thinking about buying a handgun

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And aside from the training, if you do finally decide to get a handgun for personal protection I would recommend a .22. They have the exact same effect as a larger caliber in regard to deterrent and comparable (in some cases better) stopping power, but not as high lethality.

Iow, you can scare 99% of would-be burglars/assailants away without ever having to fire the thing and if you ever do need to fire it, the chances are you will wound, not unnecessarily kill (unless you’re well trained and intend to kill).

That can then translate into a comparable margin of safety in regard to family members and accidents. Still incredibly dangerous, of course, but on a scale of Stormtrooper to Dirty Harry...

If you have to fire you want them stopped now. A .22 isn't going to do that unless you hit something vital.

We've been over this already over at SC, but I guess we need to do the dance again here. First, there's this from Shooting Illustrated (also critical, I should add):

I asked Ed Head, operations manager at Gunsite, for his opinion. He said, "Since the first rule of gunfighting is to have a gun, any gun is better than none at all. The little .22 LR may actually be better than some larger calibers, depending upon the ammunition selected. For example, I would think a high-velocity .22 cartridge like the Stinger might be a better choice than a .25 ACP loaded with FMJ rounds."

According to the book "Stopping Power, a Practical Analysis of the Latest Handgun Ammunition," by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow, Head is right. Marshall and Sanow found .22 LR Stinger ammunition was 58 percent more effective at producing one-shot stops than any of the FMJ .25 Auto loads.

When selecting a defensive handgun Head's wife could carry in her pocket, he choose the little Smith & Wesson J-frame Model 317 in .22 LR. Several things convinced him it was the right choice. For one, similarly sized revolvers in .357 Mag. and even .38 Spl. can be uncomfortable to shoot. Second, Smith & Wesson's eight-shot 317 only weighs 11 ounces. Finally, and most important, with the 317 his wife can consistently put all eight rounds into a target the size of an eye socket at 5 yards. Head asks, "What more do you need?"

He also said, "Nobody wants to get shot with any gun. It's been my experience people just don't stand there and let you shoot them. The most common stop is psychological. Most people stop fighting quickly after having been shot. Although we tend to worry endlessly about knockdown power and about what bullet and load is best, fact is, people just don't like getting shot, and unless facing the rare superhuman, even a .22 can get the job done."
...
The data in Marshall's and Sanow's book lists the effectiveness of six different .22 LR loads based on 4,483 actual street shootings. On average, the cartridge produced one-shot stops 31 percent of the time. Based on their sampling criteria, the .22 LR was found to be about half as effective as the .32 ACP. With data from 465 shootings, the CCI Stinger was the second-best .22 LR load with 38 percent one-shot stops. With only 10 shootings, the original .22 LR Quik-Shok HP load had the highest rating at 40 percent. Quik-Shok ammunition is now produced by CCI. It's available as a 40-grain Subsonic or a 32-grain Hyper-Velocity load. Marshall's and Sanow's data is based on the lighter, faster bullet.
....
One-shot terminal performance tests are interesting, but what if you shoot a bad guy multiple times? Marshall and Sanow based their findings on one shot, but I'm not sure one shot is the best way to evaluate the .22 LR cartridge for self-defense. Why? Because it's so easy to shoot fast and accurately. With the help of some friends I tested this hypothesis using a SIG Sauer P229 in .40 S&W and with a SIG .22 LR conversion kit. We found we could get twice as many hits in the same amount of time with the .22 LR. There were also fewer misses with the rimfire.

Make what you will of this data. What cannot be ignored is Marshall and Sanow examined almost 4,500 instances where a .22 LR was used for self-defense. In the same study they tracked the effectiveness of 16 different .45 ACP loads for a total of only 1,728 shootings. Yes, the .45 ACP was more effective, but what's astonishing was that they had twice the number of shootings to evaluate with the .22 LR. This should dispel any doubts the .22 LR is frequently used in an attempt to stop bad guys.

