Should I buy a gun?
 

Hey guys, this isn't meant to be a "which gun" thread, but a "should I get a gun" thread. I'm looking for opinions, stories, experiences, knowledge etc.

Here's why I'm asking: I grew up in a very nice town, we usually keep our doors/cars unlocked and the number one job of the police is breaking up high school parties and handing out DUI's. I had no realistic need of ever solving a problem using more force than my fists (fight) or feet (flight) would allow.

Now I go to school in Berkeley, and while I live two blocks off campus and rarely travel further than that by foot, it is still exponentially "sketchier" than living in quaint Los Gatos.

I haven't had more than a couple wackos saying weird things to me personally, but I am a bit more worried about my girlfriends safety (lives with me) as well as the safety of other female friends and family.

Yesterday my girlfriends mom came to our apartment, and texted "come get me bad guys here" when she arrived. It turned out that in our entryway stairs a couple guys were smoking crack (seriously witnessed through peephole), and telling my girlfriends mom how they could get away with anything because they thought they were 17. I was pretty un-nerved by the situation.

I don't want to have a situation come up in the next two years where I regret the fact that I didn't have a weapon available.

Any personal experiences with people in similar situations in the past?
Thanks guys,
Evan

Here's my take on this, and many others may disagree, but I don't care: if you have one and take it out, be prepared to use it. If you're prepared to use it, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

And that's where it gets tricky: people have no idea how many cases of deadly force used in self defense the "good" guy ends up going to jail. Its not a matter of right or wrong. Its a matter of proving to a court of your peers that you were absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt, forced to use your weapon. Its also having witnesses and whatever else, that will all help you prove this.

Very often it doesn't go down that way, and people get years in prison for it.

Is it worth it to you?
How many times are you in a situation where you literally have to fight for your life and there's no other way out?

CA laws are beyond terrible.
I bet you it will bring you more trouble than its worth.

My .02

get a samurai sword. Im actually in the same boat. looking to buy a 9mm at least. I wont be carrying it because i am not allowed to carry on school campus so i just carry a knife and a tactical flashlight. you might be better off getting a big knife you could carry which gives you a bit mroe sense of security.

like 18psi said, you have to ABSOLUTELY NEED the gun to pull it out and use it on someone or you will be in jail for a long time with penis in your buthole (winning) :giggle:

Ausfag here,

We dont have any carry laws here so it doesnt happen.

Can you get a gun and load it with non lethal rounds?

Dann

You cannot carry without a ccw here
Non-Lethal would land you in jail for quite a while here too

I'm sure other CA folks will chime in on the exact laws (since I don't know them to the letter), but its still a very big hassle. This isn't Texas

I'm interested in true stories that include someone like you or me getting a gun and actually finding it useful.

How would your girlfriend's mom have been safer if you had owned a gun at the time? Serious question.

I don't have any intention on getting a carry permit, I just want it in my house in a location I can get it out of a safe quickly.

I'm also interested to hear if anyone has any positive experiences.

As far as her being safer in that situation, obviously in that situation nothing happened. I think it is completely in the realm of possibility that the "next step" above that could happen, say at 8-10 pm instead of 4 pm, and one of the guys grab her rather than just spooking her. The low-lifes around here don't have much to live for, and those aren't the type of people I want to get into close physical contact with.

I had a few personal experiences...as sad as it is, it always was race related. One time I had a situation where 4 guys tried to pick a fight with me and 2 friends and the one guy shouted something that sounded like "cho mang...there's free ob dem!" I don't really want to go into it, but I got home unharmed. Had i have been carrying, the biggest guy would've had a 1911 .45 compact in his mouth, and he would've shit his pants in that parking lot while he watched his homies run to their civic bubble.

or

And this is much more likely:

you would be in jail for a couple years for doing that

or

they woulda taken out guns too and you'd be either dead or in jail for the rest of your life after a shootout.

Doesn't really sound all that smart or tough now, does it?;)

I think most people have this "perfect scenario" in their head, having never actually been in that situation, or having never had something unexpected happen to them, and they're real tough and cool because they've never been to the other extreme.


I know from personal experience (someone I know) is in Prison for the next 7 years, because him and a couple of his tough guy buddies went to settle some dispute with another tough guy group, the other guy pulled a gun and put it in his face, he managed to snatch it away from him and shoot him with it.

He's in his mid 20's. Won't get out til 2020

Not to argue with you, Vlad...but I guess things over here are much different than over there.

I'm sure they are. CA is pretty wussy when it comes to cars, guns, etc.

That's why I said "its not Texas".....Or whatever its like in other states.

If it were me, yes I would have a gun in the house. I'd probably never use it unless the occasional shooting range trip.

I don't think there is a need for a gun over another blunt object. But I'd be more concerned about having the gun there for my gf to use if necessary. If I ever got into a shitty situation I'd probably never run to a gun. But I know my gf would not be able to protect herself as much as I could. So I'd want to have her trained how to use it. Especially if I had kids as well.

I wonder what would happen in this situation were you a woman.

Legal system worldwide is fucked, prejudice rules.

Dann

sure! buy 6. leave them laying around your house.

honestly, just move to a nicer part of berkeley. I particularly enjoy the hills up near tilden park. aint no crack up there. rich people. only snort coke. do it inside their mansions.

