I could potentially have a handgun in each hand, but one gun is the most I have ever shot at one time. Nice assumption, but I have fired several dozen weapons. The statement was about "more firepower." The example I used was one of more firepower. I did not equate many guns to better ability to protect, I said that it is possible for a person in this country to amass more firepower than they could ever need to protect themselves. Logically, that statement still seems to stand, but you seem to be talking about a different subject.
Yeah, and where did he say having more guns would help him protect himself better? He said he can buy more than he needs, an excess of guns, which is doesn't contradict what you are saying??
So has this guy. No, we are on the same subject but your understanding of more firepower seems to be one of a large gun collection. The common meaning of more firepower when talking of self-defense (ie in the context we were using) is much different.
I can also go out and buy much larger, more powerful, faster firing guns than I would need to protect myself from any threat that a civilian would ever expect to come across. A shotgun is all I would ever need to protect my family in my house. If I wanted to extend that protection, I could get a concealed carry permit and carry a handgun to most places. I don't need the firepower of an assault rifle, .50 cal sniper rifle, or fully automatic machine gun. I would argue that no civilian needs any of those types of guns for self defense.
Well this is less than an expert opinion. Home defense is many times shooting it out in the home. When the professionals shoot at people in homes they do not use shotguns. So why should civilians? And what is need? If a better tool gets me 1% better chance of surviving I want that freaking 1%.
I did mention handguns and if you choose to use a handgun for home defense, more power to you. I can pretty much guarantee that if you break into my house with your handgun and I am protecting it with my shotgun, things are going to go my way. There is no way that any "tool" (any gun other than a shotgun) gives you a better chance at survival in your home than a 12 gauge used properly.
My assumption is that this is because handguns are more likely to stop a perpetrator without killing them. Shotguns are more for killing, which is the only thing on my mind if I am defending my home.
Professionals do not use handguns for CQB. Nice research though. It is obvious your knowledge of the tools are limited.
fmullegan: When you talking about "shooting it out" do you mean defending yourself against another person with arms? As a non-American who has lived in 3 different countries, where owning your own gun is illegal, it is really hard to understand why guns are legal in America. If the scenario you're talking about involves both parties having guns, then the first thing that comes to mind is that guns being legal in the first place is the problem. I realize it's very difficult politically and practically to disarm everyone now etc., just saying, from the outside American gun laws look... scary. In the context of your discussion with rowdy, in your example, wouldn't allowing better weapons give your attacker access to better weapons as well? If I was an American, that would be my worry regarding allowing rifles etc.
So you are defending your home against the invasion by Army commando's? Dude, you better get those anti-tank missles installed in your home.
The criminal does not care about the laws that "allow" him to have the weapon. An illegal weapon for him is no barrier. So having a rifle with a 14.5" barrel like in the pictures is "illegal" (actually just hard to get requiring months of waiting time, paperwork and a stiff tax) the criminal will just build it.
You are right, I do not deserve to have the best tool available to defend my house from a single intruder. The rifles look scary to you and thus should be banned regardless of statistical data.
Do you agree that it is much easier for the criminal to get his hands on guns either legally or illegally in a country that has legalized sales of arms?
Interesting study... Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Lori Westphal, MPH; Laurie Fischer; Beverly Harvard JAMA. 1995;273(22):1759-1762. Abstract Objective. —To study the epidemiology of home invasion crimes and determine the frequency with which firearms are used to resist these crimes. Design. —Prospective case series. Setting. —Atlanta, Ga (population 402 877). Methods. —Between June 1 and August 31, 1994, Atlanta Police Department reports were screened to identify every case of unwanted entry into an occupied, single-family dwelling. Cases of sexual assault and incidents that involved cohabitants were excluded. Results. —A total of 198 cases were identified during the study interval. Half (99 cases) involved forced entry into the home. The victim and offender were acquainted in one third of cases. A firearm was carried by one or more offenders in 32 cases (17%). Seven offenders (3.5%) carried knives. In 42% of cases, the offender fled without confronting the victim. Victims who avoided confrontation were more likely to lose property but much less likely to be injured than those who were confronted by the offender. Resistance was attempted in 62 cases (31%), but the odds of injury were not significantly affected by the method of resistance. Forty cases (20%) resulted in one or more victims' being injured, including six (3%) who were shot. No one died. Three victims (1.5%) employed a firearm in self-protection. All three escaped injury, but one lost property. Conclusion. —A minority of home invasion crimes result in injury. Measures that increase the difficulty of forced entry or enhance the likelihood of detection could be useful to prevent these crimes. Although firearms are often kept in the home for protection, they are rarely used for this purpose. (JAMA. 1995;273:1759-1762) Author Affiliations From the Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Kellermann and Mss Westphal and Fischer), and the Atlanta Police Department (Chief Harvard). Footnotes The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Emory University, the city of Atlanta, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reprint requests to Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30322 (Dr Kellermann). http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/22/1759