So, what about stopping power? This term always comes up. For what it's worth, consider that the first homicide I ever investigated, the perpetrator used a pellet rifle. Also, during my 13 years as a police officer, I pointed my handgun at a lot of bad guys doing a lot of bad things. In only two instances did it fail to make them stop. That's potent stopping power, and the trigger was never pulled. I would add that none first asked me, "Hey, how big a gun you got?" Like Head said, nobody wants to get shot with anything. It's a matter of perception and perception is important.

And this (from PoliceMag no less):

The point here is that no single ammunition that is typically used by law enforcement officers today can reliably claim to have superior stopping power.

I have seen a .22 caliber bullet completely incapacitate someone and a .45 ACP fail to achieve that result. People and animals shot with 10mm rounds and .357 SIG rounds have continued to run from the police. I have been on scene as a tactical medical provider when a suicidal person shot himself in the head with a .45 Colt round resulting in instant death. And I have seen the same results in suicides that used smaller calibers, including .22, .25, and .32. I have also seen people hit with 9mm, .40, and .45 without so much as staggering or slowing their verbal or physical activities.

So we come back to the original question: Which ammunition has the best stopping power? I can't answer that question. What I can say is that you should look for ammunition that reliably lives up to its claims of penetration and expansion but don't believe that these two factors alone are related to stopping power.

The ultimate stopping power rests with your training with your weapon system. Accurate hits in any reasonable caliber will "stop" a person if that person has experienced enough brain or spinal cord damage to interrupt regular neurologic impulses from reaching vital areas of the body or the person has hemorrhaged enough blood to lower his or her blood pressure where the brain no longer is able to function well. You can also stop a person if a major bone shatters after a bullet injures it, but does that stop the fight?

Stopping power is a marketing tool and should be dropped from our discussions of ballistic performance until such time as ammunition effectiveness is measured by more means than just the results of gelatin and barrier tests. When ammunition companies or regulatory agencies begin to use computer simulations, simulant tests, animal models, autopsy results, and trauma surgeon operation reports with hospital summaries to determine the effectiveness of their products, then we will know which ammunition can be labeled as having the "best stopping power." And this claim will be based on scientific data rather than incomplete ballistic testing.

Until then, shot placement with any commercially available ammunition will offer you the best chance of maximizing your duty ammunition's stopping power.

But, of course, for me it's the fact that a .22 was the preferred calibre for most of the world's covert operatives--including the Seals and the Mossad--but that had more to do with its easier suppression and the fact that professional assassins often opted for point blank, back-of-the-head shots, but who gives a shit? For home protection all you need is a shotgun for terror and deterrent and a .22 for the .00000000000001% bath salt junkie that only exists in your fever dreams.

Point being once again that training is all that matters and if you can't fire a .22 properly, then you have no business with anything larger. All you'd be banking on in that scenario is blind luck. Which means you have the exact same bank no matter what the calibre and with a .22 you have numerous added benefits (such as little to no recoil allowing more accurate multiple shot placement and you won't go deaf firing the thing).

Anyone insisting they must have a larger calibre is just a paranoid, delusional pussy with a tiny cock that can't shoot for shit and therefore shouldn't be allowed to carry any gun, let alone a far more difficult gun to master than a .22.

But, yes, you're right, as with any gun, you need to hit something vital...to stop a zombie. For 100% of everything you'll ever deal with in real life, however, a .22 is the perfect self-defense weapon and all anyone needs (combined with a shotgun for home protection).

 

[whollygoats]

Add me to the chorus that says that you don't get a gun without getting training on it.

When I was a kid, I went through an NRA-sponsored gun safety course. This was back in the late 70s when the organization was still (mostly) about hunting and safe handling of firearms.

It might as well have been titled "How Not To Shoot Someone."

The lesson they hammered over and over again was that you never, ever pointed a firearm at another human being. Even accidentally. The rifle or shotgun in your hands was a deadly fucking weapon and if you were an idiot with it you might wound or kill someone...yourself included. Keep the safety on. Know whether or not a round is in the chamber. Check your field of fire. Know the distance your round will travel and make sure there's nothing and no one downrange. Don't even put your finger on the trigger unless you're absolutely sure you're not putting yourself or another person in danger.

The course was tough, and a lot of people failed...myself included. Then the instructor took a very long time to berate those of us who failed and tell us in no uncertain terms that we had no business carrying a firearm.