I also love the hills up there and I would love to live up there, if I was driving to work every day. Alas, I am walking to school and moving to a nicer area would mean 30+ minutes walk home every day.

As of right now, it seems like owning a gun would be a bigger potential problem than a solution.

I'm still interested to see if anyone has some personal stories where someone or one of their loved ones was protected by the use or threat of use of a gun.

Based on the request of others opinions whether YOU need a gun or not proves you would not know when a situation actually needs a gun to benefit you. The most beneficial thing you should do is learn some self defense. I own guns, but my first choice of a weapon is my right fist, if that's not good enough I'd choose my telescopic baton before I look to pull my gun. Learn to protect yourself, most won't need to do more than fight off an attacker rather than fight for their life.

Witty... I'll lay it down the best that I can. I will caveat everything I say here by starting with... I'm not a lawyer and have never been faced with a deadly force encounter. However, I would say that I'm a student of modern self-defense and specifically the history and application of firearms for self-defense. I've read A LOT on the subject for civilians, and have a butt-ton of force-protection/security/anti-terrorism training in the military.

Your personal self-defense plan is a layered system, and your firearm is always the very last step. There are literally dozens of things a practiced person has done prior to reaching the point where pulling a trigger is required. There are even things that can be done between drawing your weapon and pulling the trigger to allow your enemy the opportunity to discontinue his actions.

One of the most critical things to know about the use of deadly force is the very limited set of circumstances you must be faced with (and be able to prove in court) before you can use it. In all actuality, deadly force use for civilians is almost identical to that of a police officer.

I'm going to quote something here that is very simple yet extremely complex:
Massad Ayoob (arguably the world’s foremost expert of use of deadly force) teaches a formula for determining the circumstances under which we would be justified in employing deadly force. The formula is both simple and yet complex. Deadly force is justified when you are confronted with "an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm" to either yourself or other innocents, whose innocence and situation you are totally certain about. You can't intervene with deadly force in a situation you come upon without knowing what's really happening. Don't make assumptions based on what seems to be happening. The danger must be clear and present, immediate and unavoidable. This formula is based on English Common Law and Dutch/Roman Law, and it applies in all fifty states. It is determined by three criteria which can be remembered by the acronym A.O.J. Think "Administration Of Justice". The situation must meet all three criteria.
A = Ability. The person deemed to be a threat must possess the ability or power to kill or maim.
O = Opportunity. The person deemed to be a threat must be capable of immediately employing his power to kill or maim.
J = Jeopardy. This means that the person deemed to be a threat must be acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude beyond doubt that his intent is to kill or cripple.

All of the above are judged by the doctrine of the "reasonable man". That is, what would a reasonable and prudent person have done in that situation knowing what the defendant knew at the time? After the fact information is inadmissible into the equation. Your defense of self-defense is affirmative if you knew all of the above at the time you employed deadly force

SO THERE IT IS, you must be able to convince a jury that you were afraid the other guy was going to kill you, and that you had no other choice but to use deadly force in self-defense.
A very common mistake for anybody looking to buy a gun for self defense is to completely miss the point of a self-defense in general. THE GOAL OF SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT TO KILL THE BAD GUY! The goal is simply to get the bad guy to stop doing whatever it is they’re doing that is causing you to fear for your life. There are only 2 ways that shooting somebody is going to accomplish that. The first way is through immediate physical incapacitation… ie, his body stops working to a degree that he is no longer physically in control of his body and able to hurt you. The second is through pain… pain is almost always a side-effect of getting shot. You might shoot somebody several times and not hit anything that physically incapacitates them… ie, in the arm or stomach or a glancing shot or whatever… that causes them so much pain they give up, but there’s nothing physically preventing them from coming at you… other than it hurts too much. Police officers have dumped entire magazines into guys on PCP and they still kept coming because it didn’t hurt and they didn’t hit anything vital.

Purchasing a firearm for self-defense is something that should be a very well-thought-out decision. In California, you can’t carry concealed without a license… and I PROMISE that you can’t get one in that county. You also can’t carry on campus, and you can’t leave the gun in your car. You could get a gun for home-defense, but your home does not extend to anything outside your door in an apartment complex setting. You can’t even carry a loaded gun from your car to your door in an apartment complex. I have a long list of highly effective solutions for ensuring your safety in your apartment that you should do before getting a gun. You also live in one of the most liberal anti-gun cities in a fully Democrat controlled state that just threw down with the most aggressive anti-gun legislation in the country… so you are literally not safe in your own home.

California does have a very good Castle Doctrine… but I wouldn’t put it past the DA up there to come after your ass with a Prius sized “negligent homicide” charge even if it was a crackhead walking into your bedroom with a loaded gun.

Discharging a weapon inside an apartment also presents some very real dangers should you miss. Since you are responsible for every round that leaves your gun, killing a neighbor asleep next door won’t be good. Firearm choice and ammo selection should be very well-researched. A large caliber pistol is a bad choice. A lot of people will recommend 9mm and fangible ammo, or a 20ga shotgun and medium shot. CONTRARY to popular belief, when shooting at standard self-defense distances (inside an apartment for example) you get very little “spread”… call it .75” to 1” per yard of spread, so 20 feet would be a 5” group of pellets, which means you still have to aim very good… but also means that if you don’t hit pretty dead center-mass, you’re going to miss with some of the pellets (where do they go?). But a shotgun is also fairly large and not a good choice for hallways or close-quarters… sucks huh?

