Related Information to Having A Gun In The House

Having A Gun In The House - Page 4

If you require that all guns are kept in safes, then they aren't available when a criminal tries to break into the house. So, you might as well not have the gun. If you require a lock on a handgun when you are travelling, and someone is trying to rape you, your handgun is useless, and the rapist will win.

So, how do you propose to do this? Again, such restrictions effectively take away your ability to defend yourself.

Or, will you now demand that all police officers have trigger locks on their handguns? How about requiring soldiers in battle to keep their rifles in gun safes? Yes, a private citizen is far less likely to need their weapons to protect themselves. But they will be even MORE urgent to do so if the need arises.

The best protection for children where guns are in the home is training. I am perfectly happy with requiring proof of training before someone is allowed to purchase a gun. I am also perfectly fine with governments supporting free or cheap safety training for children. In fact, I would support firearms training for children throughout school, as it would reduce the incidence of accidents.

150 years ago, everyone owned guns in the US. And there were relatively few accidents (except for those caused by poor quality guns and powder). Children were taught to use guns safely and correctly at a young age. Now, children aren't taught to use guns, nor are they taught what they really are or what they are capable of. So, when they are curious, they play with them, and accidents happen.

So, once again, what would you propose?

House The Gun Having

You will agree with me that the times were far different than the ones we are living. Parents were different and children were different, they had more responsibilities connecting with their own household maintance and nowdays most children are given everything from the parents. I do not think the children of today are as mature as children 150 years ago therefore I do have concerns regards to training on this matter. I agree with you concerning the safety issues and the urgency to use the weapon when you need it, yet I am more concerned about an innocent person ending up dead because of it. I just do not see a way to control it and because I do not see a proper way to do it, I do not think is wise to keep a gun at home.

Having A Gun In The House History & Civil Business Politics

If this was a reply to my post maybe I was unclear. I was speaking of home owners guns. Keeping them locked when they know their kids will be at home unsupervised. When you walk in the door by all means unlock your weapons, soon it would become part of your daily routine.

Comparing police and soldiers to guns in the house around kids, is like Comparing apples to onion's. For a flight member in the military. I was required to qualify on the weapon and pass a safety test every six months.From my knowledge police officers have the same training and follow up qualifying standards. Kids are left with the curiosity, and the thrill factor when not trained to respect guns

Edited: Kozak on 29th Nov, 2005 - 9:26am

Page 4 House The Gun Having

I can't speak of Britain and Canada, but this is certainly not the case in Australia. Where did you get these statistics from? Gun related violence will always increase with population growth. The fact is, if it is harder to acquire guns then it is impossible for gun related violence to increase.

My whole point is that if you rid guns from the common man, there is far less chance a gun can be used to hurt someone, whether in attack or defence. If you actually compare statistics around the world, the US has the highest incidence of gun related offences simply because there are so many guns out there.

Where did you get this stat from? Are they prevented by citizens who then shoot the criminal? Are citizens killing people in self defence much more easily?

If a criminal is serious about a crime they are going to commit it, gun law or not. But then you have a confrontational situation where a citizen will pull a gun in self defence and someone is guaranteed to get hurt or killed.

But the real danger of guns is if you make them easily accessible then they are far more likely to fall into foul hands. Whether that be a pyscho or a child toying around.

My biggest fear of visitng the US is knowing that if I look at some lunatic the wrong way they could easily threaten me with a gun. I don't have that fear in every other place I have visited around the world.

House The Gun Having

So, when a woman is being followed, and rushes into her home to pick up a shotgun to defend herself, she must first (while flustered and scared) remember the combination to the gun safe, find the shells, load the gun, and then protect herself from the stalker. Sounds like a good way to get killed to me.

Why? Many police officers are killed by their own guns! Criminals take the gun away from the police officer, and shoot the officer, or other people.

The point is, people need to be able to protect themselves. When their weapons are locked up, have trigger locks on them, etc, they are unable to protect themselves. Police and military always have their weapons ready because they will be in urgent situations. Common, law-abiding citizens will also.

I just used Google, with "Australia crime rates" as the search, and found lots of interesting information - both ways. I will accept immediately that I don't see evidence that crime rates have significantly risen since the gun ban, but I also don't see a significant decrease in violent crime in Australia since the gun ban. I am NOT talking just about gun crimes! I am talking about all sorts of violent crime!

Where did you get this stat from? Are they prevented by citizens who then shoot the criminal? Are citizens killing people in self defence much more easily?

