or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Your thoughts on guns, please...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your thoughts on guns, please... - Page 5

post #81 of 163
Tigerchild - I agree with you generally on the historical and current context, even though we do have swords around my house and not so many guns. Mind you I also got disinvited to an SCA event in my youth because I wanted to wander around as a diseased beggar.

I still don't mind the play (sword or gun) provided the "only if the other person agrees" rule is enacted and I still am not that comfy with toys guns. We talk about it sometimes and sometimes we don't and just play.

I was reminded of a pretty cool article I read once about one of the 'realistic' video war games (Call of Duty maybe)? This teen (I think about 17, not a young teen) wanted to play and his parents didn't want him to. They negotiated in the end that he could play but only if he read, absorbed and FOLLOWED the Geneva convention. I thought that had to be one of the coolest compromises in the history of modern parenting.
post #82 of 163
I think it's good for kids to explore things in a safe way. It's also good to explain to them the real consequences of war, guns, violence, and accidents involving guns. My 9yo dd just got Lego Star Wars Wii game on the recommendation of a friend of hers. She loves it. She's a peace-loving vegetarian girl who wants to be a biologist and research endagered species. The other day she told me she wished everyone would just get along in the world and have no war and all be friends. I have no concerns about her turning violent at some point just from playing the game where people have sword and gun fights. I give my kids credit for knowing the difference between play and reality.
post #83 of 163
Based on 30 years of anec-data, I'd say that I've yet to meet anyone who is anti-gun as an adult because their parents didn't allow toy gun play. My mom, as I said earlier, was very anti-gun. I love target shooting. My DH's mom didn't allow guns. Both of her sons are former Army, and still like going to the range.

The people I've encountered who are anti-gun in their parenting either had an experience with losing someone to gun accidents or violence, or who just find them icky (like my mom and MIL.)

I think forbidding gun play only works in the short-term- the kids don't play with guns, but doesn't instill a lifelong dislike of them.
post #84 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
Is it self-defense, or revenge? Because the safest home is one without guns at all, because most injuries and accidents are from your own guns. Most people never get to shoot at an intruder.
Statistically, the safest home is one without a swimming pool. Guns come in a long distance down the list of home dangers. I would love to see a source for your claim that "most injuries and accidents are from your own guns", because it's one I've never heard even from the most ardent anti-gun groups. In fact most accidents at home are from falls, if I'm remembering my CDC statistics correctly.

A gun safety instructor will sternly inform you that there's no such thing as an "accidental discharge"--only a negligent one. A parent who doesn't secure her guns is as negligent as one who leaves prescription medication lying around, or keeps Drano in reach of a toddler, or leaves the keys in her unlocked car with young children playing about, or owns an unfenced, unlocked pool and leaves the exterior doors wide open. We all have many dangerous things in our home, but no one is suggesting that we should ban prescription drugs, drain cleaner, swimming pools, kitchen knives, or staircases. Instead, we should take the obvious precautions to make sure they're inaccessible to little ones.

In a substantial number of cases in which guns are used to stop a crime in progress, the gun is never even fired. Simply knowing that a potential victim is armed and ready to defend herself is frequently enough to deter a violent criminal. However, a person who attacks my family or me with the intent of causing us harm will be stopped in whatever way necessary until they are no longer a threat. They made the choice to attack an innocent, and so they took the risk that that innocent would be willing and able to fight back. I don't believe that a woman lying raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose is morally superior to one who is explaining to the police why that same rapist is lying gunshot on her bedroom floor.

Again, the right to defend oneself from harm is sacred to my family, and to most others I know who are firearms owners. We do not believe that an attacker has more right to safety and security than his intended victim. You are welcome to disagree, and I assure you that if it makes you so uncomfortable, we will never use our guns to defend you and your family.

Incidentally, the Cornered Cat addresses this very issue eloquently and thoroughly. Guns bring out strong emotions in people and it can be hard to think about them rationally. But it's important to try if you really want to understand why on Earth any sane person would want a gun in the house.
post #85 of 163
OP: If you're still reading, I wanted to make one point that I think I hinted at earlier, but didn't state explicitly.

