my opinion is different than yours? Boy you must have lots of friends with an attitude like that.

 

[Dedpuhl]

Haven't read any of the replies, so some of this may be repetitive:


My dad had about 6 shotguns, 3 rifles, 2 handguns, 1 muzzle loader and an awesome bow and cool looking arrows, and lots of ammo. IIRC, most of it was stored in a wooden cabinet and wasn't always locked. He kept a handgun in the drawer by his bed.

My stepdad had about 6 handguns, 2 rifles, a machine gun (he has some kind of gov't permit to own one), and plenty of ammo.

I could've easily grabbed any of the guns and played with them. Why didn't I? My dad wasn't a freakin moron. He stressed gun safety, etc. Also, he would've kicked my ass if I went near them. My stepdad would have also beat the sh!t out of me if I'd touch them.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Vic
Kindly S T F U :|

Another example of your maturity. Is this how you discuss things or are you being particularily nice for me?