The claim was that "guns have no useful purpose". To refute this assertion, we don't need to prove that gun ownership results in fewer rapes or deaths (on, for example, a nation-wide basis), only that when someone attempts to harm you, a gun can be useful in defending yourself.
I mean, when you buy a bag of chips you don't ask yourself whether there is proof that chips actually results in a more satisfied society. You buy them because you feel it benefits you, and that's an entirely acceptable justification, in my opinion.
And before bringing up the number of gun deaths that would be considered justified versus suicides or murders, we do have pretty good evidence that in those cases where a gun prevents a crime it's mostly by the threat of its use, not its use itself.
All I need to know: A gun will help me defend myself and family. A gun can be kept safe by adhering to certain known gun safety principles. Accidents happen but then a brick from a building's facade can smack you in the head in the morning. Cops are great, if you have one right there, right when you need him/her. So, I think to myself, why not have one? Leaving all fun aside, it's a piece of mind.
I have had it happen twice. Once right after we moved into a brand new house (3-4 days after move in). Some local kids had figured out that the front door could be opened because the lock was installed wrong and were using the house to party while it was empty. They hadn't realized that people moved in.
Our golden retriever scared the crap out of them and they never made it 5 feet into the house - even though the dog was on the second floor. Now there is a solid defense system. I'll note that at the time, we had 5 guns locked up in the closest safely stored. The dog was down the stairs and dealing with the situation before I was even conscious enough to think. The whole thing would have been over before the guns were out if it was worse than some dumb kids.
Second time it happened was only 18 months ago. This was a little different because I was on a boat at night, but again I was certain that two big adult men were robbing boats in the vincity. I called the cops. The cops sent the coast guard. We hunkered down and hid (probably not the right call, should have turned on the lights). I wish I had a gun in that moment, they were 15 feet from our stern and definitely coming onboard. There is no where to go on a boat like that. I had a mag light and a radio, and when the guys started heading for my boat I hit them with the light. Meanwhile the cops went from sneaking over at 5mph to screaming over at 45mph. That defused the situation, but if there weren't cops and/or I had a gun I would have definitely shot a round or two into the water to scare them off. Possibly more.
When the cops actually picked them up, it turned out they were 2 14 year olds sneaking onto boats at night stealing booze. The cops made them apologize for scaring the crap out of us, so I met them. They couldn't have been 115 pounds each. If I hadn't saw them, I honestly could have sworn under oath they were 300 pound linebackers based on their silhouettes on other boats. Thank god I didn't have a gun that day, I'm almost certain I would have shot one of them. This is how kids get shot while holding skittles and even trained police officers confuse wallets for guns. Your mind plays tricks on you.
My lessons learned: keep the lights on. Own a dog. If there are intruders, make them totally aware you are there because most of the time, they want nothing to do with people. I'm not against owning guns, but if you store them safely they won't be as much help as you think.
I have very little regard for the life of a robber. I don't feel that I should take valuable time out of my life to learn skills for applying measured non-lethal force to dissuade a person who intends to take my personal property by force. The only reason why I would be very hesitant to just shoot someone who broke into my house, would be my inability to identify them -- I don't want to shoot my mother-in-law.
In reality, if someone is armed and has broken into my house, I want it to be absolutely clear to them that I am unarmed. I want them to know that they have no need to attack me, and that they should just take some of my stuff and get out (by far the most likely reason they're there), leaving me unharmed. The alternative possibilities sound much worse to me.
This is true in almost every situation where people talk about guns being useful against crime. I think I am more likely to harm myself, to incite the other party to harm me, to harm a bystander (maybe someone in my household), or to harm someone that I perceive as a much more serious and dangerous criminal than they actually are, than I am to successfully be a "good guy with a gun who stops a bad guy with a gun".
[1]: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-s...
Not having a gun when someone armed threatens me will most likely increase my chances of survival/getting out of the conflict unharmed. Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation but I'm also more likely to die.
The bottom line is: any weapon you /add/ to a conflict rises the stakes for /all/ parties involved. And vice versa.
And this is known as the fallacy of making things up and asserting that they are most likely true.
> (Maybe with a gun I have a better chance of retaliation) but (I'm also more likely to die).
'end of story', 'All I need to know' are expressions that begin to end a discussion, they certainly don't make way for a healthy and productive exchange of ideas.
(I don't mean to knock on you here, just thought I would point it out so you can think about this on your own. Cheers).
No exchange of ideas on this topic, I've considered them all and I have decided to be armed while in my home. Whether I use it, how and when I use are a different story, but at least I may have that option. Others may choose not to have a gun, it's their choice.