[deathfun]

I have two bayonets casually laying around my room

Who needs a gun when you have a Russian two and a half foot long bayonet from 1940
Stick them with the pointy end which can be conveniently attached to your rifle or other items that fit it

[Lorric]

The point is more that most people who think they *need* a gun to defend their home actually don't.  The vast majority of break-ins occur when the owner isn't even on the premises, and for those few that do ("home invasions"), the chances of you getting to a properly and securely stored gun before an intruder is able to attack you are pretty much nil.  Yes, there are anecdotes of people who fended off intruders because they had access to a firearm but these are the exception, not the rule.

If you home security plan is a gun, you don't have a home security plan.  Ergo, move somewhere that you don't feel you need a gun.  If you can't move, then clearly the motivation to move (by not relying on a gun) is less than all the other reasons that you want to stay where you are (financial and otherwise).

Did I mention this fun fact earlier?  At a distance of less than 21 feet, an attacker will touch a trained and prepared person who is trying to draw, aim, and fire a loaded firearm.  They teach this in law enforcement use of force training - if you're facing a person with a knife, and they're less than 21 feet away and you don't have a gun out and pointed at them, they will cut you before you can shoot them to stop them.  I've trained in the drills; it's true.  How many houses have you see where an intruder will be further away than 21 feet from you?

This is very interesting, thank you. Particularly about the 21 feet thing. 21 feet is a lot, especially in most rooms of a house. Being in the UK of course we don't have to worry about guns. Not normally anyway. I have always thought it would be difficult to get to your gun in such a scenario. I imagine the only way you'd do it is if your intruder is sneaking around downstairs giving you time to get to your gun, or perhaps makes a clumsy and noisy entrance. Or you stick up a middle finger at the rules and keep it around loaded and ready to go.

The guns probably do make people feel better on a psychological level though.

[karajorma]

Funnily enough I came across this today (possibly NSFW so I'm linking it instead)

It's nice to see someone is trying to be reasonable when it comes to gun safety. I've been saying for ages that no one seems to have that interest in mind so I wish them luck. Although by calling themselves evolve together they're going to be immediately ignored by a whole bunch of dumbasses who really should listen to them.

[MP-Ryan]

There's an amusing interplay going on between jr2 and FrikgFeek here that could probably be aided by a little cross-cultural understanding.

While most B&E events do not involve a homeowners presence, some do.  In the US, a much greater proportion of these also include an intruder carrying a firearm than in other parts of the world.  While I maintain a gun is *not* a home security plan on its own, relying on your ability to run if someone breaks into your home is *also* not a home security plan because that isn't always an option.  Neither is relying wholely on the police to show up.  Very, very few occupant-on-premises B&Es are home invasions where the criminal intends to do the occupant harm, but in the few that are, a police response time of 5-10 *if* you can get to the phone is not acceptable.  Given the stunning lack of proper storage laws in most US jurisdictions and the prevalence of firearms generally in the US, I, too, would likely have a shotgun locked up in my bedroom in case of emergency if I lived in many American locales.

On the other hand, pointing a gun at someone and telling them to get out / go away has all kinds of bad things written all over it.  If you're pointing a gun at someone, you'd better be in a position where you fear for your life or the lives of others and can immediately legally and morally pull that trigger.  Otherwise, you shouldn't be pointing a gun at them.  The film equivalent of "standoffs" is just that - entertainment.  It doesn't happen like that in the real life.  First off, when the adrenaline is pumping it is hard to remember how to operate a gun; second, it's hard to aim (which is why I say shotgun), and third, most people couldn't actually kill another human being unless confronted immediately by their own death or the death of another person.  And anyone who says "just aim for the leg/arm/etc" needs to be ejected from this discussion - trained police officers are taught to aim center of mass because when the adrenaline is flowing, you will miss far more often than you will hit, and you aim for the biggest part of a person you are most likely to hit.

