Before you buy a gun, you do need to ask yourself a few questions

[Taverner]

1 - Are you willing to kill someone. Not saying you will, but if you have a gun you may have to make a split decision whether to shoot someone or not. That shooting has a high liklihood of that person dying. That person might be a rapist-murderer, but chances are they will be a burglar or, worse yet, a friend or family member coming home or visiting. Would you be able to live with having killed someone?

2 - Are you willing to maim someone? The reason you have to ask yourself this is that sometimes there are fates worse than death. Could you imagine leaving a loved one hooked up to a machine because they are a vegetable now? Could you imagine being the person that caused that?

3 - Are you willing to be shot by your own gun? Take a look at the news, and this happens a lot more than you would think. And it isn't always stupidity. Sometimes it's just a matter of your finger being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes it's a matter of a gun being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes its from the intruder getting the gun before you do.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. horseshit

1. Am I willing to defend myself against an intruder?

2. Am I willing to protect myself against an intruder?

3. Am I willing to practice and learn about my weapon?

[Taverner]

2. Ahhh thinking about just yourself, huh?

So if you shot a family member or friend by mistake, you'd be OK with that

GOT IT!

Please stay away from me and my family. You're too dangerous to be around.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. I am a woman living alone in a rural area. Bust in my house after midnight and

FUCK YOU.

as for your family, that is your responsibility.

You ain't my daddy and you don't pay my bills.

you are insulting.

I hope you are blocked from this group for posting this stupid flamebait.

[pitbullgirl1965]

21. How is it flamebait?

All of the above happens. Are you ok with that? Do you think it can't happen to you?
The other night I heard tapping on my window. I couldn't see out there even with the flood light on Scared the hell out of me. (my biggest nightmare is seeing a face outside a window!

I heard it again. I'm thinking should I call someone? The cops? My friend? I live in the sticks so it would take forever for anyone to get here. I had a shotgun at one time but my ex has it now. (and his stupid brother stole it damn it)

Then I saw: It was my cat scratching his chin and making a rat-tat-tat sound, just like a person would.
What would you have done? It wasn't clear what it was and too many people would have shot first without seeing what they were shooting at.
I had my friends two dogs here, one of them a large pitbull hound mix, my pitbull, and two other medium size dogs. I lock my doors and windows even out here. I have good neighbors, and people around here know I have dogs, and a rather large male friend of mine randomly drops by.


I'd like my shotgun back, but I know it's not damn toy, to handle it only when needed, and it's always, always, always treated as if it's loaded.

If you get that mad over some valid points the OP brings up, and you have firearms? Hmm.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

54. I am not mad at the OP but you can bet your

Bottom dollar I think Taverner has made some childish remarks in the OP. They may well be valid but there is way more to it than those 3 questions. I
see it has drawn the usual suspects.

[pitbullgirl1965]

56. I see.

n/t

[Taverner]

22. How are they not valid questions?

Come on, YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT!

I know you and I know you are very intelligent

I am not saying you shouldn't have a gun

I am not saying you shouldn't defend yourself

I AM saying you should know about this before you make said purchase

If you have a problem with killing somebody, but still want the intimidation factor of a gun (and I can think of many examples where that would be sufficient) you can use blanks

[gejohnston]

3. three problems

1 - Are you willing to kill someone. Not saying you will, but if you have a gun you may have to make a split decision whether to shoot someone or not. That shooting has a high liklihood of that person dying. That person might be a rapist-murderer, but chances are they will be a burglar or, worse yet, a friend or family member coming home or visiting. Would you be able to live with having killed someone?

Most people own guns for target shooting/hunting. Not a relevant question. while they make the papers, but Journalism 101 says: dog bites man isn't news. Man bites dog is news.

2 - Are you willing to maim someone? The reason you have to ask yourself this is that sometimes there are fates worse than death. Could you imagine leaving a loved one hooked up to a machine because they are a vegetable now? Could you imagine being the person that caused that?

