AlphaTangoMike

Funny how people are so vocal about their anti-gun feelings. As Sultan said, guns are inanimate items, it's the people who are typically at fault. I didn't see the same 'anti-drink driving' responses in the other thread - and more people die each year as a result of a car. (Think of the children! )

petitefrancaise

Legal or not, personal choice or not, I would recommend reading Havard School of Public Health's Injury Control Research Center's section on Firearms before having a gun in your home. At least then you make a well-informed decision.

Firearms Research | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

petitefrancaise

Garbatellamike

A gun is merely a tool no better or worse than the person who uses it.........

Sally Redux

Lot of idiots out there.

SultanOfSwing

In fairness, there are just as many unarmed idiots as armed ones. I think we should probably tackle the idiot problem first

Tirytory

Your analogy doesn't work in this case though as Archery is a sport and the op doesn't want to use the gun for sport or hunting..he specifically wants it for protection...so his only point of keeping the gun is to harm or kill someone if the need arises. You might not intend to hurt someone with your arrow but the op is...

Oh and the everyone else has one reason of course...there's an idiotic reason.

Garbatellamike

Oh yes

Sally Redux

If only.

AlphaTangoMike

The OP is not intending to hurt/kill someone at all. The point of having a gun for protection is to defend yourself, should the need arise. (Unless they're going out provoking people and waiting for them to attack).

In this scenario, it's like having an insurance policy ('better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it').

It's crazy how all of the firearm related threads turn into political debate. There have not been many responses to assist the OP's question.

scrubbedexpat099

If you are appealed why are you on this thread?

Tirytory

And what do you suppose the end result of that defence might be?

SultanOfSwing

The comparison might have been tenuous, but I was only trying to compare weapon to weapon. I am actually interested in trying out guns for sport (target shooting) so in my case, it actually does make sense.

However, having a gun for protection does not always automatically mean that you ever need to fire the gun. If your intruder is an unarmed opportunist, just seeing it, or hearing a round being chambered will probably be enough to scare him off. If they are armed themselves, at least you've leveled the playing field. I think that's fair enough, as long as the person who enters into the arrangement of owning a weapon for defense understands everything that it entails, from safety and handling to the reality of what happens when you are faced with having to use it.

AlphaTangoMike

I would suppose that the attacker would no longer be a threat and that the OP would be safe. I.e. that the tool was fit for purpose.

This is still different from intending to cause the death of someone else. (I.e. I'm not advocating going out and looking for trouble).

Ever heard of castle doctrine? If someone forcefully enters my home (uninvited), they are not going to be walking out on their own. (This applies even in the pro-criminal state/city of New York). Outside of your dwelling, you have a duty to retreat.

Let's look at it from a different perspective, what would YOU do if you woke up with a 'bump' in the night? Another poster mentioned having an alarm, motion sensors and pepper spray, would you hope that these keep you safe (once your home has been invaded)? Your other option, call 911 and wait for their 'best response time'?

Pulaski

One less idiot? ..... Or two or three if you're lucky.