That video kara pointed out is excellent.  Here's another article that I posted on Twitter a while back with which I [generally-speaking] completely agree: https://www.quora.com/Guns-and-Firearms/Is-it-better-to-own-a-gun-for-self-defense-or-is-that-more-likely-to-cause-problems/answer/Jon-Davis-10?srid=nG8l&share=1

On the subject of gun bans; Japan has successfully banned firearms for all intents and purposes.  Points to note:  Japan has no historical culture around firearms, Japanese citizens live in predominantly urban areas and have no real need for predator control when outdoors, and Japan still has firearms-related crime.  Even with a gun ban.  When it comes to firearms controls, there is no one-size-fits-all solution because what works and what can practically be implemented depend heavily on the country in question.  The US needs to do better, absolutely, but any government in the US or Canada that tried to impose a complete firearms ban would quickly find itself tossed out on its ass.

I agree with one of jr2's statements too:  anyone arguing firearms controls without any experience with them based on the 'dangerousness' factor should definitely take a course on firearm safety, handling, and general familiarization.  He's right - firearms themselves aren't scary things, they're tools.  That's all.  Yes, some people fetishize them, but I place them completely in the category of "irresponsible people who shouldn't have access to firearms because they make them dangerous."  In the hands of a responsible owner, any firearm is no more dangerous than a service firearm in the hands of law enforcement.  Depending on where you are and the level of training they have, responsible owners are often considerably *less* dangerous than some people in law enforcement [who frankly shouldn't be in that career either.]

[Aesaar]

And people buy Ferraris because they like owning a Ferrari.

And if someone claims that they don't want a Ferrari so they can drive it fast and/or pick up chicks what would you say to them? What would you say to anyone who on a debate about high speed car crashes claimed that it wasn't the reason most people bought a Ferrari?

While there are some people who may have a legitimate reason for having a handgun at home, a lot of people who make the target shooting excuse are doing just that, making an excuse for having a gun in their house.

I'm not getting your point.

What exactly is wrong with buying a gun for its own sake?  Like I said, someone might buy a fast car for its own sake as well.  Or they might do it for the fun things one can do with a fast car, just like they might with a gun.  I don't think saying "it's for target shooting" is an excuse because I don't think gun ownership is something that needs an excuse in the first place.

[Mars]

Well, I should be able to buy explosives, because my hobby is blowing up household items in the desert.

It's that hobbies existing around weapons is no excuse not to ban weapons.

[karajorma]

@Aesaar  I said I was giving up earlier but since you asked, I'll take one more stab at it.

I don't think saying "it's for target shooting" is an excuse because I don't think gun ownership is something that needs an excuse in the first place.

Then say that you want a gun for the sake of it. I was pointing out that many people who make the claim that they need a gun at home for target shooting don't. They just want to have a gun at home and are using the excuse of target shooting to justify it.

MP-Ryan is actually doing much the same for people who claim they need a gun at home for self defence.

[Aesaar]

@Aesaar  I said I was giving up earlier but since you asked, I'll take one more stab at it.

I don't think saying "it's for target shooting" is an excuse because I don't think gun ownership is something that needs an excuse in the first place.

Then say that you want a gun for the sake of it. I was pointing out that many people who make the claim that they need a gun at home for target shooting don't. They just want to have a gun at home and are using the excuse of target shooting to justify it.

MP-Ryan is actually doing much the same for people who claim they need a gun at home for self defence.

I have been saying this.  The point I've been making this whole time is that you don't need to justify why you want a firearm to others.  Wanting to have one is a perfectly valid reason in itself, like it is for any other item. 

I used the Ferrari analogy because it's similar.  You don't need a fast car, and in most places, you won't get to legally use it to its potential except on a track.  There's no real practical purpose (especially for purpose-built track cars).  It's something you own purely for personal enjoyment, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Well, I should be able to buy explosives, because my hobby is blowing up household items in the desert.

It's that hobbies existing around weapons is no excuse not to ban weapons.

Just so.  I'd love to have an ATGM launcher or an autocannon, but I'd never advocate legalising them.  My argument is just to refute the notion that the only reason to own a gun is to shoot people.