I would say that buying a gun is ALWAYS a good choice, but for your specific situation it’s not that easy. First, you can’t leave it in the apartment unlocked… it has to go in a safe that a thief can’t easily take. Second, the safe will have to be located somewhere readily accessible to be of any use. Third, the safe will have to be a quick-opening biometric type. Fourth, you will have to establish where your safe firing lanes. Fifth, you need to pick the right gun and ammo.

Flipside… open carry at home. Within your residence, you can carry without restriction. When you get home, open the safe, holster up, and carry at all times in the residence. Put it on your nightstand when you sleep, and lock up the gun when you leave.

Me. Unless I’m going directly to or from the base in uniform, I’m armed… all the time… and I mean ALL THE TIME. I carry at home, in the yard, in the car, out in town, to friend’s houses, all day long, every day of the year. I carry a Glock 19, 15rd mag, Remington UMC 115gr JHP’s, typically at 2:30 in a slim IWB holster, currently a soft leather no-name model. It’s in the top-drawer during the night, and it comes out of the drawer and on my hip when I get out of the shower, and back in the drawer at night. I lock it up during the day when I’m at work, but the instant I get home, I head upstairs, take off my flight-suit, put on pants/shorts, and holster up. It’s routine, just like putting on my watch… I don’t even thing about it anymore. The wife is tolerant, but won’t even carry pepper spray.

Which brings me back to California… while you can’t CCW unless you’re rich or famous, you can carry a whole host of less-than-lethal weapons. Tasers (not fucking stun guns) are 100% legal in California for civilians… pepper spray as well. Tactical flashlights are worth their weight in gold when properly used.

Let me know if you need more info.

Seriously?!?

I think you might need a hobby Sam. You should buy a Miata.

Completely.

I hope I never need it. I pray I never need it. I live my life the best I can by going out of my way to avoid ever putting myself in a position where it becomes necessary to use it. I would say that I'm far less at risk of becoming a victim while carrying it because it forces me on many levels to run-not-walk away from any situation that gives me the slightest tingle that I don't like. I've been doing this long enough that the majority of my Spidey-senses are in place and a lot of the time, my personal security is done unconsciously. When I see something I don't like, I retreat, it just happens. On the other hand, when I'm with my family, everything is done consciously.

As always, the goal is to defuse a situation early enough in line so that the bad guy never gets into a position to be able to employ deadly force against you... this is where a layered plan is so critical.

The saying goes... there may come a time in your life when you need a gun in your hand more than anything you've ever needed before. It may never come, but if it does, and you don't, you have only yourself to blame, and probably won't be around to see how it turns out.

You don't put on your seatbelt on days you think you may be in an accident.
You don't charge your cel-phone on days you know you'll need to make a call.
You don't put batteries in your smoke detector the evening before there's a fire.

When carrying a gun is so easy, and the consequences for not carrying could be so severe... why not? In the end, carrying a gun is not because of what you do, how you behave, or the places you go, or things you do... it's about the other guy who woke up that morning and decided he was going to try and kill you, and there you two are, face to face, and he's doing it. It happens everyday to people who were simply unprepared. When a host of .380 pistols fit in your pocket better than an iphone, why wouldn't you? It's just a tool.

I'd say that if you have to ask if you *should* buy a firearm, that you maybe shouldn't. It indicates a lack of comfort and familiarity, which could compound a poor situation. And it's already been noted how the Republic of California handles self-defense.

If you do, get something small and easy to hide and conceal. A pocket .38 is great, so are the .380ACP's, if not expensive to practice with. Revolvers are generally more low maintenance, but pistols are easier to use. Go to a local range, I'm sure they'll let you rent a few weapons to see what feels good.

Normally, for self-defense I'd say carry the heaviest grain bullet your weapon can fire, but since you're in such a tightly packed area there's also the threat of over-penetration. You'll be legally responsible for over-penetration. Glaser safety slugs dispense maximum energy with minimum penetration. Practice with bullets with a similar weight.

And always remember the rules.

1. A gun is always loaded, especially if it isn't.
2. Don't point it at anything you aren't prepared to say goodbye to.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are looking down the sights.
4. Be aware of your target, and the area behind your target.

And I'd like to add that a weapon is an ultimate last resort, only to be used after all other options have been exhausted. Don't be some internet tough guy pointing your gun at people. You'll get killed, or go to jail.

As others have stated already, a gun is a great tool when you need it but should be the absolute last resort. Too many people have the perception that gun owners are quick to draw the weapon any time a situation gets hairy. This is a mistake and almost all gun enthusiasts I know will tell you straight up that while they believe everyone should carry it is an absolute last resort to every use the weapon for defense. You don't pull a gun because a crack head approaches you and makes you feel uncomfortable. You don't even pull it just because someone else brandishes a weapon. All you will do is escalate the situation. Every other option should be exhausted to avoid the conflict or escape the situation. As Sam stated a gun should only be pulled when you are ready to pull the trigger and that should only be when you are in great danger of being killed or maimed.

With that said I would still suggest that you purchase a gun for home defense according to the guidlines others have already stated. If you do buy a gun you need to practice with it at a gun range and take a few courses for safety and tactical training. The gun does not do you any good if using it is not second nature because in the event you actually do need to use it you cannot hesitate or make a mistake.