Extremely rare. More often than not, the loved one on the machine is because they didn't have the means to defend themselves.

3 - Are you willing to be shot by your own gun? Take a look at the news, and this happens a lot more than you would think. And it isn't always stupidity. Sometimes it's just a matter of your finger being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes it's a matter of a gun being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes its from the intruder getting the gun before you do.

Extremely rare to never happens. There is a greater chance of dieing in a swimming pool. "Sometimes it is the intruder getting the gun before you do." Home invaders usually bring their own weapon and the "they will take the gun away from you" has been debunked by criminologists years ago. While it was popular anti gun propaganda in the 1970s, it only happened in cop shows.

[Taverner]

5. 1 - if it's just target shooting, why not just get a bb gun?

2 - Maiming rare? okayyyyy. Accidental killings rare? okayyyy.

If you are OK with even ONE accidental killing, that's a bit scary in my eyes

3 - Did you know guns are the most common things to steal in a break in? Just saying.

[gejohnston]

6. number of reasons

1-what do you care? Can I kill someone who is trying to maim or kill me? Hope I never find out. There are different competitions where air guns can't be used. Why should base my decisions on the opinions of someone who knows nothing on the subject? Why should ignorant people determine what I "need"?

2-Statistically almost nonexistent that is why they make the papers. All are tragic, but not as common as drowning in a swimming pool.

3-you get your information from? Then you are talking about burglary not home invasion. That is what safes are made for.

[FBaggins]

10. So I guess you're OK with home invaders raping/murdering undefended homeowners.

"That's a bit scary in my eyes."

Or do your decisions not have consequences?

[rrneck]

7. Answers...

1. Yes, but even if I have to it's still wrong.
2. See #1.
3. No. I know what I'm doing.

[FBaggins]

8. Pretty ridiculous

Before I buy a car, do I need to ask myself if I'm "willing" to run someone over? "Willing" to have a drunk steal the car and kill an innocent family by running a red light?

Intruders have used knives to kill homeowners... do I need to be "willing" for that to happen before I equip my kitchen?

How about baseball bats. A home invader could turn a baseball bat on my young daughter. Must I decide that I'm "willing" for that to happen before making sporting goods choices in the future?

[Taverner]

9. Before you buy a car you most CERTAINLY ask yourself that question

And a million times after

You also ask yourself this question after you've had a few too many drinks at a bar

Why should it be different than guns?

[FBaggins]

11. Nope.

You most certainly do not.

To do so would be just this side of insanity. Recognizing that bad things can happen does not EVER mean that you're "willing" for them to happen.

[BainsBane]

30. You may not

but responsible human beings do. You seem to see some virtue in refusing to think about consequences. I find that unfathomable for anything in life, let alone lethal weapons.

[FBaggins]

32. Still nope.

The obvious emphasis of my comments was to point out how illogical it is to claim that someone must be "willing" for bad things to happen (whatever bad things you choose to imagine) when you elect to purchase something.

They can also result in good things happening... but the OP refuses to admit the possibility.

"Responsible human beings" need to understand the dangers inherent in whatever they purchase (and no... there isn't an important difference in considering other purchases that can be dangerous)... but that in no way means that they have to be "willing" for those bad things to happen.

[BainsBane]

35. You made clear you refused to think about the consequences

of driving drunk or using a lethal weapon against another human being.

To be willing means to be prepared, to take precautions against. Surely anyone who carries for self defense is prepared to use that gun against another person. If not, WTF are they doing with the weapon? You are saying you refuse to think about those consequences, which sounds incredibly dangerous to me.

Responsible people not only think about the consequences of driving drunk, but driving in general. You said you would not, just as you would not think about the consequences of using a gun against a human being.

[FBaggins]

39. Nope yet again.

You made clear you refused to think about the consequences of driving drunk

No I didn't.