I think we need more of that sort of thing.

Yep...That was my father doing the teaching as an instructor in NRA-sponsored 'hunter's safety' courses. I lived with the teacher, so I heard it every damned time the weapons came out for cleaning or preparation.

 

[DCHindley]

Accidently shooting innocent 3rd parties.

In 2010, our two kids inherited 14 guns from my wife's sister, who herself inherited them from her late husband (cancer).

There were something like 3 handguns (.22 "hardware store" revolver; .38 automatic and a single shot pistol). Also about 4 shotguns, and a half dozen or so "long rifles" (from .22 shooting competition type, hunting rifles, an WW2 era M1 Garand and a WW2 era Arisaka type 38, a .50 cal muzzle-loader, up to a genuine and fully legal Colt 5.56mm M16A1 "machine gun"). I learned a lot about them - where made, when made, etc., but we never shot any of them even once, yet.

The M16A1 was sold, because my wife was terrified of it and kept thinking they are all illegal (they are not, except for those who can't pass a background search for federal registration, or have an unregistered one that should be registered), for $18,000 to a dealer who I am sure sold it for about $25,000. The others we still have. There is ammo around for the .38 auto and the .22 revolver, and a few of the magnum rounds of the one shot pistola.

Well anyways, what bothers me is not so much the weapon, but who might be killed by it. Guns can have a kick (I've shot .22 rifles as a kid at camp) and so accuracy is an issue. If you shoot, even when you think you can't possibly miss, you still have a dang good chance of missing, or the round goes right through the target's flesh and exit on the other side. What if that stray bullet hits a person just walking by or on their porch or even a bedroom? Like the teachers who don't want to carry a gun at school, for fear that they shoot a student accidentally. Then, even if they have stopped an active shooter, the unintended death of a student would effectively convert them from hero to villain, in an instant.

I think I've told this tale here before, but there was an incident when a city councilman in a small town near Cleveland Ohio USA heard someone in his garage. He grabbed his handgun (Glock or something) , took it outside with him to investigate, but saw no-one in his garage. But he did see a car across the street with the engine on and lights off, and he decided this must be the perpetrators he heard (he did not consider raccoons or skunks, etc.), aimed his gun and put a bullet into the cupola through a rear side window.

It turned out that the car was occupied by a couple high school kids who were making out reclined on the seat. The driver immediately put it in reverse, got on the road and took off, all the while the councilman let off a couple more rounds that missed. The kids went right to the police department, and the officers temporarily detained the councilman. Basically, he had not properly handled his weapon or took precautions as one bullet could have killed or seriously injured one of the kids in the car, and one of the other rounds had penetrated the wall of a surrounding house. If anyone was killed or injured, Mr councilman could have gone to prison for reckless homicide.

What if he had an AR15 and kept pulling the trigger until he spent the final, 30th, round, it would take less than 10 seconds but 3-4 neighbors might be shot/killed by accident. This is what scares me about "gun rights" advocates who want absolutely no restrictions on sales of semi-auto "assault" weapons for defense of your castle. You could even do this with a M1 Garand, although I believe their clips hold only 5 rounds or something like that. Assault rifles, unless used for competition shooting, belong in combat units, not castles. That makes me question what the *real* reason is for the NRA's policy. Is there a bunch of private militias out there that will someday wrest control of districts and shoot folks who have the wrong religion or politics? Where's this all heading?! Do we want the US to become Beirut Lebanon in the 1970s, when that was exactly what the the contending factions did?

So, "be careful out there" (yes, I remember the "Hill Street Blues" TV series). I do like the idea of a shotgun as a deterrent, US VP Biden style, but am still on the fence about the pistols. There are SO many hot heads driving around, who might feel no hesitation to pull a piece and shoot me for a well deserved "salute" for aggressive driving. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We have a long road ahead folks ...

Perhaps some of that "Star Wars" weapon and defensive systems developed under President Reagan can be redirected to produce personal force fields. What would the NRA do? <this is intended as humor>.

DCH

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Add me to the chorus that says that you don't get a gun without getting training on it.