You should still buy another Miata.

I would get a baseball bat for dealing with punks smoking crack
I would get a gun to shoot at the range

You could also get a hatchet!

Russian Post!

Ice axe is another option. A lot neater than a hatchet!

Black Diamond Raven Ice Axe - Free Shipping at REI.com

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1360599881

You live in the "east bay area", which full of "no issue" counties in California... do you have a permit? Do you carry? Expandable batons are also illegal for civilians to carry in public in California.
County Map for California CCW Issuance - CalCCW

Taking a defensive pistolcraft class (or even the basic NRA pistol course), doing some homework, reading any of 100 books available on Amazon will give you the 90% basics on use of lethal force and even the classroom portion of basic defensive pistolcraft. There are hundreds of YT videos to watch as well. So while the OP faces difficulties and limitations on when/how/where he can use a firearm in self-defense, his "basic" lack of legal and tactical "book" knowledge can be remedied in an afternoon or two.

Learning a form of hands-on self defense is a great idea, but intentionally allowing somebody to close ground on you and allowing them access to your body when you have other means of keeping them at a distance is just plain fucking stupid.

Once the bad guy enters your bubble, the dynamics of the engagement change completely in his favor... if you don't already have a weapon in your hand, the odds of being able to employ it effectively once you're hand-to-hand are very low. I'd love to know what school or method teaches that a "fist fight" is a good first line of defense when you're carrying a "less than lethal" and "lethal" weapon on your person.

Police officers are required to employ the "force continuum" when on duty, but a civilian has no such legal compulsion. It's always a good idea to make it very clear to the bad guy that he has an "out" if you can. A simple verbal challenge "LEAVE ME ALONE OR I'LL SHOOT" during your draw is enough. Sometimes there isn't time for this, but if the bad guy continues against a visibly armed individual after a verbal challenge, a civilian is almost always justified in firing. The law changes significantly when inside the home in favor of the resident, particularly in Castle Doctrine states. CAVEAT: I AM NOT A LAWYER.

Yes, you have the natural right to protect yourself. Read everything SamNavy said, he ain't no punk in the sweezy New Eazy.

To the OP: Read Sam's posts plus this quote from Ryan_G:

Then, go back and re-read Sam's posts again.

I have a Remington 870 Express Tactical 12ga. It's 6+1 that I keep loaded with rubber slugs for in my house, the slugs can no doubt be lethal if shooting someone in the head. But when shooting at a torso they can be a very well deterrent. The slug travels at 565fps. I also have tactical slugs, and other rounds for clay shooting and target shooting. I am no hunter, I just like to shoot things.

Onto a CCW, I do not know every single law. I do know my brother just got his about 3 weeks ago, he applied last year for it. But this is in Stanislaus County and our sheriff allows CCW permits. He carries a 1911 Colt .45. Why he carries, I do not know. But he is just an average Joe with a clean background, and in this county that is all you need.

My .02, I like my shotgun for keeping around the house and having some fun shooting clay targets and other things. Very rugged, well built gun. And the rack of a shotgun may be enough to scare someone off.

I'll second the Remmy 870 as a home defense shotgun. I've got the Super Magnum (everyone who goes skeet shooting with me has to fire a 3.5" shell) and I keep a load of bird/target shot, a load of buck, followed by Winchester's PDX slug+buck combo rounds. The first shot is for a really nasty "warning."

18.5" barrels are readily available and easy to install and will make it much easier to swing around in say a hallway or door frame. A 28" hunting barrel is a might long for close quarters.

See All of Sam's posts on the "Should I buy a gun" part for my real answer, though I'm inclined to agree if you're asking "should I?" then you probably shouldn't.

In my humble opinion, when it comes to home defensive firearms in a relatively unskilled operators hands: A pump-action shotgun is a terrible idea. I've been shooting shotguns my entire life and it's unbelievably easy to short stroke even the "loosest" or "nicest" pump-action in the best of conditions. Fail to get that bolt locked up 100% and you'll only get a CLICK. Inexperienced can say all they want "it'll never happen" and they might be right. Do you really want to take that chance? You'd bet your life on it?

I think the ultimate solution is to move.

This.

Plus, a 30 minute walk to school humping a backpack sounds ideal to me for kicking off the day and clearing the mind.

You probably won't hear of any because the people would be intelligent enough not to discuss the details on a public internet forum for fear of unspecified legal repurcussions.

What does a 30-minute walk translate to for a bike ride? 10 - 15 minutes? You can buy brand new bikes from Target for $100 assembled. If the only difference between crackheads-harrassing-women-in-the-foyer vs not was $100 worth of bicycle and an extra 30 - 40 minutes per day of exercise... it'd be hard to justify not moving.


RE: short-stroking a pump shotgun in a high stress environment by a novice user. That is why I've always talked about a 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun for a household in which you might have a female who doesn't practice regularly.

There is an argument that can be made for using less-than-lethal ammunition in a home-defense weapon. The main purpose for a civilian is to control penetration, the secondary purpose is to be "less than lethal" on the target. For police use, the only consideration is "less-than-lethal".

The problem is the aftermath. Many/most states have yet to clearly define the difference between "lethal force" and "discharge of a firearm". It's assumed that when you pull the trigger, you were afraid for your life or that of your family no matter what kind of bullets you use. So... if you're using less-than-lethal rounds, you set yourself up for "intent to wound" or "intent to injure" prosecution.

