Firearms in the house?

Mindy - posted on 04/05/2011

I hate guns. Growing up, my dad had a rifle of some sort in his closet. The only time I saw it was if he needed to move it out of his way to get something. I have no idea where the ammo for the thing is located. My husband inherited his grandfather's pistol. I have no idea what sort of pistol it is, I just know that it's in his top dresser drawer. To my knowledge, the kids have never seen it. It has a safety thing on it, it loops through the barrel and locks. The key to it is in a box buried under stuff in the back of the master bathroom, and the ammo is in the same box. Bottom line, if anyone were to break into my home, the gun would not be available for protection. I don't like having it here, but I never see it, so at least that's a good thing. For those who hunt, I expect that they do have a strong respect for their tools and they teach their children to be respectful of those tools as well.

Nikki - posted on 02/07/2011

@ Rebecca you said "About the wild animals, we have a lot of unneutered male pitbulls in my area, which frankly, scare the hell out of me. We also have coyotes, black bears and an occasional cougar, all of which are deadly, but are no match for a rifle. "

What does it matter about the dogs being pitbulls, they are not any more aggressive than any other breed, any animal that is a stray is dangerous.

As for the coyotes even a .223 will kill it
black bears you need at least a .30-06 or bigger
cougars can be killed with a .270 or larger.

so rifles are effctive against them if needed.

Kim - posted on 02/07/2011

so yeah guns aren't good or bad. people are good or bad. like many a shooters they shoot for fun and sport, hobby or pest control. others shoot for gain, loyalty, death, revenge, and killing people. People are bad, not guns. now I hope everyone thinks about that.

Kim - posted on 02/07/2011

My Boyfriend has a air-riffle and is waiting for his shotgun license to be put through and stuff. I hardly know about guns much. My grandparents have guns and the grandkids know not to touch. My boyfriend shoots with my son, they love it, because they're bonding. Alfie gets to spend time being a proper boy and his dad loves to show his skills to his boy, I love watching them, I feel so proud. My boyfriend has never shot a person or anything, but I do agree that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. my son is going to learn to respect guns like people should. Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. Guns do not have a mind of their own, it's the people behind the guns that are doing the damage. The 1st time I shot a gun I shot a rat in the head, I'm proud of that :) as I am the oldest girl in the family out of many many cousins. In the end it all comes down to : it's the people behind the guns that do the shooting, not the gun. I'm not pro or con guns, I believe that if someone wants a gun they have to be checked out like they do over here, for a shotgun you have to have a case fixed to the wall in a space where a child couldn't get to it. My cousin shot the barn wall at my granma's and it riqoched and skimmed my brother's nose, he's now got a scar under his nose. my cousin isn't the smartest though. So in the right hands guns are good, all my boyfriend does is shoot birds and rats. vermin really, for my granma as she lives on a farm.

Jessica - posted on 02/05/2011

Well, aside from just loving guns and hunting, my husband is a part time gunsmith, so....yeah we have guns in the house. But they are always locked in a safe, that my husband has the key to on him at all times, and my children are being taught at a very early age not to mess with guns. And when they are old enough to hunt, they will be taught gun safety by their father, and take a hunters ed course. I dont think its a big deal. I was raised in a home with guns, and I never even imagined touching one, unless my dad took me out to shoot. Its all in how you raise kids, as with anything else. I dont think other people are wrong for not having guns in their house, I just dont think we are wrong for having them, either. It is a personal chioce, like anything else, and be responsible about the choices you make.

Mother - posted on 01/01/2011

I'm old and never understood the big deal about guns. Our grandparents ALWAYS had a least 4 guns loaded at the front door. We Always knew never to touch them and none of us did. My Dad was a hunter and he always had guns. Although they were never loaded at the front door they were within his reach. No big deal.

Michelle - posted on 12/29/2010

This is a no win debate, but I found this little bit of news that happened sometime this year in Florida where I live. I must say kudos to the old man. Would be robbers knocked an 83 year old man to the ground he pulled out his gun and they ran away...... Sorry if most of you don't have to deal with street thugs where you live, but I am all for gun ownership.

http://hosted2.ap.org/FLINV/1d44b373cfae...