I don't control my children's pretend play. I just don't do it. Barring someone being hurt in real life (physically, such as sword play turning into "hit each other with sticks" or emotionally, as in exclusionary "we don't want you in this game, because you suck at it" stuff), I let them play. It feels really...icky to me to try to control what someone else is allowed to think, pretend, or imagine. To me, that's a more...antisocial? act than pointing a stick at a friend and saying, "bang, bang - you're dead" (not that I ever heard ds1 use those words), if that friend has no problem with the game. Other obviously disagree with me, but it's something I have strong feelings about.


ETA: "Antisocial" isn't quite the word I'm looking for, but I'm going to let it stand until I can figure out what word I really want.
post #86 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErinYay View Post
Based on 30 years of anec-data, I'd say that I've yet to meet anyone who is anti-gun as an adult because their parents didn't allow toy gun play. My mom, as I said earlier, was very anti-gun. I love target shooting. My DH's mom didn't allow guns. Both of her sons are former Army, and still like going to the range.

The people I've encountered who are anti-gun in their parenting either had an experience with losing someone to gun accidents or violence, or who just find them icky (like my mom and MIL.)

I think forbidding gun play only works in the short-term- the kids don't play with guns, but doesn't instill a lifelong dislike of them.
Well, you've met one now. My father is, to this day, a gun enthusiast (a former hunter, but he's too old now). When my siblings and I were growing up (60's and 70's), gun "play" was forbidden. There were always guns in our house, and Dad did a good job of keeping them under lock and key, but he taught us to respect them, not include them in our imaginary "play". I used to shoot when I was a teen and even became a pretty good shot with a rifle. I remember the first time I shot a handgun, and while I don't remember the caliber, it literally knocked me on my butt and the recoil caused me to hit my forehead with my gun hand and left a bruise both on my forehead and my thumb. That taught me that these are not toys, but serious business and not something to even pretend. My father always said that "guns are not pretend... if you shoot, you always shoot to kill, and that's not fun". I grew up around guns, but with a father that prohibited "gun play".

Forbidding gun-play certainly worked for me.
post #87 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by peainthepod View Post
Statistically, the safest home is one without a swimming pool. Guns come in a long distance down the list of home dangers. I would love to see a source for your claim that "most injuries and accidents are from your own guns", because it's one I've never heard even from the most ardent anti-gun groups. In fact most accidents at home are from falls, if I'm remembering my CDC statistics correctly.

.
Guns do come far down the list on accidental injuries and deaths. That, however, is not the question (or shouldn't be the question).

The question should be: what is the liklihood of needing to defend oneself against a violent intruder versus the liklihood of an accidental shooting?

I am sure there are stats from both sides - and how you decide some of it may be regional (there are regional differences in rates of violence).

Here is what the AAP has to say:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;105/4/888

and the University of Michigan:

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

Personally, I would not have guns in the house with young children. I do not think it is safe - and I do not think you can train children enough to leave guns alone. They are kids, some are bound to be curious, goof up/show off...and that is how tragedies happen

We make our own decisions on the matter, I guess.
post #88 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Guns do come far down the list on accidental injuries and deaths. That, however, is not the question (or shouldn't be the question).
It is the question if the claim is made that "most accidents" are from guns in a home. They are not.

Quote:
The question should be: what is the liklihood of needing to defend oneself against a violent intruder versus the liklihood of an accidental shooting?
Countless crimes are thwarted by lawful gun owners every year. This is acknowledged by the FBI and Justice Department. The numbers vary depending on locality, but simply showing a holstered pistol is commonly enough to stop a mugging, rape, or murder. Some carefully compiled statistics are available in this PDF (free): http://GunFacts.info/

Quote:
I am sure there are stats from both sides - and how you decide some of it may be regional (there are regional differences in rates of violence).
Some of it is definitely regional. Interestingly, areas with stricter rates of gun control often have higher rates of violent crime, much of it gun crime. This makes perfect sense if you think like a criminal; would you rather prey on people who are likely to be armed, or law-abiding citizens who walk around dutifully unarmed and defenseless?

Quote:
Personally, I would not have guns in the house with young children. I do not think it is safe - and I do not think you can train children enough to leave guns alone. They are kids, some are bound to be curious, goof up/show off...and that is how tragedies happen

We make our own decisions on the matter, I guess.
I don't think anyone who is uncomfortable with guns should have them in the home. I don't think anyone who is unwilling to shoot an attacker, if it comes to that, should have guns in the home. I don't think anyone who's unwilling to train with their weapon on a regular basis should have guns in the home. Gun ownership carries with it huge responsibilities and is definitely not for everyone.