I said that when I purchase a vehicle, I don't need to be "willing" to have bad things occur with that vehicle. The drunk who steals the car and drives under the influence has to recognize that he's putting others' lives in danger... but the guy who bought the car doesn't have to be "willing" for that to happen.

I also recognized that it's possible to have an accident with a car even when using it responsibly... but that I don't need to be "willing" to have accidents before buying a car.

You said you would not, just as you would not think about the consequences of using a gun against a human being.

I never said either. If I point a weapon at someone and pull the trigger, then I certainly have to understand the consequences of those decisions. I don't have to be "willing" for that to happen before buying the firearm in the first place.

[BainsBane]

40. You don't think about what you are going to use the gun for?

Before buying it? Is that just for guns or everything?

[FBaggins]

42. Certainly I would (if I purchased a firearm)

I just as certainly don't have to accept your fantasy version of what I would use it for... let alone all of the things that I am not willing to have occur.

[BainsBane]

45. Fantasy version?

You mean using them for the purpose they are designed: to kill? Is that what you call a fantasy?

[FBaggins]

48. Nuclear weapons are clearly designed to kill millions of people

That doesn't mean that they were purchased for that purpose.

More relevantly to the OP, guns aren't designed/purposed to accidentally kill the wrong people. If my home is invaded and I point a gun at the presumed rapists/murderers and decide to pull the trigger... sure, I have to be "willing" to take their lives. But not before that point. Nor do I have to be "willing" to have criminals misuse anything that I purchase and keep in the home.

Just like if you choose NOT to buy a firearm, you don't need to be "willing" for that rape/murder to occur even if in some cases the lack of a firearm is what allowed it to happen.

[BainsBane]

49. Actually that is why nukes are purchased

Guns aren't necessarily designed to go off by accident, but the fact is they do all too often. Refusing to think about how deadly they are is a good way to increase the chances of that happening.

Your point about rape and murder exemplifies the absence of irrationality in your response. Your chances of being injured or killed violently increases greatly if you have a gun in the home. Basic statistical evidence shows as much. Your refusal to recognize that shows your argument is entirely ideological rather than evidence-based and rational.

[gejohnston]

51. aww the Kellerman "study"

Your chances of being injured or killed violently increases greatly if you have a gun in the home. Basic statistical evidence shows as much. Your refusal to recognize that shows your argument is entirely ideological rather than evidence-based and rational.

Actually, no. That CDC "study" has been debunked too. Even though my tax money paid for it, I had to buy a copy from a for profit company to read it.

Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[7] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[8] Don Kates, and others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=290313&mesg_id=292405

Of course, even then his 1993 version (which was a rewrite of his 1986 much debunked version which claimed 43 times) says having a gun is fifth of six risk variables for homicide in the home.
Here they are in order:
anyone in the house uses illegal drugs (including pot) 5.7 ratio
if the home is rented 4.4 ratio
history of domestic violence also a 4.4 ratio
living alone 3.7 ratio
having a gun in the home 2.7

[Jenoch]

60. You need to brush up on history,

specifically on MAD.

[BainsBane]

29. well, that comment more than anything

Illustrates what is wrong with pro-gun proponents. You find offensive the idea of having to think about the consequences of taking another life. You buy a lethal weapon and are pissed off that someone ask you to consider how dangerous that weapon is and the consequences of using it. That is something any human being should automatically do.

The delusion that a gun is the same as an item used for other purposes is bizarre. One buys a car for transportation, a kitchen knife to prepare food, and a bat to play baseball. They buy guns to kill. If guns are really so inconsequential and identical to those other objects, there really is no reason you need them at all, which makes the Second Amendment moot.

Anyone who does't think about the danger and a consequences of a lethal weapon has no business owning one.

[FBaggins]

31. Who said I found it offensive?

I found it hilariously illogical.

[BainsBane]

33. I find it unfathomable

that an adult would make such a comment. The OP is calling for basic responsibility. When people refuse to think about the consequences of their actions, of buying a lethal weapon and using against another human being. Those who don't set themselves on a destructive and potentially dangerous path in life.