Becca - posted on 12/29/2010

I love this debate. I haven't read all of the responses but I know that this is a hot subject. Especially where I live. We live in a rural area where there is a lot of hunting but also a lot of people who are totally against guns. In my house my hubby has several rifles, a shot gun, and will be getting a new pistol because I gave him a gift certificate for Christmas. He likes to go hunting but also wants to be prepared for anything. I like the idea of having guns so that I know we will always have a way to get food, but also for protection.
The guns are locked and never loaded in the house. Even a gun for protection is not completely loaded in our house. The gun for protection is next to my hubby's side of the bed and he knows where the ammo is to be able to get to in a hurry.

I want my son to grow up for a healthy respect for guns, and hunting. He will be taught the right way to handle a gun and take safety courses and will only be allowed to handle a gun with his father around until he is an adult.

Kathy - posted on 12/28/2010

Must admit, links would have been easier for those of us who don't have easy access to the books. However, I did some searches, and found some, not all of your references. My comments:
London Times August 26, 2007
This is actually a letter to the editor, and I wouldn’t accept these statistics as the writer has not referenced them, merely saying that Home Office figures show…
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/revie...
All I could find was a review of this book. It gives no statistics. One sentence reads: “Neither the
death penalty, nor more innovative policing techniques, nor tougher gun control, nor the aging of the population influenced the decline, conventional wisdom notwithstanding” Pretty comprehensive, but no statistics. Incidentally, for a supposedly scholarly book, the grammar is pretty bad!

CDC Age-Adjusted Death Rates for 113 Selected Causes by Race and Sex: United States, 2005

http://tinyurl.com/lu6hno

Interesting stats, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here, Sally. Any comparisons with countries with stricter gun controls? And the figures are only for a single year.

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy30, no. 2 2007
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...

This really isn’t a good selection for a debate on gun control. The article is entitled “Would banning guns reduce murder and suicide.” In our discussion we haven’t been talking about a complete ban on guns, just gun control. This article contains some very woolly thinking. The authors spent a lot of time discussing the effect of gun control on suicides. This is quite irrelevant, as I don’t think anyone here has claimed that there is a relationship between guns and suicide.
When gauging the importance of references, it’s critical to look at the biases of the authors. Don B. Kates has a background in supporting the right to own firearms. He is currently an attorney for Michel & Associates, Attorneys-at-Law, Firearms – Environmental – Land Use – Employment Law.
Gary Mauser, as well as his academic qualifications as Emeritus Professor at Simon Davis University, Canada, is also a representative of the National Firearms Federation of Canada.

Targetting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, 1997
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Targeting-Guns-F...

All I could find was this review of the book, so I really can’t comment, except to say that one reviewer of the book made the point that there was very little evidence to support Gleck’s arguments.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86, no 1
Couldn’t find

Journal of Criminal Justice 28, no 5 Journal of Criminal Justice 28, no 5
Couldn’t find this.

I agree, Wikipedia is sometimes problematical, but, as Jodi says, their stats are from valid sources.

Sally - posted on 12/28/2010

These are actual articles. They may have links. You could try a web search.
When I need to see detail, I personally find it easier to read actual paper so I can refer to several points at once without getting cites mixed up or lost. I did originally see them cited in books, but hunted down the actual items because anyone can make up a quote.

Jodi - posted on 12/28/2010

So I am assuming these don't have any links and you have the actual articles at hand then? Or do you have links? Or are you just quoting someone else's citations?

Jodi - posted on 12/28/2010

Sally, we are all aware of the feelings about Wikipedia, but please note that the stats quoted in Wikipedia are from valid sources. I just quoted the Wikipedia links because it was easier to review that the original data. There are valid citations listed there if you care to review them.

Sally - posted on 12/28/2010

Just for starters
London Times August 26, 2007
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy30, no. 2 2007
Targetting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, 1997
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86, no 1
Journal of Criminal Justice 28, no 5
CDC Age-Adjusted Death Rates for 113 Selected Causes by Race and Sex: United States, 2005
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
On a side note, very few research organizations consider Wikipedia a valid citation. The bibliography of a Wikipedia article can be used as a research tool to find valid citations though.