My view on gun legislation is pretty much identical to MP-Ryan's, and I think it's a common opinion in Canada in general.  At least for informed people.

[FrikgFeek]

You don't need to justify owning a firearm to your neighbours, but you do need to justify it to the state. Or are you saying everyone should be able to buy a gun just because they want to?

[Scotty]

The implication is a little bit less random than that, but essentially.  He's advocating that someone who qualifies for gun ownership after all the background checks and whatnot are done shouldn't have to further justify their firearm purchase by citing a reason.

[Mongoose]

The very fact that you have a weapon and are confronting him with it is taking a needlessly huge risk. And you never know who's just a bumbling moron and who's a serial killer. Legging it always seems like the best solution. And if moving your kids really is such a big problem, then why are you even living in an area where you need a firearm to defend yourself?

I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment.  You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO.  If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety.  To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.

[FrikgFeek]

Why stop at guns then? If someone passes enough background checks, why not sell them an armed tank? Or a nuke? Sure a nuke wouldn't be very practical but maybe someone just wants it in their backyard to admire it. Where exactly would you draw the line if "I want it" is a good enough reason to buy a tool designed to hurt or murder people? Or do you actually believe that there's no line to draw?


Those background checks are never going to be 100% perfect. If they were, you could spot all criminals and do crime prevention. And if they're not perfect, you're taking a risk on every gun you sell. Most of them are going to be sold to responsible owners, but you'll always have that small chance that the background checks failed to spot a potential criminal.

[Aesaar]

You don't need to justify owning a firearm to your neighbours, but you do need to justify it to the state. Or are you saying everyone should be able to buy a gun just because they want to?

Scotty's got it.  If the state has determined, through background checks and safety courses, that someone is responsible and knowledgeable enough to own a firearm, then that person does not need to justify why he/she wants one.  Same as getting a driver's license, really.

Why stop at guns then? If someone passes enough background checks, why not sell them an armed tank? Or a nuke? Sure a nuke wouldn't be very practical but maybe someone just wants it in their backyard to admire it. Where exactly would you draw the line if "I want it" is a good enough reason to buy a tool designed to hurt or murder people? Or do you actually believe that there's no line to draw?


Those background checks are never going to be 100% perfect. If they were, you could spot all criminals and do crime prevention. And if they're not perfect, you're taking a risk on every gun you sell. Most of them are going to be sold to responsible owners, but you'll always have that small chance that the background checks failed to spot a potential criminal.

If you're going to outlaw everything that can be misused and potentially hurt people, you'll be outlawing a lot more than just guns.  Shall we outlaw knives too?  The government gives driver's licenses to people after they've passed their test, yet we still get people speeding and driving drunk.  Shall we outlaw cars and alcohol on that basis?

There comes a point where potential for misuse becomes so dangerous that it's necessary for the state to interfere on someone's right to their hobbies, but I don't think that that point is with rifles and handguns.  Most tend to agree automatic weapons is a good limit though.

As an aside, it's perfectly legal to buy a tank in a lot of places.  This is just a hunch, but I'd bet that it's easier to do most of the time.  Not armed, mind you, but an unarmed tank is more than enough to render you immune to nearly all police response.

[Lorric]

The very fact that you have a weapon and are confronting him with it is taking a needlessly huge risk. And you never know who's just a bumbling moron and who's a serial killer. Legging it always seems like the best solution. And if moving your kids really is such a big problem, then why are you even living in an area where you need a firearm to defend yourself?

I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment.  You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO.  If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety.  To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.

I'm with you. If someone's in your house, they've put you in a corner. They already have the initiative, they're prepared, you're not, and they've come purely to do you harm (not necessarily bodily harm, but harm all the same.) Why should you give them even more advantage? These people are criminals, not reasonable people.

[FrikgFeek]

I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment.  You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO.  If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety.  To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.

Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't. 
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?