[FBaggins]

36. The OP is not calling for responsibility.

The OP is dishonestly attempting to assign responsibility, not to criminals or those who are actually irresponsible, but to people whose personal decisions he disagrees with.

More than hinting instead that anyone who elects to own a firearm is irresponsible... because, by definition, anyone who is "willing" to accidentally kill another human must be irresponsible. Going just one step shy of outright claiming that the irresponsibility is in owning the firearm in the first place.

[BainsBane]

37. You are determined to prove that assertion right

and have done so quite convincingly.

[FBaggins]

41. You irrationally began with the assumption that it was right.

And have proven that rational discourse is unable to sway you despite the weight of evidence.

You started off with the illogical belief that a culture that allows individuals to own firearms is directly responsible for any deaths by firearms and can't get past that error.

[BainsBane]

44. I have seen nothing rational in your argument

I suggest you brush up on epistemology.

[FBaggins]

47. Obviously

which should embarrass you.

As with so many 2A discussions, you're attempting to lay blame where it does not belong. It isn't rational... it's emotional.

[sarisataka]

43. While the premise is overly broad

If a gun is being purchased for defense, it is irresponsible to not consider the negative aspects. There is nothing magically protective about a gun and it can only be as effective as It's operator.

Some believe the intimidation factor is all they need. The problem comes when the bad guy calls your bluff. Now he is mad, realizes you will not effectively and you have provided a weapon that you cannot prevent him from taking.

The risk of friendly injury is overstated for effect but it is a real factor. Security of a weapon is paramount, skill in use is necessary and firing without absolutely positive target id is criminal.

[FBaggins]

46. All true.

My "beef" is with the ridiculous notion that I have to be "willing" for those things to occur prior to purchasing a weapon. Trying to frighten the gullible from making the choice by hinting that it will happen and it will be their fault.

As you correctly imply... I should not be willing for an accidental death to occur, and must therefore prepare to be responsible with a firearm purchase.

[Jenoch]

62. You are correct.

I do not have to be 'willing' to kill or maim someone just because I own a gun. I certainly do not have to be 'willing' to allow a family member to be killed or maimed by my gun. As you said, I am unwilling to allow that to happen, that is why I have a safe to lock up my weapons.

This OP was not intended as some sort of philosophical piece. It is intended to lay a collective guilt on all gun owners, which of course is pure bullshit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. ???

I shot competitively for 8 years. During that time I came in contact with more 25 other shooters multiple times per week for matches and practice. I took a few camping trips to outdoor ranges and few times. In all that time we had no shooting mishaps on any range or site. Shooters varied in age from 15 to 57.

I can remember a total of 3 equipment failures and one incident requiring first aid. The equipment failures related to a spotter scope, a target retrieval pulley and a gun locker. The first two were repaired within 15 minutes. The locker needed to be replaced so the weapons that were normally secured there were disassembled and the bolts were locked in a different locker in the same locked room located in the back of the locked range that was secured in the ROTC building which was also locked.

The single incident requiring first aid occurred at an outdoor range when a friend had finished shooting an M-1 Garand in sitting position. He verified his rifle was safe and unloaded and that the range was safe. He then placed a palm on the ground to get up but his hand had found a very hot piece of just fired brass.

The point here is that whether accidents occur more frequently than you might think, most people who are serious about these activities are VERY safety conscious. During those 8 years none of those folks I had occasion to meet ever mentioned a firearm injury to themselves, a family member or friend.

I've known 4 Philly cops, a detective and 3 uniformed officers. They've all drawn while on duty but not shot anyone nor had any accidents.

Implying that people are careless, stupid or both is usually considered offensive.

[BainsBane]

34. Obviously some are

as responses in this thread reveal. All the OP is asking is to think about the consequences of purchasing a lethal weapon and using it against another human being. How that could be considered offensive or illogical astounds me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. Would that be...