Kate CP - posted on 12/28/2010

I think I want to move to England. :P

Jodi - posted on 12/28/2010

Here is another interesting link with some homicide stats on a per capita basis.



As you can see, the US 65% of all homicides in the US are the result of gun violence. Australia's is 16%. England/Wales is 8%.



Overall homicide rate for the US is 4.55 (per 100,000). Australia is 1.57, England and Wales is 1.45. They are some pretty significant differences when you compare on a per capita basis.



The pro-gun lobby argument that homicides by other means increases is also irrelevant, because in the US, the rate of non-firearm homicides is also much higher than in countries with gun control......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#H...



If you took the guns out of the equation, you'd probably find that homicide rates would drop. At the moment, you are 3 times more likely to be murdered than I am. Scary.



So, where do the propoganda stats come from? Pro-gun lobby groups manipulating to protect their own interests.



I am not sure about overall crime stats, I have not looked at those. But the fact is, you have a greater chance of surviving a knife attack than a gun attack. So even if our crime rates are just as high per capita, you are more likely to survive.

Dana - posted on 12/28/2010

Oh hell, I don't know, you're probably right. I'm not really keeping up with the thread. lol I should look into what you've actually said better, I suppose. I was in the middle of dinner and now I'm putting Ethan to sleep. I'll come back and look into what I'm talking about....just ignore me for now. ;)

Rosie - posted on 12/28/2010

i know dana :) i went looking for populations of each country and we have like 3 and a half times as many people as the UK does, so still wouldn't you just take 42 times 3.5?? it would still be astronomically low compared to the US. or am i doing math wrong? lol! :)

Andrea - posted on 12/28/2010

I have guns in the house. Shotguns for hunting, but plan one day to have a hand gun as well. All current and future guns are stored safely kept away from my child.

Dana - posted on 12/28/2010

Kati, yes it's crazy but, we also have a lot more people and a lot of cities where crime is going to be high.

Kate CP - posted on 12/28/2010

Yep. I'm pro-gun control and I'm a Texan. So there. :P

Rosie - posted on 12/28/2010

i've been digging and there are many articles about how gun crime went up after the handgun ban in the UK. HOWEVER, after that decade gun crime has been the lowest it's been in like 42 years. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...

as for countries with tough gun laws having more gun crime, that's absolutely absurd. digging through statistics has sickened me at how many people die in the united states compared to other countries. 42 deaths in a year?? FORTY TWO??? holy shit that is just amazing to me. i think 42 people die every day here from guns. that is just amazing to me...

Kathy - posted on 12/28/2010

Great post, Petra!

Jodi - posted on 12/28/2010

*applauds Petra*

And still waiting on the source of those stats. Although I think we'll find that they are cut and pasted from some gun lobby website. Statistics are easily manipulated to say whatever you want them to say when it suits you.

Rosie - posted on 12/28/2010

i would definitely like to know where she got statistics too!

Petra - posted on 12/28/2010

Holy shit, ladies. I just read this whole thread, and the only avid pro-gun (especially hand gun) posters are Americans. My earlier statement about the cultural value Americans TEND to place on firearms still stands. Guns were created to kill, period. They have no other purpose. There is a huge difference between having a hunting rifle that spends 99.9% of its time disassembled, locked up very securely with ammunition locked up somewhere else, and a loaded handgun in your jacket or glove-compartment "just in case". Hand guns are not for hunting - they are for killing people. End of story.

The fact that your average American can get a handgun and carry it around in their jacket or car is fucking terrifying. It is only necessary, as handgun owners have been espousing, because of all of the dangerous folk who also have guns. Easy access to guns creates the problem of guns being used irresponsibly. It's a circular argument. Look at all of the other countries with dense populations and wild animals. We do not have the astronomical gun-violence figures because we have GUN CONTROL. It's not rocket science. Guns are dangerous. Easy access to guns is dangerous. Keeping loaded guns around is dangerous. They are not a toy, they are not fun, and owning them sure as fuck should not be a constitutional, God-given right. Unless you can prove the merit of a gun's intended use and that you are capable of storing it properly, you should not be able to own a gun, full stop. I know that "Bowling for Columbine" was severely biased, but it is a good look at the gun culture in some areas of the States.