I do think that everyone should teach their child the Eddie Eagle rules of gun safety, at the very least, because children will not be in a gun-free home forever. There are lots of guns and there are plenty of places in which a child might encounter a found gun. Knowing what to do-- Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult! --could save a life. The EE program doesn't promote gun ownership or Second Amendment rights, by the way. It's a bit like the stop, drop, and roll program we all learned as kids. Easy to remember and very effective.

I would never say that everyone should have to own and use guns. I just hope people who choose not to own and use guns would extend to me and mine the same freedom of choice.

Sorry to get off-topic, OP! I know this thread was never intended to turn into a debate re: the merits of confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens versus empowering people to legally defend themselves from violent crime. It sounds like you've gotten a lot of great input here (as have I) and I'm thrilled that this thread has remained so civil.
post #89 of 163
I find it interesting reading these posts - I never really worry about my kids finding a gun in someone's home. And we have guns, because my husband hunts and shoots competitively.

But it's illegal not to lock them up, with ammunition locked up separately. But I think this seems like a cultural thing to me - I just don't expect guns to ever be where kids could get them.
post #90 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by peainthepod View Post



Some of it is definitely regional. Interestingly, areas with stricter rates of gun control often have higher rates of violent crime, much of it gun crime. This makes perfect sense if you think like a criminal; would you rather prey on people who are likely to be armed, or law-abiding citizens who walk around dutifully unarmed and defenseless?

[I]Bolding mine.

Canada does have stricter gun control than the US with a lower rate of violent crime. So while we agree on the "regional thing" - I am not sure we agree on the why. I do not think stricter or gun control equals higher rates of crime - at least not in general. . I am not sure that matters on an individual sense - people live where they live and make their choices based on their area.
[/I]


I do think that everyone should teach their child the Eddie Eagle rules of gun safety, at the very least, because children will not be in a gun-free home forever. There are lots of guns and there are plenty of places in which a child might encounter a found gun. Knowing what to do-- Stop! Don't touch! Leave the area! Tell an adult! --could save a life. The EE program doesn't promote gun ownership or Second Amendment rights, by the way. It's a bit like the stop, drop, and roll program we all learned as kids. Easy to remember and very effective.


I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Just because I do not choose to have a gun in my house - does not mean other people make the same choices. Sticking ones head in the sand could lead to tragedy.


I would never say that everyone should have to own and use guns. I just hope people who choose not to own and use guns would extend to me and mine the same freedom of choice.

In many ways I do. I do not share your desire to own a gun, but I acknowledge you as the parent have the right to make decisions for your family. I am less inclined to support carrying laws, but that is another post, I think.

On the topic of toy guns - I sort of allowed it. I do not like playing guns - but felt imposing my "don't do it!"*would (perhaps) make them more inclined to do it. Forbidden fruit and all that. I also do not beleive in interferring with childrens play unless someone is going to get hurt emotionally or physically. Moreover, gunplay did lead to some social, active time - and that is not bad. I only bought water pistols, although my son spent some of his money on toy guns. I had long preached - your money: do what you want with it - so I was not going to veto the toy guns. I have also been quite vocal (from time to time) about what I did not like about playing guns - and in this way got across my values. For some kids this path would have sent mixed messages, but I believe my allowing playing while discussing real guns and violence was the best course for my family.

I think playing guns is different from pretending to beat up someone of a different race because gun play is a way of sorting out aggression issues (that may or may not be present in all of us - another post, yet again!), while beating up a spouse or person of a different race is about discrimination against a certain set of people. I totally think the gun thing is cultural - although the instinct to play/sort out aggression may be innate.

Mostly, though, I have allowed gun play because I do not think gun play leads to real violence. Many Canadian children play with toy guns - but overall we are a fairly safe nation. Gun play does not equal real violence.

The roots of violence lie elsewhere I think.
post #91 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by peainthepod View Post
Statistically, the safest home is one without a swimming pool.
I meant, compared to a home with guns. "Safest" as regards gun presence is concerned.

Obviously there are a gazillion other variables that could make a person more or less safe.
Quote:
Interestingly, areas with stricter rates of gun control often have higher rates of violent crime, much of it gun crime. This makes perfect sense if you think like a criminal; would you rather prey on people who are likely to be armed, or law-abiding citizens who walk around dutifully unarmed and defenseless?
Nooo... people who are most likely to be harmed by guns are more likely to pass legislation restricting gun ownership. Larger cities with larger populations of very poor people have more criminals; gun laws are often passed by other city-dwellers worried about the criminals.