..."Obviously some are..." as in 'careless, stupid or both'??? And some in thread responses reveal this; who/links???


Many things one can buy with much less required approval are lethal and the failing to reflect on the deal just because it happens to be a firearm is not necessarily consistent with sociopathy or homicidal intent. The OP frames the idea of the purchase being a weapon that would be efficacious for self-defense.

[BainsBane]

53. Where did I say it was?

It is, however, dangerous.

And the what is irresponsible. What prompts that irresponsibility, I couldn't say.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. re: "Where did I say it was?"

I didn't say you said anything, I asked. (please note the question marks with which my reply begins.

"the what is irresponsible."

? - which what? What is 'what' referencing?

[sarisataka]

13. Answers

1- yes there is a reason it is called lethal force. I don't believe in firing blindly at every sound so friends and family are typically safe.

2- pretty much as #1

3- not really so that is why safety must always be practiced. If you know the gun is unloaded, check it again before cleaning it. Before accepting a gun from another, check it. Before handing a person a gun check it. The finger is never on the trigger until firing. The gun is always locked to prevent unauthorized access. The intruder getting the gun first is incredibly rare and if security is always followed, the chances of it happening approach zero.

[NYC_SKP]

14. I ask the same questions every time I buy a car.

Or at least I could.

I'd say that you're three questions would be more thought-provoking if you were to ask:

"Before you leave your home with a gun..."

Because, really, smart people buy guns and then keep them safely stored and by just being careful non of these things happen.

[Taitertots]

15. Thats crazy. I asked myself: Do I enjoy hunting and recreational shooting?

The vast majority of gun owners will never experience any of the situations that you are describing.

[ileus]

16. Or 1. Are you willing to save lives with your own gun?

2. Are you willing to stop an attacker?


3. Are you willing to train train train for that hopefully never happens attack. You must be willing to learn everything about your firearm. It should become an extension of your hand. You have to build muscle memory that will pull you through when those seconds count and you need to save/protect life. Invest in the best holsters, and accessories to make your self defense firearm the best it can be. You'll also need to spend thousands of dollars on ammo training.


If not they you shouldn't buy a self defense personal safety device. Instead consider a nice target firearm or hunting gun.


Unless.........Unless you're just buying a firearm for family plinking, competition, or hunting. Not all firearms are for personal safety, there are many different types of firearms out there.


Safety first....I've got a play to go to tonight, that means I'll be wearing a suit and pocket carrying my LCP.

[pitbullgirl1965]

17. Very valid points.

Does anyone read the GunFail Diaries on the Daily Kos? All of the OP points apply. People who didn't know it was loaded when cleaning it. Children getting killed/killing their siblings by accident b/c their parents are too ignorant of firearm safety. Mistaking a family member for an intruder.

All of these preventable, and you get defensive about it (Tuesday Afternoon I'm talking to you)
I question how responsible of a gun owner you are.
They aren't toys, penis substitutes or their to show off what a big bad man or woman you are.

[gejohnston]

20. Does anyone read the GunFail Diaries on the Daily Kos

No. I prefer to get my news from and read the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about. The former, unfortunately, is quite rare.
Scouring the papers for rare incidents to push a political agenda serves no legitimate purpose outside of propaganda. According to the CDC, the number of toddlers that are accidentally shot are in the two digits. Compare that with swimming pools which are over a thousand.

[Straw Man]

24. Irony and usernames.

Does anyone read the GunFail Diaries on the Daily Kos? All of the OP points apply. People who didn't know it was loaded when cleaning it. Children getting killed/killing their siblings by accident b/c their parents are too ignorant of firearm safety. Mistaking a family member for an intruder.

All of these preventable, and you get defensive about it (Tuesday Afternoon I'm talking to you)
I question how responsible of a gun owner you are.
They aren't toys, penis substitutes or their to show off what a big bad man or woman you are.