In other words, it would be very difficult to look a juror in the eye and say "I thought he was going to kill me, so I fired rubber bullets at him". I can't recall a single court-case where somebody has been sued or charged with a crime for using rubber bullets, but I wouldn't put it past a DA in a libtard state to hang you by your balls... not to mention the certainty of a civil suit.

Using a Taser is different because it's not a firearm. You don't have to establish "fear of death or great bodily injury" to shoot somebody with a Taser... but you do with a firearm because it's "deadly force".

In any case, I would not use less-than-lethal ammunition in a home defense gun. The person is trying to kill you, so use lethal force against them as quickly as you can to stop the threat as quickly as you can.

For an apartment setting, stick with light shot, #4 or BB-shot is very commonly recommended, and obviously don't use a choke. At home defense distances, you're still going to be putting up a huge amount of compacted energy, but any little obstruction (even a couple layers of drywall) will help considerably... this is why it's also CRITICAL to identify shooting lanes and HAVE A PLAN!!!

I'll also throw out again the idea of a 20ga shotgun. Most manufacturers sell "reduced recoil" shot for kids and those who can't take an all-day shoulder pounding in the field and will get penetration down even further.

RE: Short stroking a pump-action.

With a Magnum receiver I know the perils of short-stroking more than most. My 870 was my first weapon I purchased, so I got used to it's quirks rather quickly, but it's not uncommon for me to hand it off while shooting skeet and have someone not rack it enough.

A 20 Gauge auto would be a better choice. I'd throw out a .410 revolver (like the Judge, the Governor, or the Public Defender), but I'm pretty sure those are illegal in CA, and I'm unsure on their person-stopping potential.

If you do get a firearm, practice practice practice.

And if you do get a $100 bike? Get a $200 bike lock, or those crackheads will just steal it!

Not a personal story but it was in a story on NPR I will link to. Basically a guy found himself in a mall shooting. He had a gun. He got shot 4 or 5 times and is paralyzed. I know that's a different then scenarios you're probably thinking of, but food for thought.

Armed 'Good Guys' And The Realities Of Facing A Gunman : NPR

Be careful about quoting sources such as NPR in the current political climate. Gun control is the hot ticket right now and media outlets with anti-gun viewpoints are scouring the country for anything that puts gun ownership in a bad light.

I don't have super-strong feelings on the gun-control argument -- if anything, I probably trend towards gun-control. But I completely discount this story.

I do have extremely strong feelings about respecting the U.S. Constitution. If the 2nd amendment goes (unless, of course, it were to be changed in the correct way through the amendment process), then our other liberties and constraints on government are in mortal jeapordy.

I'd like to thank everyone, especially Sam, for their insightful opinions on my question. I think my girlfriend and I were pretty spooked by the incident the other day, and that directly triggered me to think about getting a gun. After reading through everyones thoughts and thinking through this a bit more, I think a gun is the wrong decision for me at this point in my life. I absolutely think guns have a place as a self defense mechanism in the most severe situations, but I know I don't have enough time right now to get the proper training. I love shooting when get the opportunity (target and skeet), and will definitely buy some weapons when I have the time to commit to learn how to use them safely and correctly.

I decided that I should make the best out of the situation that I am in, such as get keys to the people who come over regularly, make sure people have access to the back door in case of an emergency etc. I will probably get a large bright tactical flashlight and possible a utility knife and a bat, and hope that the Berkeley Police have a quick response time in case of any further escalations. I am really only worried about the two blocks between campus and my apartment, and I know that I personally can outrun anyone besides the Men's track team sprinters. Girlfriend is pretty quick too, but she needs to start actually carrying her pepper spray. Between taking a few more precautionary measures, and relying on the bpd for any serious matters, I realistically don't expect to have any problems more serious than the one I encountered the other day.

As far as moving goes, I can't move any closer to campus. Around campus it isn't a matter of where you are really, it's simply a matter of wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person that can get you into a sticky situation. For anyone who thinks that a 40 minute walk multiple times a day is easy to add to my schedule, take 16 units at a top engineering school and get back to me.

Thanks guys,
you all rock.

I want to swing this discussion into a slightly different - but still relevant - direction.

I occasionally hear people say that they're considering getting a gun for protection even though they've never owned one before. It's virtually always the same story offered by the OP: they want to keep a gun in their home to protect themselves from intruders.

OK, so I'm wondering who these intruders are. Are they going to break into my home with the specific intent of doing me bodily harm? It's certainly possible, but probably not likely. I don't know the statistics, but it seems reasonable to me that someone in my household will be more likely to get hurt by a gun that I purchased and brought in than by an intruder that entered specifically to harm one of us.

OK, so let's say that an intruder is not there specifically to harm me or my family. Why are they there? Probably to steal stuff that they can sell. Let's put ourselves into the position of a robber. We want to find a house to break into to steal stuff, but which house? I'd pick the house that would be the easiest to get into, find the stuff, and get away without getting caught.

I would avoid a house with a noisy dog. It doesn't even need to be a dangerous dog; why risk attracting attention if I can just pick a different house? I would definitely avoid any house where the occupants are home. Again, why bother when there are empty houses to rob instead? That means that if an intruder comes into my home while I'm there, it's only because they didn't know I was there.

