the gun nut kills 38 year old thread got me wondering

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. To me, it's not a matter of "can" more than it being a matter of "should".

I'm *okay* with someone owning a reasonable firearm for home protection, provided that it is safely locked away and secured.

However.....

I don't understand why anyone would need a high capacity, rapid fire weapon like an AR-15 for home protection, though. They're not concealable (making the securing of them problematic) and I don't see the situation where anyone whose home is being invaded would need to fire off more than a few shots in rapid succession to either hit their target or scare off the intruders.

I also don't understand why anyone would need more than one gun for home protection. I don't get people who buy gun after gun after gun and claim it's all for the purpose of "home protection." Personally I think that type of thinking is an addiction, a sickness.

And even if one is reasonable in purchasing a gun for home protection and it's a reasonable gun that they're purchasing, there still begs the question: Does that person really need that gun? Or is possessing that gun creating a greater risk to the inhabitants of the household than the perceived risk to the household for which the gun is being purchased?

Do you live in a neighborhood notorious for violent crimes? Has there been a rash of home invasions in the immediate area? Did you witness a mafia murder?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, I can understand the purchase. If not....then I just don't see why one *should* get the gun, just because they *can*.

I keep on thinking back to the man who several months ago came into the office right next to ours and shot both himself and his wife dead. He and his wife lived in a safe, upper middle class neighborhood with no major crime issues. Yet he purchased a gun for "protection." And after his wife told him she had been having an affair and wanted to leave him.....boom. Literally.