Yup -- all preventable with education and training. Who does more of that than anyone else? Why, the evil NRA. Ask Taverner what he/she thinks of them.

Questions to ask yourself before buying or adopting a pit bull:

--Are you willing to have it stolen from you by meth cookers who will train it to guard their labs?
--Are you willing to have it kill all the cats and smaller dogs in your neighborhood?
--Are you willing to have it escape and maul a toddler to death?

Sound familiar?

[pitbullgirl1965]

55. You're comparing my dog to a gun?

Just like you're accusing the GunFail diaries of being one sided, the media prints one sided stories that sell papers. ***In the 70's it was Dobermans and German Shepherds. And those stories have ended up getting dogs killed by the authorities, the passing of BSL, (which the American Veterinarian Medical Association position is against) and having a harder time getting homeowners insurance.

And fwiw, I'm a veterinary technician so my job depends on understanding of animals behavior.
Which sounds hopelessly pompous but I swear I'm not trying to.

There should be stricter requirements to owning a dog, and firearms imho. Idiots make it everyone look bad.

https://www.avma.org/public/Pages/Why-Breed-Specific-Legislation-is-not-the-Answer.aspx

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Backgrounders/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

**Confirmation bias plays a part too

[Straw Man]

57. Yes.

Just like you're accusing the GunFail diaries of being one sided, the media prints one sided stories that sell papers.

My point exactly.

[gejohnston]

58. he was comparing some gun control advocates with

BSL advocates.
They do have some things in common. Both appeal to emotion. BSL advocates generally don't know anything about dogs in general and certainly Pits in particular. Too many gun control advocates think "assault weapons" is a technical term that means machine gun, like Bloomberg.

[pitbullgirl1965]

77. Ah yes it makes sense now.

Emotional, knee jerk reactions to tragedies are usually useless and counterproductive: it doesn't change and address the root cause of the problem/situation.

[Jenoch]

79. Check this out...

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Toddler-Fatally-Mauled-by-Dogs-in-Colton-224972902.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_LABrand

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. whatever. you want to call it.

I am not living my life to please you.

[Eleanors38]

68. See thread: "231 foot penis of doom rises above St. Petersburg."

[petronius]

18. I thought they were:

1) Can I afford this? (Really?)
2) Will I get a better price at the shop down the road?
3) Will I find a better product at the shop down the road?
4) Should I buy two, just in case my wife wants one?
5) If I buy this, can I also buy that other thing that I want?



But setting aside your framing, I agree that every purchaser of a potentially hazardous item should ask "Can I operate, store, and maintain this item safely and responsibly? Am I aware of any hazards that may come with this, and am I competent to deal with them?"

[jeepnstein]

23. Two out of three ain't bad.

[LittleBlue]

25. To protect myself, I would kill

1) Absolutely. Some home invader comes after me, his brains will end up on the wall without an ounce of regret. I have confidence that as a cautious person I won't shoot a family member.

2) Won't happen unless it's someone who attacks me. In that case, it's their fault.

3) The intruder is welcome to try. I'm a fairly tall guy with a .357 and a knife near my bed, so good luck to him.

[peace13]

26. All points that a responsible concealed carry instructor would make!

My son took the course and decided he couldn't afford enough liability insurance so he didn't get the permit.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Willing is not good word. Prepared to if necessary, yes, yes and no.

Now, would I be prepared to carry one in public? Only in the most extreme circumstances, like having received a credible threat.

[Lizzie Poppet]

28. The first two are quite valid, IMO.

The third is silly (obviously), although it does hint at what should have been the third question: are you willing to properly secure your weapon? I'd also add a 4th: are you willing to devote the time and effort to attaining and retaining adequate skill with the weapon?

It is critical for anyone considering a firearm for self-protection to answer these questions honestly.

[Lasher]

38. Before you buy an iron skillet:

Are you ready and willing to attack your family with it? Sure, you've thought about it. Go ahead, hit them all up side the head with it real hard, one by one. With practice you can be sure it's fatal.

