FunkyColdMedina

To Be or Not To Be (a gun owner), that’s the Question

Rate this topic

33 posts in this topic

So I have always thought that owning a gun/weapon would endanger my family more than protect my family? With all the craziness in this world, I’m starting to reconsider that philosophy.  

 

My true question: is not having a gun for protecting my home making us more vulnerable? Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you willing to invest time & money in training and practice? Not just for you, the wife and any child who is old enough and responsible enough. If you aren't willing, skip a gun. 

 

A few years ago I was in a class, on my far left was a 14 yr old boy, dad next to him, mom and then their 17 yr old daughter. The father could have taught the class but he was there because he and the wife felt the kids were old enough to take a class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gun in your home is like an insurance policy, something you hope and pray you never have to use on a bad guy but good to know it's there if a bad guy is in your home. I have many guns in my house, all of them are "always loaded". Only two of them have bullets in them. One sits in my desk just inches away from me now and the other one is next to my bed. Both of them are locked in the best pistol boxes I could find because I don't want either of my grandkids touching them. Both pistol boxes have simplex locks with the same combination and it would only take me a few seconds to get them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FunkyColdMedina said:

So I have always thought that owning a gun/weapon would endanger my family more than protect my family? With all the craziness in this world, I’m starting to reconsider that philosophy.  

 

My true question: is not having a gun for protecting my home making us more vulnerable? Thoughts?

It depends.  Do you have anybody in your house that has depression, is suicidal, drug addicted, an alcoholic, or just plain stupid?  If so, I would say don't get a gun.  If not, then you'll be fine.  Make sure the kids can't get at it without being under your supervision.

 

Oh, and you need to 100% sure that you are ready and willing to kill with it.  If you point the thing at somebody in your living room and then hesitate, they are probably gonna take it and shoot you with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Spigola said:

I've been a gun owner for more than 50 years and have always slept with one nearby.  Today, you are a fool if you don't.

That wasn't enough to protect your strudel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great question today.... I like Spig have had guns for 50+ years. Like Bassakwards I have a couple loaded and in lockboxes around the house. I like Mike believe a gun should be only in the hands of those who are trained in their safe responsible use. That said and the way our legal system is today if faced with a intruder situation I would really debate grabbing a golf club or baseball bat rather than the gun for home defense. I say this because if forced into using deadly force to protect your or your families lives you may win the gun fight and not be charged but the personal liability lawyers will try and suck your financial life away from your family. Jury’s/judges sometimes today look at the use of a firearm rather than any other way to defend ones home in a distorted negative light. I can’t say just how wrong this is but we read situations like this often where a person forced to defend themselves or families end up paying the family of the assailant for damages. 

 

It does make one pause thinking if i use this firearm will this criminals family suck my life’s savings away in a liability court case. 

 

All this in perspective if I know without a doubt the intruder is armed with a firearm there is no doubt what I would grab. It is sad that our civilization has gotten to the point where defense of your home with the use of a firearm has become a bigger threat afterwards than the initial threat of a intruder. 

Edited by Jim DE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FunkyColdMedina said:

So I have always thought that owning a gun/weapon would endanger my family more than protect my family? With all the craziness in this world, I’m starting to reconsider that philosophy.  

 

My true question: is not having a gun for protecting my home making us more vulnerable? Thoughts?

Security. Have a gun safe. Either bolted to wall studs, heavier than 500 lbs or assembled larger than the access doorway.

You don't want to find someone pointing it at you or breaking into your house to carry it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jim DE said:

This is a great question today.... I like Spig have had guns for 50+ years. Like Bassakwards I have a couple loaded and in lockboxes around the house. I like Mike believe a gun should be only in the hands of those who are trained in their safe responsible use. That said and the way our legal system is today if faced with a intruder situation I would really debate grabbing a golf club or baseball bat rather than the gun for home defense. I say this because if forced into using deadly force to protect your or your families lives you may win the gun fight and not be charged but the personal liability lawyers will try and suck your financial life away from your family. Jury’s/judges sometimes today look at the use of a firearm rather than any other way to defend ones home in a distorted negative light. I can’t say just how wrong this is but we read situations like this often where a person forced to defend themselves or families end up paying the family of the assailant for damages. 

 

It does make one pause thinking if i use this firearm will this criminals family suck my life’s savings away in a liability court case. 

 

All this in perspective if I know without a doubt the intruder is armed with a firearm there is no doubt what I would grab. It is sad that our civilization has gotten to the point where defense of your home with the use of a firearm has become a bigger threat afterwards than the initial threat of a intruder. 

Short version; Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

Long Version;  I would far rather have to work the rest of my life paying legal bills than live the rest of my life with the guilt of not having been able to defend my wife or children from whatever the intruder(s) may have felt like subjecting them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, FunkyColdMedina said:

So I have always thought that owning a gun/weapon would endanger my family more than protect my family? With all the craziness in this world, I’m starting to reconsider that philosophy.  

 

My true question: is not having a gun for protecting my home making us more vulnerable? Thoughts?

 

Vulnerability has a lot to do with your neighborhood.

 

Good neighborhood?

 

Bad neighborhood?

 

Which crimes are committed there and how often?

 

Of course it's better to have a firearm and not need it than not have one and need it for self-defense.

 

 

Edited by lichum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 10:03 AM, Jim DE said:

This is a great question today.... I like Spig have had guns for 50+ years. Like Bassakwards I have a couple loaded and in lockboxes around the house. I like Mike believe a gun should be only in the hands of those who are trained in their safe responsible use. That said and the way our legal system is today if faced with a intruder situation I would really debate grabbing a golf club or baseball bat rather than the gun for home defense. I say this because if forced into using deadly force to protect your or your families lives you may win the gun fight and not be charged but the personal liability lawyers will try and suck your financial life away from your family. Jury’s/judges sometimes today look at the use of a firearm rather than any other way to defend ones home in a distorted negative light. I can’t say just how wrong this is but we read situations like this often where a person forced to defend themselves or families end up paying the family of the assailant for damages. 

 

It does make one pause thinking if i use this firearm will this criminals family suck my life’s savings away in a liability court case. 

 

All this in perspective if I know without a doubt the intruder is armed with a firearm there is no doubt what I would grab. It is sad that our civilization has gotten to the point where defense of your home with the use of a firearm has become a bigger threat afterwards than the initial threat of a intruder. 

This statements depends in what state you live in. Some states have castle doctrines...NJ is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I’m no lawyer (thank God) but the Castle doctrine the way I understand it frees someone from legal prosecution for shooting a person but not the possibility of a liability claim from others directly financially effected by the shooting. 

 

To to be honest, in today’s climate, I trust the courts and those working in them about as much as nothing in the area that what is “right and just” will end up as their final verdicts. I am not gullible enough to trust my life’s savings in the hands of Lawyers and Judges so if I can end the danger with a Louisville Slugger or a Callaway instead of a HK so be it.  It is less likely a liability court will judge against a senior with a Callaway than if he used a black rifle just because of the way it appears.

Edited by Jim DE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.