Colorado Shooting - How horrible!

[Matthew3590]

Thank you. Very interesting.

Not all of your post has appeared as 'Quote' and I refer to parts that don't show above.

It seems to me that a long barrelled gun would be a hindrance in the house.

Policemen relatives of ours have suggested that a 9mm is too powerful in the home. The bullets can pass right through the intruder without immediately stopping him and injure an innocent person. They suggested that a 22 handgun was enough for the job indoors.

Do you have an alarm system or are you certain for some other reason that you would hear an intruder in your house before he got to you? An expat. here woke one morning to find that his cash and jewellery had gone from his bedside cabinet. Someone had broken in and he didn't hear a thing. I wonder what might have happened if a gun had been lying there too.

You say you live alone and I guess that the probable aftermath of a killing in your house doesn't bother you. I wonder how a family with children would cope. Picture the scene. Young children are awakened in the middle of the night by screams and gunshots. Mum and Dad are OK but there's a body on the landing, blood everywhere and already police sirens can be heard in the street. Shocked children are interviewed. Mum and Dad may even be taken away for questioning. When it all dies down the mess has to be cleaned up and the family has to live in the house remembering every day the bloody corpse, stained carpet and blood spattered walls. All that happened because of the expectation on all sides that everyone is armed and ready for action.

I know you will refer to the possible consequences if the family didn't carry guns and I understand that point. What I'm driving at is what I wrote earlier. The dilemma is that both sides of the law expect a gun fight and so it's more likely that both sides will be armed and that a shooting will take place. Perhaps it's a century or so too late to change that.

They are very reliable. The gun for the job should be determined by what the home owner feels secure in using. I own an ar-15 but it is not used to instantly shoot the bad guy. Me and my dad use a 12 gauge shotgun with bird shot. Bird shot will stick in the walls and will not go through. Our 12 guage is not a huge musket looking thing since it has the shortest legal barrel allowed so it is easily to maneuver around a house with. So are AR-15's.

 

[thaiturkey]

Yes, long barrels are a hindrance in a house.Cutting the barrel short on a shotgun is not out of the ordinary. We do have laws about doing that though.

A 9mm/.38 is the smallest most people will recommend. A .22 will pass clean threw most houses an still kill someone else. As for useing a .22 to protect your self. A .22 will kill but usually will not stop. Someone that is shot with a .22 may very well kill you an die hours later. Mind you 3 shots with any gun will usually stop an kill anyone. Me, I carry a .410 shotgun pistol. Devastating up close but loses energy quickly.

Very few gun people dont have dogs. Alarms have there uses though.

I do not live alone but I am single with no kids. Who I live with expects me to be armed all the time as does my family that does not live here. Reminders are given to me often.

Rather like me some days!

Sawn off shot guns conjure for me images of old fashioned bank robbers from the 1960's. I imagine that the shot spreads all over the place from one of those. I have used shotguns for clay pigeon shooting in the past, a sport that's on a par with ten pin bowling as a cure for insomnia and quite pointless.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

As lighting Jack put it, "it will blow a man clean out of his boots at 10 paces but at 30 paces it will just tick him off."

Works for me though cause I assume that at 21 feet someone is a threat. Known as the 21 foot rule.

 

[thaiturkey]

As lighting Jack put it, "it will blow a man clean out of his boots at 10 paces but at 30 paces it will just tick him off."

Works for me though cause I assume that at 21 feet someone is a threat. Known as the 21 foot rule.

So you first fire a tape measure?

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

My depth perception is fine.

 

[Minchi]

Countries with lax gun laws have a dilemma.

Civilians own guns so criminals are more likely to own guns.

Criminals own guns so civilians are more likely to own guns.

You might call it a vicious circle.

I'm not entirely against the licenced ownership of guns for protection at home for someone who feels the need. However, the circumstances in which such a gun is used should be carefully defined. Taking down someone who merely wanders onto your land cannot be justified. One the other hand, anyone entering my house at night would probably regret doing so. I would assume that he was willing to use violence and I'd get in first. If you have a gun in those circumstances, you are obliged to use it before the intruder uses his own or makes a grab for yours.

What I can't grasp is the desire to have heavy duty military guns that are designed only to kill people. The practice targets that I have seen owners use in video clips include silhouettes of human beings. You would be hard pressed to grab one of those weapons from the bedside cabinet and point it at an intruder with a handgun before he fired first. I can only assume that those interested in extreme weapons are living in some old cowboy world or imagining that they are in a modern infantry war and enjoy boys' role playing games.