And cars and knives aren't designed to hurt people, it's just an unfortunate side effect. If car manufacturers could make cars that are incapable of hurting people without sacrificing performance or price they'd do it. On the other hand a weapon incapable of hurting others isn't a very good weapon.

[Aesaar]

Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't. 
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?

The point of owning a gun for self-defense is to make yourself the armed guard of your home.  And given proper background checks and safety courses, there's no reason why you'd be any less responsible a firearm user than those armed guards. 

MP-Ryan made a good case criticising the idea, but I understand the rationale behind home defense.

And cars and knives aren't designed to hurt people, it's just an unfortunate side effect. If car manufacturers could make cars that are incapable of hurting people without sacrificing performance or price they'd do it. On the other hand a weapon incapable of hurting others isn't a very good weapon.

What it's designed to do doesn't matter.  What it can be used to do does.

[Lorric]

I'm not even a big gun-rights person myself, but I have a big problem with this sentiment.  You should NEVER have to run away from your own house...that's the place you should always be able to run TO.  If someone enters my house with the intent to do myself or my family harm, then they've already forfeit any claims to their own safety.  To some extent, that's backed by law, at least in the US.

Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't. 
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?

For me, I'm not saying that I wouldn't consider fleeing if I was able (though the way my house is designed, it's likely impossible that I'd be able to get out without a confrontation.)

I believe the sentiment he's expressing (which even if he's not I am) is that you shouldn't feel you have to flee from your own home. That you should have the option to stand against the intruder/s. This is especially true if there are family in the house, especially the young or the infirm. Surely you'd rather stand in front of such loved ones than risk them getting hurt or taken hostage by violent criminals.

Basically, when backed into such a corner, you should be free to take whatever action is necessary to protect you and your family. That action might well be simply to flee. But it might have to be to fight for your life, and you shouldn't have to worry about anything else but that fight.

[FrikgFeek]

What it's designed to do doesn't matter.  What it can be used to do does.

But if a car doesn't pass safety inspections and is deemed too dangerous it can't get sold. And that includes pedestrian safety. A gun only needs to pass inspection to ensure that it's user is safe, they don't test it for the safety of whoever you're shooting at(for obvious reasons). And I'm sure that even the most dangerous car is much worse at murder than a well-made firearm.

Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.

[Aesaar]

What it's designed to do doesn't matter.  What it can be used to do does.

But if a car doesn't pass safety inspections and is deemed too dangerous it can't get sold. And that includes pedestrian safety. A gun only needs to pass inspection to ensure that it's user is safe, they don't test it for the safety of whoever you're shooting at(for obvious reasons). And I'm sure that even the most dangerous car is much worse at murder than a well-made firearm.

Lorric, unless you're dealing with a serial killer, the criminal will mostly likely just want to rob you, not murder a bunch of unarmed people. Getting into a firefight isn't helping you protect yourself or your loved ones, it's doing the exact opposite.

Misuse doesn't just mean murder.  Driving drunk and speeding are both examples of misusing a car, and both of those kill quite a few people.  Moreover, it doesn't matter how safe a car is designed to be, it can and will still kill someone if it's going fast enough.

And knives are designed to cut things.  It's pretty much exactly why they make good weapons.

[Mongoose]

Huh. That just seems ridiculous to me. If I was in danger I'd run to the nearest bank, or a police station. Those have armed security guards protecting them, my house doesn't. 
And I'm not saying you should run for their sake, I'm saying you should run for your own. Even an untrained idiot can get lucky and hit you in a vital area, do you really think it's worth the risk just to protect your property?

...you're suggesting that someone should have to run miles away, most likely at night, just to get to a place of safety?  That aside, in what universe are there banks open 24 hours a day?

And I think it would be far more risky to attempt to rush past an armed assailant and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back, than it would be to defend yourself at home.  But regardless, the point remains that I shouldn't have to.  My home is my property.  It is my refuge, and I should not be forced to leave it for anyone.  That's the very definition of the "castle doctrine," which is derived straight from English common law.