Okay, I'm done my little spazz.

Rebecca - posted on 12/28/2010

I asked her for her stats a few page ago and got nothing, Did you know that 75% of statistics are made up on the spot? ;-)

Here's some actual statistics:



The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,184 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2006.



There were approximately 283 drowning deaths for children 5 and under per year between 2005 and 2007.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSa...

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/swimming-pool...



And the drowning stats aren't limited to bathtubs -- that is all drownings for children in the US.

Toni - posted on 12/28/2010

A little bit on gun deaths in the UK, in 2008 there was 42 deaths due to guns in the UK, of this 42, 15 people including 6 young men were killed in London which has suffered a rise in gang related issues. In total a third of the victims were under 21 yo.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...

"Despite its largely urbanised population, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. Its police officers do not routinely carry a firearm, and both the public and the police prefer this to continue. Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation. Hunting with firearms was always a relatively elite activity and 'gun sports' relatively uncommon. Recent mass shootings by persons with licenced rifles and hand guns have led to what is believed to be some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politic...

A little about overall homicides in the UK. In 2008 there were 648 homicides recorded which is a reduction of 136 from 2007. Attempted murders have dropped by 7% in 2008 as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/16...

Global homicide rates:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/...

Where did your stats come from Sally?

Kathy - posted on 12/28/2010

Sally, where did you get your stats? I need something more than "every study shows..."

Jodi - posted on 12/27/2010

"Every study done on the topic shows that countries with more guns have fewer murders (with all weapons) than countries with fewer guns."



This actually isn't the case. The murder rates in the US are amongst the highest of all the developed nations. Honestly, both Australia and the UK have a MUCH lower homicide rate than the US, so I am curious as to where your stats come from......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...

Sally - posted on 12/27/2010

Just for fun--some actual facts about how "unsafe" guns really are---
Within 10 years of England's hand gun ban, injuries and deaths from handgun incidents were up 340%
Every study done on the topic shows that countries with more guns have fewer murders (with all weapons) than countries with fewer guns.
While it is very difficult to get actual numbers on defensive gun use preventing crime (Few police and almost no media have any interest in "he ran away when he saw my gun".), but several studies have tried to figure out if owning a gun makes bad guys leave you alone. Best estimates (based on interviews with both victims and criminals) put the number at somewhere between 760,000 and 3 million with no shots fired in at least 3/4 of those cases.
Every municipality that has made it easier for law abiding citizens to own guns has seen an immediate and sharp decrease in almost all forms of violent crime. Domestic violence takes a brief small up trend as long time beating victims make sure it ends permanently; then that starts heading down as well.
Almost twice as many children drown in the bath tub as are shot. More than 5 times as many children drown in a swimming pool as are shot. This is using statistics that include shootings related to drug and gang violence of "children" up to age 23.

Korie - posted on 12/27/2010

I think a firearm is fine as long as it is kept properly and locked up. I have a handgun myself in a locked box in the top shelf of my closet in my bedroom. It is also very important to teach children the dangers of guns. My mom too had a gun when I was little but I never touched it bc my mom taught me.

Becky - posted on 12/27/2010

i live in a uk city, the only guns i have ever seen are my granddads [he was a farmer} i don't know anyone who knows anyone who has ever been shot or who owns a gun [except farmers} i cant recall a shooting in cambridge and I'm glad for that.
My son and his friend max {both 14} were playing with a toy gun in our local park and the police helicopter was called they were given a right telling off, and were rightly frightened out of their wits. we don't even have toy guns in our house.

