Rob Wilson wrote: But those aren't the only choices, you can escape you know. The only way you couldn't escape is if they have a gun to your head from the beginning and having a gun yourself is no help there.
Well, you and I have some serious philosophical differences, I can see Rob. But I also think you're overlooking some important points. The first one is, why should I, a law abiding, productive member of the community be forced to flee my home because of some crack addicted, violence prone piece of human vermin? If he breaks into my house, armed, and gets killed as a result of it, well... boo fucking hoo.
The second point is that escape may not be feasible due to any number of circumstances. You may live in a high rise apartment; you may have several kids sleeping in different rooms, and may not be able to get all of them out before the intruder reaches you; you may be old and infirm, and climbing out even a ground floor window is just not an option for you; you may live in a high crime area, have bars on your windows and be unable to escape that way. There are any number of scenarios in which escape is simply not feasible, even leaving aside the fact that I don't see why anyone should be required to flee the sanctity of their homes because of an urban barbarian.
Rob Wilson wrote: That's nice, and you make sure the others involved in th firefight do the same, how exactly? It's all well you being responsible and careful, these guys just broke into your house and really don't care where their bullets go.
If you are familiar with your home, proficient with your chosen weapon, and have a plan, you will likely be able to shoot the attacker first, and even if not... well, there is no perfect solution. You'll have to do what common sense and training say you can do.
Rob Wilson wrote: I'm not. I've already clearly stated that I have nothing against those that want to target shoot. It's people that clim you have to have a gun to be safe or that people nbeed to have firearms, or that it's a basic right and other nonsense of tat sort. You want a gun to shoot at a range, then have a gun to shoot at the range, you want a display piece then get one (i'm thinking of getting 2, as mentioned in my first post in the thread). But there is no need to have a working handgun or rifle in your house.
That is a pretty categorical statement, and as such, I have to disagree. Most people will never
need one, true. But you have no way of knowing beforehand if you will be a member of that fortunate majority or not. Some people, all too many in fact, end up in a situation where they need an effective means of self defense very badly, and there are situations where nothing less than a firearm will suffice.
Rob Wilson wrote: From break ins, or in the military sense. And on the subject i know people that have taken on and scared off gun-toting robbers with lamp/chair/hammer used as a club, so those are equally valid, and no guns required.
And for every such instance, I'm sure I can find one where someone attempting to scare an intruder off that way was shot to death by the better armed criminal. Frankly, if you seriously try to confront a gun wielding attacker with an improvised weapon, you are foolhardy. True, you may just possibly succeed, but it's not the way the smart money bets. Some thugs are not afraid of even gun wielding people. Some are whacked out on drugs or just plain crazy. To assert, as you seem to be doing, that a gun is never necessary is pretty extraordinary in light of the literally countless examples of guns being used successfully as last ditch self defese measures against determined attackers.
How about you just get out of the house and then you don't have to die at all - oh dear, common sense instead of macho fantasies!