When I was a kid, I went through an NRA-sponsored gun safety course. This was back in the late 70s when the organization was still (mostly) about hunting and safe handling of firearms.

It might as well have been titled "How Not To Shoot Someone."

The lesson they hammered over and over again was that you never, ever pointed a firearm at another human being. Even accidentally. The rifle or shotgun in your hands was a deadly fucking weapon and if you were an idiot with it you might wound or kill someone...yourself included. Keep the safety on. Know whether or not a round is in the chamber. Check your field of fire. Know the distance your round will travel and make sure there's nothing and no one downrange. Don't even put your finger on the trigger unless you're absolutely sure you're not putting yourself or another person in danger.

The course was tough, and a lot of people failed...myself included. Then the instructor took a very long time to berate those of us who failed and tell us in no uncertain terms that we had no business carrying a firearm.


I think we need more of that sort of thing.

Sounds like a good title for a gun safety class.

These days I wonder if it would make sense to teach the classroom part of a gun safety class with some realistic (including the ability to load ammo into them) mocks (they can't actually fire) that have an electronics package that can sense when they're pointed at someone and go "BANG!" if that happens. Don't tell the students about the electronics, when someone slips up you have a very good teaching moment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I asked Ed Head, operations manager at Gunsite, for his opinion. He said, "Since the first rule of gunfighting is to have a gun, any gun is better than none at all. The little .22 LR may actually be better than some larger calibers, depending upon the ammunition selected. For example, I would think a high-velocity .22 cartridge like the Stinger might be a better choice than a .25 ACP loaded with FMJ rounds."

Duh! A .25 doesn't have much stopping power, either.

But, of course, for me it's the fact that a .22 was the preferred calibre for most of the world's covert operatives--including the Seals and the Mossad--but that had more to do with its easier suppression and the fact that professional assassins often opted for point blank, back-of-the-head shots, but who gives a shit? For home protection all you need is a shotgun for terror and deterrent and a .22 for the .00000000000001% bath salt junkie that only exists in your fever dreams.

Point being once again that training is all that matters and if you can't fire a .22 properly, then you have no business with anything larger. All you'd be banking on in that scenario is blind luck. Which means you have the exact same bank no matter what the calibre and with a .22 you have numerous added benefits (such as little to no recoil allowing more accurate multiple shot placement and you won't go deaf firing the thing).

Anyone insisting they must have a larger calibre is just a paranoid, delusional pussy with a tiny cock that can't shoot for shit and therefore shouldn't be allowed to carry any gun, let alone a far more difficult gun to master than a .22.

But, yes, you're right, as with any gun, you need to hit something vital...to stop a zombie. For 100% of everything you'll ever deal with in real life, however, a .22 is the perfect self-defense weapon and all anyone needs (combined with a shotgun for home protection).

A larger round can be further from a vital area and still stop. In a real firefight you're not going to be putting your rounds in the bullseye unless you train like the special forces.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think I've told this tale here before, but there was an incident when a city councilman in a small town near Cleveland Ohio USA heard someone in his garage. He grabbed his handgun (Glock or something) , took it outside with him to investigate, but saw no-one in his garage. But he did see a car across the street with the engine on and lights off, and he decided this must be the perpetrators he heard (he did not consider raccoons or skunks, etc.), aimed his gun and put a bullet into the cupola through a rear side window.

It turned out that the car was occupied by a couple high school kids who were making out reclined on the seat. The driver immediately put it in reverse, got on the road and took off, all the while the councilman let off a couple more rounds that missed. The kids went right to the police department, and the officers temporarily detained the councilman. Basically, he had not properly handled his weapon or took precautions as one bullet could have killed or seriously injured one of the kids in the car, and one of the other rounds had penetrated the wall of a surrounding house. If anyone was killed or injured, Mr councilman could have gone to prison for reckless homicide.

Said councilman shouldn't be within a mile of a gun. This is utter recklessness, I hope he went to jail for a long time for this one.

 

[bilby]

A larger round can be further from a vital area and still stop. In a real firefight you're not going to be putting your rounds in the bullseye unless you train like the special forces, so you are a lethal danger to innocent bystanders and should not have had a gun to begin with, until you were adequately trained.