Rebecca - posted on 12/25/2010

@Michelle -- yes, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, there is considerable debate regarding what that was intended to mean and whether the Founding Fathers ever intended to extend that protection to handguns (which didn't exist at the time of the Constitutional -- single shooters excluded) or to more serious weapons, like assault rifles. This debate isn't about banning handguns -- it's about whether you have a firearm in your house for protection when you have kids. No one is talking about your "right" to bear arms.

And I totally disagree about the pitbulls -- there are absolutely bad dogs.

Rebecca - posted on 12/25/2010

@Sally -- do you have any statistics to support that claim re: doctors?

Rebecca - posted on 12/25/2010

@Brittany -- Jim Jones was able to kill 1000 people with POISONED Koolaid because there were armed men with guns shooting the people who refused to drink the koolaid! If there no men with assault rifles, do you seriously think the end result would have been the same? And poison is illegal; guns are not.

Kate CP - posted on 12/25/2010

Doctors were created to SAVE lives not take them. When a doctor kills a patient it's an accident. When some one gets shot there's a 50/50 chance it was on purpose. And it takes longer for a doctor to kill 6 people than a person with a revolver.

Not the same thing at all.

Rosie - posted on 12/25/2010

we need doctors, nobody needs a gun. i can see how they can be useful for wild animals, but there are other alternatives.

Jodi - posted on 12/25/2010

"Ted Nugent was able to find the same amount of gun crime in the average London daily paper as in a comparable American newspaper. Maybe they were just having bad days when he was there? :)"

Has it occurred to you that you are comparing apples with oranges? In a large American city, they probably don't report EVERY shooting that occurs. In London, it probably is a big deal and WOULD be reported regardless of the severity of the situation. I'd say it is a study that is manipulating statistics.

I know the pro-gun lobby goes on about how much more gun crime there is in countries where gun laws are controlled, and how crime has actually increased, and so on. And it actually hasn't. I feel VERY safe in my home without a gun, even though I KNOW that there are people out there who can easily obtain guns illegally if they choose. I feel safe because it is SUCH a small risk in this country that ANYONE would be killed by a gun that no-one really gives it a thought. People can argue all they like about it, the fact is that fewer guns leads to fewer incidents. No-one is denying incidents still occur, because they do, but certainly, it is minimal.

Sally - posted on 12/24/2010

Actually, doctors kill many more people than guns do. Both in actual numbers and number of deaths per gun/deaths per doctor. When used properly, doctors can be a very good thing. Why would guns be any different?

Ooo - posted on 12/24/2010

lol. It's true. Dogs are a good warning system and even a deterant if they're big, but they're of little use if an intruder actually breaks in.

Kate CP - posted on 12/24/2010

Just an FYI...most dogs make horrible "security devices". They'll let you know when some one is on the property but most dogs will wag their tails and welcome intruders in.

Ooo - posted on 12/24/2010

I'm not a gun owner. I might keep firearms in my garage one day, but not in my house. To me a gun is a tool, not a weapon of protection.

Security doors and windows, dogs, and alarms have been proven to be better methods of protecting ones home and family. Most people I know who keep guns in their home have made no effort to use thses other methods of protection. In the event of an armed person breaking into your home, you have one good shot if you're lucky. The intruder will always have the edge because they're already awake and their gun is already loaded. I wouldn't want to rely on this to defend myself because I know I wouldn't win.

Michelle - posted on 12/23/2010

I will try to make this as simple as possible.

The reason there are so many gun owners in the U.S. has little to do with the old west, outlaw mentality and a lot more to do with this..

The United States was founded on a few basic priciples. It is the second ammendment in our constitution. The right to bear arms. It is one of the first RIGHTS citizens in the country received. When others start to question those rights or start trying to take away those rights, we the people tend to get a little upset. Why? Because if we wanted to live in a country where the Government controlled our every move, this country would have never been founded and most of us would still live in Europe/Asia/where ever... So for most of us Americans, we take the right to bear arms, a little more extreme than we need to. I own a handgun. A .45 to be exact. I own it for many reasons. A. because I like guns. B. because it is my constitutional right to do so. C. for protection. D. because my husband is in the Army and wants to make sure that I can protect our family in his absense. So while many of you can not understand the reasons we own guns. It is safe to say that regardless of what a person believes to be right or wrong about guns. When our government tries to take away one of our constitutional rights, we the people, won't stand for it. When we lose the right to bear arms, what is next?? Our Freedom of Speech? Our right to elect a Presidential leader? Our rights to a speedy trial? There are those in this country that exercise their rights to bear arms under a notion that one day they may have to protect themselves against the government. Is that far fetched? Maybe. Nuclear war, mass hystria? I can think of a million reasons why I will keep my gun and exercise my constitutional right.

