Nearly every week I see TV reporters interviewing residents who have had their homes broken into by armed burglers. The woman will be whimpering about how she had to barricade her children into an upstairs bedroom after hearing her door or window being broken through. Instead of being on the "fearing" end of such an encounter, the adult of the household should be in the attacking, aggressive end of it through proper training in the use of a firearm, including regular mandatory practice sessions with it at the Local Public Shooting Range. When a properly trained adult hears someone breaking in, instead of whimpering, shaking, and looking for some place to hide, he should be prepared with a Revolver or Semi-Automatic Pistol with a full magazine, (safety off), ready to encounter and kill if necessary, anyone violating his home and family! The preparation and training for this defense should me made mandatory by law! Hal Pollner and Wife, registered firearm owners and users at our local shooting range.
I am not in favor of making it mandatory, but it should be allowed by law, and is in several states. People who are uneasy around firearms shouldn't be made to deal with them, but it should be the duty of the male head of household (if there is one) to make sure the family is secure. My wife received death threats a number of years ago, we believe by the ex-husband of one of her friends. I took her to a local gun store and told her to try the handguns and pick the one she felt comfortable with. She chose a little 9mm that fit her hand well and she became reasonably proficient with it. She carried it while she was alone and working in the garden and fields while I was at work, but I became convinced that she would never be able to shoot someone even if her life were in danger. I bought her a taser instead, as I think she would disable anyone attacking her even if she couldn't kill them. Being proficient with a gun and using it to kill someone are not the same, and no one should be mandated to take a life. Secure panic rooms are a reasonable alternative for those who do not like weapons...IF they can get into them before they are subdued by an attacker or home invader.
@Don Alaska Agreed, and understand. But, by the same token, what if draftees into armed forces, many afraid of firearms, were given the option of "opting" out of training and use? Gun-fearing people no different than gun-fearing civilians they would have been. Perhaps @Hal Pollner has something here. Frank
@Frank Sanoica we no longer have draftees and probably never will again, but that is an entirely different situation. Also, there are many jobs in the military that don't require killing. Supply/logistics, medical, meteorology, intelligence, etc. If you enlist, you can often get a job that doesn't mandate violence. I am still mystified by those who consider the Coast Guard as being in the military. It is an essential and dangerous service, but it is part of Homeland Security, not Defense, at least in peacetime. It is USED as a military service, however.
When I was in the Navy, I didn't do any killing. However, my ship/Destroyer did sit on the Gun Line, off of the coast of Da Nang, Vietnam and shoot both of our 5" gun mounts at mountain strongholds occupied by NVA and Viet Cong. We were shot at, but their ground-mounted 50 caliber couldn't reach our ship. This is a major reason why I joined the Navy, before the Draft could get me. I didn't want any combat like the Marines, Army and Navy Gun Boats were in.
Not in the area where we live, but there is plenty of shootings and killings in parts of Jacksonville, Florida. Just last night, there were three different JSO calls for shootings. Two within minutes of each other. We can't wait until we move from here! Thing is, the people we talk to here in our area, don't watch the news, hear about the crime here and don't really care.
Well, we had the Obama phone which is still an ongoing thing for low income people so why not the government issued bang stick? Every household (sans the folks who shouldn’t have one) gets it’s own pistola complete with ammo and lessons on how to use it. All of the old weapons that other countries confiscate from their citizenry plus our military out of date single shot and semi’s are rationed out to the heads of households. That way, the bad guys will have a real crap shoot trying to figure out who will and who will not shoot them instead of figuring out who has a weapon and who doesn’t. Seriously though, there’s going to be flaws in every thought process when it comes to home weaponry but to me it should be at least a lot less expensive to arm your home and / or the family members of that home. No one should be hampered by the huge costs of a weapon in order to protect themselves. It’s a no brainer that the bad guys are going to be able to procure weapons that cost a bunch and aren’t legal and they’re the ones who are supposedly so broke that they need to rob (and kill) other people in order to stay flush so why is it that the good guys have to spend as much or more to be legal? There should be a stripped down, no frills and inexpensive six shooter on the market that even us po’ folk can afford. Arm [nearly] everyone and let the guessing games begin.
I don't expect all forum members who replied to my post to agree with my convictions on safeguarding the lives and property of their loved ones. They have their preferences on protecting their families and I have mine. It just comes down to how you address the intruder who has you at gunpoint: Do you say "Excuse me while I call the Police", or provide him with a lead injection before he has the chance to shoot AND POSSIBLY KILL you or one of your family? I'll never swerve from my convictions on how to preserve the lives of myself and my wife in our home! It's no secret that crime statistics in states which permit open or concealed carry are considerably lower than those who must wait on Law Enforcement to protect them. When everybody knows that everyone else is armed, then they all tend to be polite! To respond to Bobby's reply, a gun's cost should be NO OBJECT compared to what it's there to protect! A 9mm semi-auto with a 10-round magazine would be OK, but a simple revolver is the true "grab and go" firearm because of its simple operation. Hal
Should be and is are two different ways of looking at things. What should be is that a guy should be able to totally take care of his family and make sure they are in want for nothing that is necessary. The reality is that many are going from paycheck to paycheck with no time nor money for any frills and yet they stay financially behind on something. Heck, the thrift stores make a gazillion bucks on people who can’t afford to buy new stuff. We actually only need four things: Food and water, a fire to cook the food and some place to cook it. A man used to have a weapon to not only provide food but for security but since we do not need weapons but cash to get food, that pretty much cancels out the money they might have been able to use for a gun of some sort. Hal, you live in a different world than most do so it is obviously easier for you to buy your weapons than the average Joe. Whilst your rationale is correct and is the same as mine but the reality of the way things are is a product beyond the rationale.
They argue that every woman has a Constitutional right to an abortion, so the taxpayers have to pay for it. Yet the Constitution says nothing about abortion, or even medical care, but it does give us the right to own a weapon. By any logic, if a woman has a right an abortion of her choice, then I should certainly have a right to the gun of my choice.
BBBut.....That’s logical! The Constitution doesn’t say anything about Congress needing to be logical! Matter of fact, it’s only an assumption that the people who vote them in use some bit of reasoning but we’ve seen in the recent past that it truly isn’t mandatory. So.....that kinda leaves us with illogical people voting in a congressperson sans reasoning in order to sustain that which is idiotic. (I’m studying up on my governmentese doublespeak just so I can understand the crap that’s being dished out lately).
Then you should listen to Newsmax, Bobby, which features Conservative Reporters and Talk Show Hosts who dish out Real News for Real People! There are several Broadcast, Satellite, and Cable Networks who carry Newsmax. We get ours on Channel 349 on DirecTV. H.P.
Hal totally agree same here, I have a neighbor who at the time was 83 that suffered a break in, raped, left for dead broken ribs, jaw and other bones. Her famous words was when I saw him take my purse that did it, I had retrieved my weapon a 16 ga shotgun, he started for me again and I stopped him!! One illegal dead at scene. She has done many talks at various places on "refuse to be a victim", churches included. Now has LTC and new Glock 19 bought by police and neighbors. She shoots with me 2 times a month or more and has no issues at all. Deputies leave her ammo every month.
Yeah, I believe everyone should have a right to defend themselves by whatever means, but I am generally against forcing anybody to do anything the end result of which would be to prevent harm only to themselves (adults, of course).