FTFY.

If you are not at least sufficiently well trained to hit what you are targeting, you shouldn't have a gun. That that criterion would imply disarming the vast majority of people, concerns me not in the least.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

When it comes to guns, there are roughly two varieties. A concealed carry weapon and a house gun. A gun kept in the house can be large and powerful. For example a large capacity Glock .40 caliber. For concealed carry, a small gun may be a better choice. A good example of a popular CCW is Keltec p-32. .32 ACP, 6 ounces unloaded. Or the slightly larger Keltec .380 ACP.

For house guns, consider pre-frag ammunition such as Magsafe. Such rounds have a strong tendency to not penetrate several walls and go on the kill innocents two houses down the street. They come apart rather easily.

For both you will want to consider how to store weapons when you are not at home. Burglars love guns. Good as cash at your local drug dealers. You don't want your stolen gun to fall into the hands of a stupid little dindu with an 82 IQ.

 

[bilby]

...A gun kept in the house can be large and powerful...

But shouldn't be, for a very large number of very good reasons, not least of which is that large and powerful guns are unsuitable for most gun owners - they are harder to aim, and so require more practice to become truly proficient, while at the same time having a greater kick, making it even less likely that you will want to put in the time and effort to go to the range and actually do that practice.

As a general rule, the more powerful any tool is, the more time it takes to learn to operate it without fucking things up. Guns are not an exception to this rule; High powered tools - including, but certainly not limited to, guns - should be left to the professionals. If you really feel the need for one, then either get trained, or expect to spend time at the ER, or the cemetery.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Today's concealed handgun licenses are a joke. A short lecture, qualify from 30 feet if I remember correctly, and several dumb as brick classmates that you know shouldn't be within 10 feet of a gun, of any kind,

 

[Bronzeage]

A personal firearm which is purchased because of a perceived threat serves the same purpose as a pacifier or a security blanket for an infant and the analogy would be more applicable if more babies choked to death on their pacifier or hanged themselves with their blanky.

Property crimes tend to occur when no one is home, so a pistol does little deter thieves.

 

[bilby]

A personal firearm which is purchased because of a perceived threat serves the same purpose as a pacifier or a security blanket for an infant and the analogy would be more applicable if more babies choked to death on their pacifier or hanged themselves with their blanky.

Property crimes tend to occur when no one is home, so a pistol does little deter thieves.

Yeah, if deterring house-breakers is your intent, getting a dog is far more effective. Thieves are looking for the easy mark - if they wanted to put in effort, they would have gotten a job instead - so they are easily put off, and will move on to your neighbour's place if they hear a dog bark. Even a small dog is too much hassle for most thieves. It's easier to go next door than to risk someone coming to see why the dog's barking.

And they find out you have a dog pretty fast - ours go nuts if someone they don't trust so much as sets foot in the front yard (sorry postie). They won't know that they should be frightened of your gun until they either see it, or it is fired - both of which are far too late.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

...A gun kept in the house can be large and powerful...

But shouldn't be, for a very large number of very good reasons, not least of which is that large and powerful guns are unsuitable for most gun owners - they are harder to aim, and so require more practice to become truly proficient, while at the same time having a greater kick, making it even less likely that you will want to put in the time and effort to go to the range and actually do that practice.

As a general rule, the more powerful any tool is, the more time it takes to learn to operate it without fucking things up. Guns are not an exception to this rule; High powered tools - including, but certainly not limited to, guns - should be left to the professionals. If you really feel the need for one, then either get trained, or expect to spend time at the ER, or the cemetery.

As somebody who has owned a Glock 22 .40 S&W, I can say it is not hard to use, aim and fire. From experience. Of course one should spend some time at the range to become proficient, and make sure you gun whatever it is actually works with the ammunition you want to use. As far as hard to shoot, the worst gun I have that is hard to use is the diminutive NAA .22 WMR mini-revolver. That one takes a lot of concentration and care. I own a Seecamp .32 ACP auto that is far harder to shoot than the Glock. It only weighs 11 ounces and recoils hard. It has no sights. But with practice, I got to where I could hit a target with good accuracy at 10 yards. It is easy to pocket carry. The NAA mini revolver is even easier.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A personal firearm which is purchased because of a perceived threat serves the same purpose as a pacifier or a security blanket for an infant and the analogy would be more applicable if more babies choked to death on their pacifier or hanged themselves with their blanky.