Are you willing to torture people with the skillet? Get it real hot and hold their hands on it. When will you stop obsessing about torture?

Will you at least drop it on your foot? Do it every day. You deserve it. After all, you have something I don't want you to possess. You have only yourself to blame.

[oldhippie]

61. No, I don't ....

... and I don't give a flying fart whether you think I do or not.

Have fun with your flamebait.

[Taverner]

63. Try to stay away from me then

I don't like people who carry weapons without thinking

[oldhippie]

64. Well, being I don't know where the fuck you are ......

... it may be difficult for me to comply with your request, as much as I would like to.

I would suggest you stay out of Texas. You would probably be uncomfortable here. But you can do whatever you wish.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. and people wonder why I called the OP flamebait.

[SQUEE]

66. Really do I?

I will decide what questions are pertinent to my purchases, but thank you for your concern....

You literally made me laugh out loud at self importance of your questions, as well as the tragic level of fear you show with your ideas on what gun ownership is.. I have rarely seen some one run with such a flawed and empty premise, I wager you really thought you had a gotcha there, nope just more clulessness.

[spin]

67. You NEVER want to own a firearm for self defense if you are unwilling to shoot another person. ...

While I am willing to shoot another person to stop an attack that might lead to my spending a lengthy period of time in a hospital or to end up six feet under, it is not my goal to kill the other person. Unfortunately that might happen.

There two main groups of shooters, Those who have had an accidental discharge and those who will. It is very easy to become too familiar with firearms and to ignore the basic safety rules. The more experience you have, the more you need to remind yourself to always practice muzzle discipline and to keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target. You must never forget how dangerous firearms are!

It is true that you can be shot by your own firearm either because of an accident or because you were disarmed by your attacker. If you hear a strange noise at night it is not always wise to play
Wyatt Earp and try to clear your house. The best tactic is to call the police and stay in your bedroom waiting for the intruder to come to you. Unfortunately this may not be practical if you have other family members in your home who depend on you for their protection.

Anyone considering buying a firearm for self defense needs to consider the questions you asked. I will agree that in many cases, the best choice is to not to own a firearm for self defense.

[Eleanors38]

69. I've thought about it. nt

[rl6214]

70. Yes to all three

[needledriver]

71. Those aren't the first three that come to mind.

1. Does this fill a hole in my collection?

2. Can I afford it?

3. Should I risk lowering its value by shooting it?

[hrmjustin]

72. Property is not worth killing another human being.

[Jenoch]

73. You appear to be changing the question.

I didn't see anything about shooting someone about property in the OP.

[hrmjustin]

74. Ok I am not willing to kill anyone.

[Jenoch]

75. I live in an extremely safe neighborhood.

It's not in a gated community, but in the 13 years I have lived in this fairly new, 300 unit complex, there has not been a single instance of a break-in or property crime of any kind. All of my guns are locked up nearly all the time. I too would not shoot anyone over property. If I lived in an area where there was a possibility of someone breaking into my house while my family was home, I would have one of those biometric gun safes where a handgun or pepper spray was easily accessible and take action if I thought anyone in my family or myself was in danger. I do not understand why anyone would disagree with such a course of action.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. That'll be the day when Justin lays down his life for us subhuman

gungeon dwellers

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Answers:

1 - Are you willing to kill someone? Yes, if I have to for the defense of myself, my family, or for important property. The probability of my killing my wife are so low as to be neglibible. I will properly identify who it is before I shoot.

2 - Are you willing to maim someone? See above.

3 - Are you willing to be shot by your own gun? That risk is so low that it is acceptable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. These are known as "acceptable risks"

What is NOT acceptable is being a passive, defenseless victim. The first 2 are risks any would-be attacker accepts for being an aggressor. The third, while possible, is far more remote than the consequences of allowing evil people free run of the world.