Hey Slowwy! You should be proud of your daughter!

[giblets]

And?

My point is that if she didn't know how to use the gun properly it still probably wouldn't have helped.

Unless the burglars flee as soon as they hear the first gunshot.

[MikeH]

And ... you don't get a gun without basic handgun safety training and a bit of practice.

Unless this is some kind of legal requirement I bet that statement is not accurate and a lot of people do exactly that.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Unless the burglars flee as soon as they hear the first gunshot.

Yes.

This is the reason I Dan'sd my post #163 to change from "deadly force" to "deterrent force".

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Unless this is some kind of legal requirement I bet that statement is not accurate and a lot of people do exactly that.

If someone buys a gun without knowledge of basic hand gun safety they deserve the darwinian results that are likely. Similarly if someone decides to use a knife, chain saw, or flammable liquid without understanding its implications. Safety first as with any tool/implement.

[kentonio]

Stabbing people seems like a decent way to kill them as well which brings us back to TMM's point.

Reading back, I misunderstood his point.

Very true. Anyone who picks up an instrument intending it as a weapon without martial arts training is essentially a waste. Be it knife, broom handle (staff), fireplace poker, bat, or golf club (Short stick). Its a truism that practically any weapon requires training to be deadly. The defining reason why guns are the exception are range (i.e no need to close with the enemy), extreme lethality and rate of fire.

Of course it's not a waste, plenty of people have defended themselves with a bat or knive without training, it's not like burglars go through extensive attack training. Obviously guns are a safer defence (although not always for family members/by standers) but killing a burglar or attacker isn't always necessary.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Obviously guns are a safer defence (although not always for family members/by standers) but killing a burglar or attacker isn't always necessary.

This is the reason I Dan'sd my post #163 to change from "deadly force" to "deterrent force".

[kentonio]

Ah fair play.

[MikeH]

Not sure it's really safer.

If you haven't got a gun your armed intruder intent on stealing your stuff might be content to threaten you with their gun and make their escape/steal your stuff.

If they find you are armed they might decide to just shoot first.

Plus there's always the chance your intruder can get your weapon off you.

Anyway the chance of someone randomly breaking into your house to do you harm (rather than to steal your stuff) is unbelievably miniscule anyway. It's not worth the statistically much higher risks to your safety that having a firearm in the house brings (IMO).

[The Mad Monk]

Unless this is some kind of legal requirement I bet that statement is not accurate and a lot of people do exactly that.

It depends on the state. Bluer states tend to require more sanctioned training prior to purchase, redder states require less to none. Most states require training and licensing for concealed carry.

Then there's Arizona.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If as was suggested the intention is to fight (not flight) an intruder, choice of makeshift weaponry within the house is a substandard approach. You have already comitted to a confrontation in the hopes that you can scare away (unlikely) or render incapcitated at least one if not a number of unknown assailants. If the intruder(s) are armed you have committed a course of action putting yourself in grave danger with inferior odds of success.

In the case of a fire armed person, if your intruder(s) are unarmed the far greater liklihood is that they rationally will understand they are outgunned (Pardon the pun) and will attempt to flee the scene, rather than attempt a given multiple person scuffle. Contrast that with an inferiorly armed or perceived physically inferior person that will cause the intruder(s) calculus to change and has a greater liklihood of melee.

As for the inherent dangers of gun ownership, let the buyer beware.

[regexcellent]

You can do a lot with a 6-foot stick, or a garden shovel, or something of that nature if you know what you're doing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless this is some kind of legal requirement I bet that statement is not accurate and a lot of people do exactly that.

Uh, yeah. You're wrong about this, MikeH. Most people who own a gun have been trained in it's use.

[Ben Kenobi]

What are you talking about? The holy see have executed hundreds of people over the years.

You're smart enough to open wikipedia but too dumb to open up a catechism?

[notyoueither]

Absolutely, while you seem happy to sit and throw out little snide remarks while the same old people show their normal lack of human empathy and compassion. I'm pleased to know that's not because you're Canadian, just because you're you.

You really do not seem to get that you do not have a corner on human empathy, compassion, or any other positive quality.

You don't seem to get that different people in different places are going to have experiences, values and priorities that are different from yours and most of the people who live near you. The different culture they are in, and the different priorities they have will lead to actions different from yours given a very similar set of facts.

You don't seem to get that your inappropriate use of loaded terms and phrases (vigilante, extra-judicial killing, lack of respect for human life, etc) shut down minds to your message rather than encouraging useful discussion. I find this all rather baffling as I thought you had a background in history and should be well aware of the many pitfalls you throw yourself into.

You don't seem to get that you come across as a pompous, arrogant, pretentious git in this thread (and some others); the British equivalent of the quintessential 'ugly American.' It's a shame, because you are an intelligent, knowledgeable person. When you are not on some holier-than-thou horse you say some interesting things.

[notyoueither]

The difference I was trying to establish here was the difference of the level of acceptance of people using a gun for self defence.

I think it has to do with the prevalence of guns and maybe differences in the amount of time that has passed since people needed to be able to defend themselves when there was little or no law enforcement.

American cutlure is simply more violent than that in Britain, and lethal violence is going to be more readily accepted as a form of self defence.