This was an easy one.
Start here: https://www.gunowners.org/fs9901.htm
This is a very thoroughly documented page.

How do you expect people to protect themselves? Police can't protect or defend the citizens. They can only investigate and stop criminals AFTER the crime. That is, unless the police officer happens to be at the scene of the crime as it is being committed. It doesn't do much good for a police officer to arrive at the scene of a rape 10 seconds after it happens, and catch the criminal. It still happened. But if the potential victim can brandish a handgun, the crime can be stopped before it occurs. In fact, the criminal can be stopped and held for the police, and many other crimes can be prevented by that simple action.

The real danger is that psychos can use rocks, boards, kitchen knives, cars, boats, their hands, ropes, or anything else in the world to destroy lives. If the potential victims are armed, they can stop the psychos before the crime happens.

Again, if just one person is raped, killed, or assaulted because of a gun control law that has disarmed the victim, then the gun control law is to blame and should be repealed.

Having A Gun In The House

Nighthawk I am not suggesting that if guns are banned crime is going to drop. If that was the case criminals would all be out of a job.

What I am saying is if there are less guns in the world, there would be less gun-related injury and death. That is just common sense really. No guns means no gun deaths. It doesn't mean no deaths or crime.

It's no surprise the US has one of, if not the highest rates of gun related deaths per capita. I'm certain the incidence of people being killed, whether they are criminal or civilian will drop with a firearms ban.

Criminals don't always want to kill or even hurt their victims. There are few crimes where they get a great deal of value out of killing innocent people. By the same token not all civilians want to do likewise. But if a civilian pulls a gun on an armed criminal robbing a house, the situation immediately escalates. If that civilian doesn't know how to properly use their firearm, which I'm sure is common, then they have a good chance of being hurt. Or they might even kill the criminal unintentionally, which in Australia is called manslaughter.

It's not the job of Police to shoot criminals. The Police's role is to arrest criminals, shooting should be a last resort, which I think is a good policy. If the Police can not secure a community because of crime then perhaps addressing social problems that lead to crime might be the answer. Arming more people can only lead to more destruction. The police ID error rate is disturbing and says more about the respective police force than anything else.

Sure they can use other methods. But it is much easier for them to kill someone with a gun. Why make their job easier? The term "potential" victim I think sums up my point. You are either a victim or not. How can you justify killing a "potential" criminal before they have committed a crime? Anyone could be a criminal. They don't wear uniforms or brandish big signs on their head saying "I'm about to commit a crime."

Well if you compare gun related deaths per capita in the US to other countries where firearms are banned, I think you will find guns are responsible for destroying far more lives then they save.

Having Gun The House - Page 4

What I AM saying is that experience shows that when gun ownership rises, crime does drop!

If there were no guns in the world, at all, perhaps you are right. However, even with my limited knowledge and experience, I can make a gun that would work. And many criminals know how to do the same. There are also always rogue gunsmiths available.

In other words, the dream of having no guns at all in the world is a pipe dream. Gun control laws take guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens, since we will go ahead and obey that law. Criminals will find a way to get the guns they want, and will use them in crimes. If they KNOW that there are few, if any, guns, they will be more confident.

Read some of the reports that are in the pages I linked to.

If you are going to use that logic, we had better ban cars, trains, bathing, swimming, etc. Because all of those things ALSO cause deaths. As I offered yesterday, the statistics show that guns are used to stop crimes 60 times MORE than are used to cause death or injury, including all sorts of accidents, in the US.

Having Gun The House Politics Business Civil & History - Page 4

What is wrong with my logic? Guns were created to kill people. That is their sole purpose. By stopping crimes, are they injuring or killing people? Not always, but certainly more so than if guns weren't used at all. I'd rather live in a country that isn't notorious for gun related deaths. It certainly makes me feel safer.

And is stopping a crime always justification to use a firearm? Is it worth shooting someone who is robbing your house? I don't think so. Not all criminals want to rape or murder people. And if there is bad crime in an area, there is often a social issue at the heart of it. Isn't remedy better than cure?

I do police rounds at work and see first hand the devestation of gun-related homicides. Thankfully there aren't that many in Australia, but if guns were legalised I know my job would be that much busier. Criminals will always get hold of firearms, but when you have two people brandishing these weapons it is more likely that someone will get hurt.

There is no way in Australia that if guns were legalized crime would drop. That is simply impossible.