Again, let's imagine ourselves in the position of the intruder. What would you do when you discovered that the owner is home? Personally, my goal would be to get out uncaught and unhurt. I would have NO reason to stick around and hurt anybody. In fact, the only reason I would even consider hurting anybody would be IN SELF DEFENCE! Think about it: I'm not going to hurt anybody unless I feel that I need to in order to prevent getting hurt myself (or getting away.)

The ironic thing is this: if the home owner threatens an intruder with bodily harm, then the intruder would be justified in harming the home owner in self defence. Conversely, if the home owner shoots the intruder while they're attempting to flee, it is NOT self defence.

Anyway, going back to the question of whether or not to get a gun to defend ones self against intruders, the best way to prevent getting hurt is to let them know you're there without surprising them, then let them leave.

Detaining intruders to bring justice is an entirely different thing from defending yourself.

Well now you made me second guess my selection in rubber slugs. The tactical slugs are going back in. :bigtu:

One of the very few joys of working a split shift, just went to the range for an hour and a half with my brother. Took my shotgun, his Ruger 30-06, .38 Long Colt, 1911 Colt .45, and a little Sig .22 pistol (don't laugh, ammo is cheap, and it's fun to shoot) went through about 200 rounds before going back to work.

Id say I live in a "good" neighborhood, and I carry every day. I wouldn't get to choose when, where, or if I may need a firearm, and cant imagine not having it if I needed it.

For me its not so much a question of "why should I need it?", as much as it is a "why wouldn't I have it?"

Why wouldn't I want to protect myself if the situation required it?

+1 and +1
I was thinking really ugly used bike that won't get stolen for $35.



The first rule of self defense is don't put yourself in a situation with increased risk unnecessarily. That includes the neighborhood. And it isn't about you. I wouldn't want to expose a girl I care about to unnecessary risk if I could help it. Don't roll the dice if you perceive the threat to be credible. Extricate yourself asap.

If you don't perceive the threat as credible, then don't worry about it.

Or you may be called upon to protect an innocent from harm.

Very true, and actually the thought that prompted me to buy a firearm wasn't to protect myself, but the thought of not being able to protect my family.

I don't think this comes up enough in firearms talks. When you carry, you're basically volunteering to defend anyone in your vicinity from deadly harm. It's a mindset you really have to think about before you carry. It's why I don't carry yet. It's a big responsibility and I want to be more prepared for it. There is no duty to act for an armed civilian. Carrying is still a big responsibility, and I want to be a better shot before I start.

DaveC, it sounds like you're assuming that all criminals are rational human beings with logical motives. That's not the way it is. Wittyworks said that these people were smoking crack on the stairs of his building, in public. He said they were under 17. Who knows what they would have done for the money for their next fix? You can't trust an addict to be rational and clear thinking. Drugs do horrible things to people.

I will second getting a dog. But not some yappy football. Rather than deter crime you'll probably just come home to a dead dog and a robbed place. If you have a big dog, don't leave him outside unattended, or leave his food and water anywhere where the public can see/get to it, or they will just poison your dog before robbing your place, likely while you're at the vet. Get a large dog, and become his best friend. I recommend a pit bull, as I have never owned another breed of dog that bonded with their owners as deeply. Sucks if you're in California, or if you have a clause in your lease, or your insurance.

What I'm assuming is that all criminals are human beings that are interested first and foremost in looking out for themselves. Which is to say that the crack heads in the hall were probably not interested in entering the apartment and hurting the occupants. It's certainly possible, but (I'm guessing) not likely. They might have seen an opportunity to take advantage of the people in the apartment, but hurting them as a goal in itself, is simply not likely. The news reports don't support it. The news reports are full of violent crimes, but look closely; it usually involves people that know each other, or at the very least are threatening each other in some way.

My point is that the safety of a person or their family is almost always put at greater risk by challenging the bad guy. Pulling a gun is more likely to get you hurt than keep you from getting hurt.

If avoiding personal injury is truly ones objective, then I contend that a gun will take you in the wrong direction. If you just like the idea of having a gun, then this argument doesn't apply to you.

Well, I disagree. The deterrent to the robber is not the threat of being bitten, but the threat of being caught because the dog drew attention. I don't buy the common argument that the robber will just shoot the dog and then rob your house. Why would they? Imagine that you're a robber, even a drug addled, desperate, crazy robber. Why would you enter a house with a dog (of any size) while the dog is barking, then take the time to kill the dog, and only then rob the place? You could just as easily pick a house without a dog. Even a really stupid drug addict has a basic desire to not get caught.

I read everything you wrote several times and I completely understand where you're coming from and why you may think those things, and I will attempt in as short a post as possible to make it very clear how deadly a game you play when you make assumptions about a criminals intentions and motivations. It's a great example of how people simply don't realize that self-defense is is about YOUR life or death, not the bad guys.

Castle Doctrine essentially states that a person who breaks into your home is there to kill you. Of course there's tons more to it, but a criminal, upon breaking the plane and entering your dwelling, is immediately understood to be in the act of attempting to cause you great bodily harm. From the homeowners point of view, that's the only possible reason he could be there. Any other thought on your part allows him the seconds he needs to get a tactical advantage and kill you. You have neither the time nor the resources to make the determination of whether he's there to steal your TV, or murder you. The law makes that assumption for you and allows you to use deadly force inside your dwelling under almost all circumstances. That's just about as plain and simple as it can be said. As a homeowner, defending your life and the life of your family, this is the way you want it. Anybody who breaks into your house is to be engaged with deadly force to the fullest degree you can apply it until they are no longer a threat.