Those who own guns for self-defence at home, what weapon and ammunition would you recommend?

In the US you have 'Preppers', these are people who prepare for times when there is complete and total chaos and there is no recognizable government control. As an example New Orleans after the hurricane was chaos and some people died because others were looting and worse, there was not enough police to manage the situation and civilians had to take care of themselves. (worse because police came and took there guns) Preppers usually prepare for much worse or longer situations and they often have weapons to do that with, now I can not see a reason for an assault rifle that in automatic uses up all your bullets in a second but the reason the right to bare arms was put in our Constitution was so that we could protect ourselves and over throw our government should it become necessary. (said earlier by another poster, but forgotten by most) I believe in the constitution and it was created to protect the people from a tyrant. Also it is the gun owners in this country that keep it safe from invasion during WWII and I hope in the future it will do the same. (most people in the US don't own Assault Riffles, and this is not what the shooter used he used a semi-automatic riffle they are used for hunting and sport shooting)

Side note, shooting a person is rather difficult and even if it is someone threatening your family you might not be able to protect them if you have never shot a person before or anything that resembles a person. Militaries use human silhouettes to help soldiers be able to function in the field and if you are getting a weapon for self defense then you need to be able to shoot a human and know how to.

I personally own a Glock 19, it is a 9mm. Good solid weapon that can take a bit of abuse if it must. I think Thailand is a very humid country and Glocks can take a bit of abuse (see link below) As for Ammo we use Federal Hydro Shock, it has minimal penetration and maximum stopping power so it should take care of the intruder but is lest likely to go through the walls and hurt a neighbor.

http://theprepared.com/content/view/90/administrator/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra-Shok.

 

[thaiturkey]

In the US you have 'Preppers', these are people who prepare for times when there is complete and total chaos and there is no recognizable government control. As an example New Orleans after the hurricane was chaos and some people died because others were looting and worse, there was not enough police to manage the situation and civilians had to take care of themselves. (worse because police came and took there guns) Preppers usually prepare for much worse or longer situations and they often have weapons to do that with, now I can not see a reason for an assault rifle that in automatic uses up all your bullets in a second but the reason the right to bare arms was put in our Constitution was so that we could protect ourselves and over throw our government should it become necessary. (said earlier by another poster, but forgotten by most) I believe in the constitution and it was created to protect the people from a tyrant. Also it is the gun owners in this country that keep it safe from invasion during WWII and I hope in the future it will do the same. (most people in the US don't own Assault Riffles, and this is not what the shooter used he used a semi-automatic riffle they are used for hunting and sport shooting)

Side note, shooting a person is rather difficult and even if it is someone threatening your family you might not be able to protect them if you have never shot a person before or anything that resembles a person. Militaries use human silhouettes to help soldiers be able to function in the field and if you are getting a weapon for self defense then you need to be able to shoot a human and know how to.

I personally own a Glock 19, it is a 9mm. Good solid weapon that can take a bit of abuse if it must. I think Thailand is a very humid country and Glocks can take a bit of abuse (see link below) As for Ammo we use Federal Hydro Shock, it has minimal penetration and maximum stopping power so it should take care of the intruder but is lest likely to go through the walls and hurt a neighbor.

http://theprepared.com/content/view/90/administrator/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra-Shok.

Do you really think that a foreign enemy powerful enough to overwhelm the legitimate military forces would be walking around the streets with guns? By the time they reached that stage of an invasion it would be all over.

 

[Minchi]

It was the idea that protected us, a country can invade another but even if the government lays down arms that does not mean that the people of that country will. The invasion of the US is not really a concern, the government and civil unrest are more likely.

 

[redhen]

Thai.. a lot folks are "prepping" because of our economy...
If the crap really hits the fan here (like many believe its soon to happen) Food prices will soar, businesses will shut down,.. jobs will be lost.. money will be worth nothing..
Kinda like our great depression we had in the past...
When people dont have food or jobs they will become desperate... your garden will be robbed, your house will be robbed... your livestock will be taken..
Many want to have protection if this ever happens to protect their family and food stores..

 

[thaiturkey]

It was the idea that protected us, a country can invade another but even if the government lays down arms that does not mean that the people of that country will. The invasion of the US is not really a concern, the government and civil unrest are more likely.

No invading army is going to let a few people with pop guns stand in its way once the government has surrendered. Why is a democratically elected government a threat? So far as civil unrest is concerned, there's the official military to deal with it.