Quote:
It is the question if the claim is made that "most accidents" are from guns in a home. They are not.
No, nobody wrote that AT ALL.

And the question is, do people allow gun play?

Guns don't make homes safer, period. There are many studies that show this. They simply don't. Somewhat safe=own a gun for self defense or whatever, safer=lock it up and hide the key, safest=no guns in the home.

Once again, this has nothing to do with swimming pools. I'm talking gun safety, not general safety.

Yes, car accidents happen and we don't ban cars. This is irrelevant because we've made a communal decision that cars are worth it (most of us have, anyway). Most people think guns aren't. I'm all for the freedom to own a personal gun but don't kid yourself.
post #92 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluegoat View Post
I find it interesting reading these posts - I never really worry about my kids finding a gun in someone's home. And we have guns, because my husband hunts and shoots competitively.

But it's illegal not to lock them up, with ammunition locked up separately. But I think this seems like a cultural thing to me - I just don't expect guns to ever be where kids could get them.
That's interesting to me. I assume that if there is a gun in the house, the children will know exactly where it is and how to get at it, and that the parents will be clueless that this is so.
post #93 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
I meant, compared to a home with guns. "Safest" as regards gun presence is concerned.
I would argue that a home without guns is less safe than a home with secured guns and responsible gun owners, because it's more vulnerable to a home invasion and violent crime. I guess it's subjective.

Quote:
Nooo... people who are most likely to be harmed by guns are more likely to pass legislation restricting gun ownership. Larger cities with larger populations of very poor people have more criminals; gun laws are often passed by other city-dwellers worried about the criminals.
Most gun crimes, an overwhelming majority, are committed by people who own their guns illegally. Because they're criminals, they don't worry about pesky things like gun laws. Cities with the most stringent gun laws are often extremely violent, with terrifying numbers of deadly shootings --Chicago and Washington, D.C. come to mind.

Quote:
And the question is, do people allow gun play?
Some do, some don't. The answers in this thread seem to indicate that even non gun-owning families allow gun play with certain boundaries. (I'm assuming you mean with toy guns or imaginary guns, not careless play with actual guns. *shudder* )

Quote:
Guns don't make homes safer, period. There are many studies that show this. They simply don't. Somewhat safe=own a gun for self defense or whatever, safer=lock it up and hide the key, safest=no guns in the home.
I would love to see sources for these studies. I'm always looking to learn more about gun crime statistics and gun ownership, so anything you could share backing up your statements would be really helpful. The PDF I posted above, which is compiled from official crime stats, soundly refutes your claims.

Quote:
Once again, this has nothing to do with swimming pools. I'm talking gun safety, not general safety.

Yes, car accidents happen and we don't ban cars. This is irrelevant because we've made a communal decision that cars are worth it (most of us have, anyway).
It's about relative safety and putting things into perspective. A home with no bath tubs or stairs is safer than a home with both, but most reasonable people agree that it would be silly to assert that your child should never visit a home that has bath tubs and stairs. Responsible gun ownership is possible, and teaching children gun safety is possible, as millions of happy American gun-owning families can attest. The statistics simply don't bear out the statement that a home with guns in it is less safe than one without. Millions and millions of American children are raised in gun-owning households without incident. Many of them are taught to handle and fire guns from a very early age, and grow into responsible gun-owning adults.

It's completely your choice to refuse to associate with gun owners and to refuse to allow your children into a home containing guns. No one has ever argued otherwise. I just feel compelled to point out that the choice may not be entirely evidence-based, as so many beliefs about an emotional topic like private gun ownership tend not to be. We all have to do the best we can with the information we have, right?

Quote:
Most people think guns aren't. I'm all for the freedom to own a personal gun but don't kid yourself.
I don't know about the "most people think guns aren't" statement. That certainly varies by location and culture. Where I live, almost everyone, from the little old lady down the road to the AP homebirthing, babywearing, organic farming family on the corner are gun owners. So the blanket statement that guns aren't considered a valuable tool in everyday life definitely doesn't apply to all or even most American populations.
post #94 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by peainthepod View Post
I would argue that a home without guns is less safe than a home with secured guns and responsible gun owners, because it's more vulnerable to a home invasion and violent crime. I guess it's subjective.
It's not subjective. More people are killed in accidental gun deaths than are killed by intruders.