I'm almost certain that no state still has "duty to retreat" laws on the books for homeowners. Even states without an actual Castle Doctrine have laws that essentially say the same thing that CD does. Sometimes these laws are more generalized and favor the homeowner even more than a specific CD law would.

NOW... I've said nothing about actual tactics inside the home. There is really only one circumstance that I can possibly see where I would leave the safety of my bedroom/hallway and venture downstairs or into the main area of the house to investigate a "bump in the night".

If you wake up to the sound of shattering glass or hearing voices, the very last fucking thing on earth you want to do it grab a gun and go out there. Assume your pre-planned defensive position inside your bedroom or hallway, dial 911, and shout/yell/scream at the intruders to go away... and wait for the police. They get paid to clear houses for a living and will probably bring a dog with them. YOU STAY IN THE FUCKING BEDROOM AND WAIT FOR THEM.

The only reason to leave the safety of your defensive position is to ensure the safety of a family member... ie, you sleep upstairs while the kids sleep downstairs, or something crazy like that. If all people are accounted for, your best chance for survival is to stick to your plan and hole up. Ask any police officer what he hates the most about his job... and somewhere in his top-3 will be "house clearing". The bad guys have the advantage in a big way, and if they want you dead, you're dead. Cops hate clearing houses, so should you.

More on "the plan". As I've been preaching, your overall approach to personal/family/collective self-defense is planned/layered/phased/practiced/rehearsed. DaveC was right, criminals want an easy target. However, a person intent on killing you won't be deterred no matter what you do. However, in blowing past all your layers, he's going to make it very obvious what he's there to do, and make it very easy for you to react with deadly force against him. I hope it’s starting to make sense.

Preparing your house is easy and cheap'ish:
Security System
Dog
Signs
Strong locks/doors
Motion sensor lights
CCTV
Prepped yard
Neighbors
etc... lots of stuff you can do to make your house less of a target... which means if a guy picks your house even with all the deterrents (ie, not picking the easiest house), he's motivated by more than theft.

The last point I'll make is something I take very seriously, both as a law-abiding citizen and a military officer. I believe that every person should feel an inherent duty to do everything they reasonably can to oppose evil when they encounter it. I go about my daily life with the intent that I will never be anybody's victim, and that I will not allow my family to be harmed through my lack of foresight. My liberty is my responsibility to protect. I'll protect yours the best that I can as well, but it would be awesome if you were on board.

This is terrible, no you're not.

There is absolutely no "duty to act" for an armed citizen. In fact, it's been decided by the Supreme Court that this is the same for police. Neither you, nor the police have any legal obligation to defend anybody, including yourself, simply because you're armed. You can allow yourself and everybody around you to be hurt through your own inaction and be legally liable for nothing.

When an event happens, you evaluate your options, weigh the risks, and act. If that act happens to be that you run away while innocents are killed, the law will take no notice that you happened to be armed and chose to flee.

The solution is simply to plan as much as you can.

When looking at the "standard" shooting by legally armed citizens, it's very predictable. 1 citizen, 1 bad guy who is armed, night, point blank range, public place, outdoors, 1 shot fired, incident timeline 30 seconds or less. This is the primary thing you're preparing for when carrying.

Of course there is an endless list of scenarios to think about. The big one right now is "active shooter"... basically a person who is walking around shooting others and facing little resistance. I have thought about this one... and have 2 plans. First plan involves me being with my kids... I grab them and run like crazy Forest Gump style and tell the wife to keep up. Second plan involves me being without kids (if wife is present, she can run)... assume a defensive position, survey scene, identify the shooter, return fire when able. Of course it's not my desire to die while trying to save innocent lives, but I'll be damned if I'm going to run from an active shooter when it's just my own life I'm putting in greater danger. "Even the most well-layed plan doesn't survive first contact with the enemy"... I'm aware of this.

I've noticed this a lot, living in a large city. Almost no one ever gets to know their neighbors. This is really a cheap way to gain a lot of security. Say hello. Gift a pie. Something. Get to know your neighbors, and they will watch out for you and your shit.

QFT. Another eloquent post by samnavy. He needs to write a book.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I didn't know there wasn't a duty to act, especially as Arizona's stand your ground law exempts actions on behalf of another. I guess it was something my grandfather must have told me and I just took it as gospel. I knew there was no duty to act for law enforcement, Warren vs DC, right?

The question is not "should you buy a gun." The question is "how many guns should you buy." :D

Dave, you simply cannot make statements like this.

That goes directly against your earlier comments about criminals liking soft targets. By your own logic, a citizen who challenges a criminal by introducing a firearm into the equation is instantly a bad bet, and should cause the criminal to flee to something easier. In fact, it's estimated that an armed citizen pulling a gun to deter an attacker happens 5000 to 8000 times a day in this country. Somewhere on the order of TWO MILLION times a year that a citizen defends himself with a gun. Most of these without a shot fired.