Oh and for all of you who keep talking about Pit bulls, can you please try to remember that there are NO bad dogs, just BAD owners.

Rosie - posted on 12/23/2010

simply not as deadly as a gun brittany. sure other things kill, but not nearly as much as a gun. mortality rates for a gunshot wound to the heart is 84% compared to 30% for stabwounds to the heart. a couple hundred with koolaid isn't anything compared to gunshot murders of just children. over 3,000 in a year!! sorry that's just silly to compare the 2 things.



i do think we need less guns around, i completely believe it will help. but i do see what you guys are saying, and i feel personally that getting rid of poverty in this country would solve so many problems. most problems with crime, and drugs and everything is in the inner city where kids are poor. dirt poor. they see what their parents do, or the guy on the corner selling drugs has a shit ton of money, that's my way out!! they follow what they know. we get rid of poverty we get rid of the reason why people turn to crime, which leads to gun violence.



that is most of the reason why i feel the conservative way is the wrong way. you can't have the top 1% of the population have 90% of the money ( or whatever it is-it's a high number) it just doesn't work. sure it seems unfair to redistribute wealth, but the country doesn't work when so many people are struggling.

i feel systems like australias are awesome. they help everybody. universal healthcare, all of the money they get for having kids, time off, and everything. they really seem to take care of their people. i think that is a huge part of the reason for less gun crime.

Kate CP - posted on 12/23/2010

The fact of the matter is that you can kill more people in a shorter amount of time with one revolver than you can with a pint of frickin' Koolaid or even a dagger. Yes, guns are a tool. They are a dangerous tool and their sole purpose is to kill things (not necessarily humans, but animals or what have you). You cannot argue that fact. A gun is built to kill something. Unless you have an old musket that only fires once until you load it again you can't tell me that any other method of homicide is more effective, easier to conceal, or faster.

Kate CP - posted on 12/23/2010

Brittany: You're actually going to use the analogy that a man who took years to brainwash people, moved them to another country, and eventually convinced them he was the messiah and to kill themselves for him is the same as a man walking into a crowded mall with an automatic rifle and gunning down complete strangers?

Brie - posted on 12/23/2010

@ Rebecca.. I disagree with that... there are several ways to make other things just as dangerous... look at the jim jones case he killed a few hundred people with Koolaid!!! I find that to be just as dangerous as a gun... anybody could slip something into your drink without realizing it... will you stop drinking stuff now?? not trying to be mean just asking!

Barb - posted on 12/23/2010

Hotel Rwanda comes to mind, Rebecca and Brittany. The only one i saw with guns were the soldiers from the U.N. The only ones i saw killing were the ones with the machetes.

Sally - posted on 12/23/2010

@ Kate--Ted Nugent was able to find the same amount of gun crime in the average London daily paper as in a comparable American newspaper. Maybe they were just having bad days when he was there? :)
They do make handguns that will one-shot a bear. They are awkward to carry and uncomfortable to fire, but if I were out in a bear-y area, I'd hang one on my belt. Also if I hit the right areas, 2-3 shots from my revolver would bring down a bear and I could empty the cylander (6 rounds) in under a minute.
I do have to give kudos to the anti-gun lobby. The fact that so many people hate and fear an inanimate object is proof of how well they push emotion over facts. If I were that good at pushing people's buttons, I could rule the world.

Rebecca - posted on 12/23/2010

@Brittany -- yes, you can make anything into a weapon but there are very few things you could possibly make into a weapon as dangerous as a gun.