Quote:
Most gun crimes, an overwhelming majority, are committed by people who own their guns illegally. Because they're criminals, they don't worry about pesky things like gun laws. Cities with the most stringent gun laws are often extremely violent, with terrifying numbers of deadly shootings --Chicago and Washington, D.C. come to mind.
These guns get into the market through people who buy them legally and re-sell.

Quote:
I would love to see sources for these studies. I'm always looking to learn more about gun crime statistics and gun ownership, so anything you could share backing up your statements would be really helpful. The PDF I posted above, which is compiled from official crime stats, soundly refutes your claims.
Quote:
Responsible gun ownership is possible, and teaching children gun safety is possible, as millions of happy American gun-owning families can attest. The statistics simply don't bear out the statement that a home with guns in it is less safe than one without.
Nobody said that you cannot be safe in a home with guns.

I said it's safer without.

Quote:
It's completely your choice to refuse to associate with gun owners and to refuse to allow your children into a home containing guns.
LEt's not bring straw men into this. Honestly. I for one never suggested such a thing.

Quote:
I don't know about the "most people think guns aren't" statement. That certainly varies by location and culture. Where I live, almost everyone, from the little old lady down the road to the AP homebirthing, babywearing, organic farming family on the corner are gun owners. So the blanket statement that guns aren't considered a valuable tool in everyday life definitely doesn't apply to all or even most American populations.
I didn't use a blanket statement. I'm talking about a majority of people... in the WORLD.

Sorry, don't live in the U.S. at present.
post #95 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by peainthepod View Post
I would argue that a home without guns is less safe than a home with secured guns and responsible gun owners, because it's more vulnerable to a home invasion and violent crime. I guess it's subjective.



Most gun crimes, an overwhelming majority, are committed by people who own their guns illegally. Because they're criminals, they don't worry about pesky things like gun laws. Cities with the most stringent gun laws are often extremely violent, with terrifying numbers of deadly shootings --Chicago and Washington, D.C. come to mind.
I don't have time at the moment to look for the stats, but I'll try to come back tomorrow and do that. In the meantime, the main point I want to make is that statistically (and I don't even know any gun groups that can or have successfully disputed this), IF you have a gun in your home AT ALL, it is far far more likely that that gun will be used on someone you know, NOT in the midst of that known person robbing you or something, but in the midst of a dispute, domestic violence, accidental shooting, or purposeful crime.

Similarly, the statistical odds of being a victim of a home invasion compared to someone you know getting shot with your gun don't even compare, unless you live in a high crime area.

So it's not that "homes with no guns are safer than homes with guns when it comes to home invasions", I don't think anyone's saying that. But if you don't live in a high crime area, the odds of you using your gun in a home invasion or in any other way to defend your family or property are SO MUCH SMALLER than the odds that that gun will be used on someone you know, *that* is why many feel it's best and safer to just not have guns at all.

Having said all that, we have a gun in our house, but I also live in a high crime area. But even as a responsible gun owner who does feel safer because we have one, the crime stats and gun stats speak for themselves on how it's most likely that gun will be used if it's ever used at all on a human. And it's unlikely to be used against a criminal stranger.
post #96 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
It's not subjective. More people are killed in accidental gun deaths than are killed by intruders.
Source, please. I imagine that varies greatly by country, state, town, and even county.

Quote:
These guns get into the market through people who buy them legally and re-sell.
Actually, in the United States most illegal guns are brought in via illegal arms smuggling, kind of like the drug trade. Others are stolen.

Quote:
Nobody said that you cannot be safe in a home with guns.

I said it's safer without.
And I'm asking you to support that statement with data.

Quote:
LEt's not bring straw men into this. Honestly. I for one never suggested such a thing.
I apologize for attributing that statement to you. It's been mentioned in this thread a few times.

Quote:
I didn't use a blanket statement. I'm talking about a majority of people... in the WORLD.