In fact, you've walked yourself into the most common blind scenario there is. Here's what you've got in your mind... a man and woman are walking along and are accosted by a criminal carrying a gun/knife who demands money. The man resists and gets knifed/shot and killed, and the criminal kills the woman to leave no witnesses... it's a cookie cutter scene played over and over in the movies and what every soccer-mom thinks will happen when the husband wants to buy a gun.

Somebody who has been through even the most basic training knows that there are un-winnable scenarios where the best chance for surviving is to "give the guy what he wants"... but even in a situation like that, your training, or simple natural instinct to survive will force you to look for even the smallest tactical advantage you can muster in order to turn the tables. If no advantage presents itself, then the bad guy gets away, and maybe he doesn't stab you for good measure anyways, but who knows.

What we've been talking about in this thread, and that I've been highlighting in every post, is your PLAN. While the goal of the plan from the get-go is to avoid all confrontation, the process of the plan makes it very hard for any bad guy to get the jump on you. Most people who are "street smart" and have good situational awareness, are never taken by surprise. This comes from a conscious effort over many years until the person simply knows when shit is about to go down and can flee prior to the event happening, or be prepared if boxed into a corner. In the event that something happens with no warning, we can train for offensive, defensive, and passive reactions. In no way should "comply" be your default setting when faced with a life-and-death scenario.

That's the most recent case out of the DC COURT OF APPEALS, and is semi "landmark'ish"... but the primary SCOTUS case is Gonzales '05. There is Deshaney '89, but is less significant than Gonzales in spelling out the whole "duty to act/protect" issue.

If you didn't, go read the story. There are some excellent lessons to be learned from it and "no lawful citizen should carry a concealed firearm" is not one of them.

Pretty stupid that you cant shoot the guy thats breaking into your house.

Defense of property is not cause to use deadly force in every state. Texas and a few others tend to be more "understanding" if you shoot a guy in your front yard, and some states define "dwelling" or whatever differently. But in most states, the person actually has to be in your home. A guy who is in the process of "climbing in the window", but may have his legs still outside... the advice is to make sure when you hit him, that he falls IN the home and not back on the lawn.

This is a perfectly reasonable position assuming you take the baseline foundation that all criminals act (A) from that position and (B) in a rational and logical manner.

I do not assume that baseline foundation. There are a number of criminals that act primarily out of maliciousness. Their risk/reward thought process is not the same as yours or most law-abiding citizens. Often times, that's because they feel their prospects are so poor that the threat of jail or prison does not, in fact, deter them.

Again, you assume a rational and logical thought process as the baseline. I disagree.

2 arrested for College Park burglaries

You say criminals like soft targets, I say people in general - including criminals - prefer to make things easier than more difficult. Specifically, I'm suggesting that a criminal is more likely to injure an innocent if they feel that it improves their own odds of getting out unhurt. Consequently, I'm suggesting that a victim that threatens a criminal is increasing the odds that the criminal will take violent action against them.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about a potential victim that is interested only their own person safety. It's not about protecting their property or even their dignity. It's not about justice and it's certainly not about legal rights. The comments that I made earlier about an intruder shooting a home owner in self defense were not raising the question of who would get into more trouble when they faced a judge. It was raising the question of how likely it is that the intruder would use a weapon in the first place.

I have to admit that that is an alarming statistic. Suppose I make a wild-assed guess just for the sake of discussion. Suppose I guess only 1 in 5 victims have a gun to use. That would suggest that 20000 to 32000 times per day an innocent person is injured by an attacker. Is that right? Is that what you're saying?

Right! The reasoning that I offered yesterday primarily concerned individuals that consider bringing a gun into their home to protect themselves from intruders. Because we can't prepare for EVERY possibility, I'm taking a probabilistic approach. I'm asking this simple question: if an intruder comes into my home and I point a gun at him, is he more likely to attack me or less? This is a question that can be answered definitively with statistics. I admit that I don't have those statistics.

EDIT: Jack, I understand exactly where you're come from. I think one difference between our perspectives is that I'm not trying to plan for every possible psychological defect that any given criminal might suffer from. That would be literally impossible.

In fact, I'm not even trying to predict the motives or thought processes of any particular criminal, I'm just making the basic observation that they are all humans (which, I think, is not up for debate) and that most of them, by and large, react in ways that are somewhat predictable based on the fact that they are human and posses most of the basic instincts of other humans.

I must confess, I didn't. Title turned me off. Looked like it would be a sensationalized anti-gun article. I'll go check it out.

My wife thinks I'm paranoid with all of the "what if" scenarios I contemplate. I call it mental preparedness, but frankly, it makes me tired. I hate crowds and confined areas with crowds are even worse.

I figure this to be a far greater threat than the threat of home invasion or burglary for him. This is where the bad guy has the advantage and the good guy has no weapon (because the victim is coming from campus). The bad guy will often have numbers in his favor and will have the element of surprise. Standing up straight with your shoulders back and your eyes up and alert will make you seem less like prey. Keep your head on a swivel and make confident eye contact with people to let them know you are aware of them. This will likely not help out your girl, though. She will be victimized long before you will. She will be alone and there will be more than one of them.


This is the "throw your money one direction and run the other direction" scenario I was taught.


Sometimes it may be smarter to turn around and walk the other way for a half hour or more if there are thugs hanging around his doorway.



I still think the smartest thing to do is move to a safer location as soon as possible. I don't give a damn about convenience.