Sorry, don't live in the U.S. at present.
It's still a blanket statement, if you're talking about a majority of people anywhere. Again, it varies. And I do live in the U.S., where many millions of people own guns. I'm sure the gun culture is very different elsewhere.
post #97 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by LROM View Post
I don't have time at the moment to look for the stats, but I'll try to come back tomorrow and do that. In the meantime, the main point I want to make is that statistically (and I don't even know any gun groups that can or have successfully disputed this), IF you have a gun in your home AT ALL, it is far far more likely that that gun will be used on someone you know, NOT in the midst of that known person robbing you or something, but in the midst of a dispute, domestic violence, accidental shooting, or purposeful crime.
I'll be interested to see your stats on that, since every source I've seen, including from the Justice Department and the FBI which compiles such stats, suggests that lawful gun owners have lower rates of committing all crimes, including domestic violence, across the board.

Quote:
Similarly, the statistical odds of being a victim of a home invasion compared to someone you know getting shot with your gun don't even compare, unless you live in a high crime area.
I look forward to seeing hard evidence on this. The PDF I posted above refutes it absolutely. And unfortunately, many people do live in a high crime area. The most damaging thing about gun confiscation is that it mostly targets the working poor, who may not be able to afford to move from a high crime area but still deserve to be able to defend themselves from predators of the two-legged persuasion.

Quote:
So it's not that "homes with no guns are safer than homes with guns when it comes to home invasions", I don't think anyone's saying that. But if you don't live in a high crime area, the odds of you using your gun in a home invasion or in any other way to defend your family or property are SO MUCH SMALLER than the odds that that gun will be used on someone you know, *that* is why many feel it's best and safer to just not have guns at all.
Again, I look forward to seeing proof that refutes the documents I posted above. Regardless, if you're a responsible gun owner and have taken the time and responsibility to secure your firearms and teach your children gun safety, the odds that your child will harm himself or others with a gun are slim to none, as demonstrated by the many millions of children who live in gun-owning households without incident.

Quote:
Having said all that, we have a gun in our house, but I also live in a high crime area. But even as a responsible gun owner who does feel safer because we have one, the crime stats and gun stats speak for themselves on how it's most likely that gun will be used if it's ever used at all on a human. And it's unlikely to be used against a criminal stranger.
I think, as a gun owner, you might be surprised to learn that having a gun in the house, assuming you secure it, teach your children gun safety, and follow the Four Rules as religiously as they deserve to be followed, is no more dangerous than not owning a firearm. If you live in a high crime area, you already know that it's quite the opposite, actually.

I have to run so if I don't respond for awhile I'll try to get back to it later. Thank you for the food for thought and continued discussion, mamas!
post #98 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by peainthepod View Post
I would argue that a home without guns is less safe than a home with secured guns and responsible gun owners, because it's more vulnerable to a home invasion and violent crime. I guess it's subjective.
I have been the victim of home invasion. Believe me... if you have secured your weapons in a safe that requires a key and/or have them stored separately from the ammunition... you are just as vulnerable as any other joe-shmo without a gun because THERE IS NO TIME to get to your guns and unlock/load them. Better to learn some self-defense of the proactive rather than reactive type.
post #99 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by velochic View Post
I have been the victim of home invasion. Believe me... if you have secured your weapons in a safe that requires a key and/or have them stored separately from the ammunition... you are just as vulnerable as any other joe-shmo without a gun because THERE IS NO TIME to get to your guns and unlock/load them. Better to learn some self-defense of the proactive rather than reactive type.
I do agree that gun safes make home protection difficult. Our plan, when we purchase a handgun, will be to get one of the safes that opens in response to fingerprints to have next to the bed- ZERO chance of anyone but me or DH getting it, and it opens very quickly.

I think in general, the response time for obtaining your safely stored firearm in a home invasion situation will vary based on where you are in the house and where the entry is being made.

And there's no self-defense that's effective for frightened victims when the attacker has a gun. You can know all the tae kwon do in the world, but it's not going to stop a bullet.
post #100 of 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by velochic View Post
I have been the victim of home invasion. Believe me... if you have secured your weapons in a safe that requires a key and/or have them stored separately from the ammunition... you are just as vulnerable as any other joe-shmo without a gun because THERE IS NO TIME to get to your guns and unlock/load them. Better to learn some self-defense of the proactive rather than reactive type.
Yeah, I don't get this - if someone breaks into my house, how am I going to find my dh's keys, get down to the basement, unlock the gun, and the trigger lock if I want the pistol, go to the ammo safe and unlock it, and load the gun?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Your thoughts on guns, please...