Property crimes tend to occur when no one is home, so a pistol does little deter thieves.

Yeah, if deterring house-breakers is your intent, getting a dog is far more effective. Thieves are looking for the easy mark - if they wanted to put in effort, they would have gotten a job instead - so they are easily put off, and will move on to your neighbour's place if they hear a dog bark. Even a small dog is too much hassle for most thieves. It's easier to go next door than to risk someone coming to see why the dog's barking.

And they find out you have a dog pretty fast - ours go nuts if someone they don't trust so much as sets foot in the front yard (sorry postie). They won't know that they should be frightened of your gun until they either see it, or it is fired - both of which are far too late.

Around these parts, home invasions are a common occurrence. Best bet in a high crime area is a stout iron set of burglar bars on your front door and windows.

 

[bilby]

A personal firearm which is purchased because of a perceived threat serves the same purpose as a pacifier or a security blanket for an infant and the analogy would be more applicable if more babies choked to death on their pacifier or hanged themselves with their blanky.

Property crimes tend to occur when no one is home, so a pistol does little deter thieves.

Yeah, if deterring house-breakers is your intent, getting a dog is far more effective. Thieves are looking for the easy mark - if they wanted to put in effort, they would have gotten a job instead - so they are easily put off, and will move on to your neighbour's place if they hear a dog bark. Even a small dog is too much hassle for most thieves. It's easier to go next door than to risk someone coming to see why the dog's barking.

And they find out you have a dog pretty fast - ours go nuts if someone they don't trust so much as sets foot in the front yard (sorry postie). They won't know that they should be frightened of your gun until they either see it, or it is fired - both of which are far too late.

Around these parts, home invasions are a common occurrence. Best bet in a high crime area is a stout iron set of burglar bars on your front door and windows.

Best bet in a high crime area is to give poor people more assistance to survive without resorting to crime. It's MUCH cheaper to pay the extra taxes for welfare and support payments, drug rehab programs, and high quality education, than it is to pay for the damage and losses due to crime.

High crime is a symptom of a badly run society.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The idea that someday, some how, crime will end is a dream. In the meantime, burglar bars. That is effective right now.

Wish in one hand and shit in the other. Which hand fills up first? As we say down here in Texas.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

As a longtime gun owner I say, first decide why you want the gun. As has been said, is it for concealed carry or home defense? As a good compromise weapon, a 9mm Walther or Smith and Wesson 38 snub makes it. Buy it, get a holster and practice, practice, practice. Learn the principles of gun safety and practice them until they're second nature. Don't show it off, it can make you a mark for a thief. Don't treat it like a toy. If it is for personal protection, get a permit and CARRY. It will do you no good in a mugging if it is home in a drawer. If it is for home defense, leave it there. Clean it and keep it clean. Keep the ammunition clean. Keep it away from children and pets. Don't pull it unless you will use it. Some people are not frightened by firearms. (They are fools, but let it go.) Get the gun and its make and type for you, not because John Wayne, James Bond or Sam Spade had one like it.

Eldarion Lathria,
(Who has used a firearm in self defense)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As a longtime gun owner I say, first decide why you want the gun. As has been said, is it for concealed carry or home defense? As a good compromise weapon, a 9mm Walther or Smith and Wesson 38 snub makes it. Buy it, get a holster and practice, practice, practice. Learn the principles of gun safety and practice them until they're second nature. Don't show it off, it can make you a mark for a thief. Don't treat it like a toy. If it is for personal protection, get a permit and CARRY. It will do you no good in a mugging if it is home in a drawer. If it is for home defense, leave it there. Clean it and keep it clean. Keep the ammunition clean. Keep it away from children and pets. Don't pull it unless you will use it. Some people are not frightened by firearms. (They are fools, but let it go.) Get the gun and its make and type for you, not because John Wayne, James Bond or Sam Spade had one like it.

Eldarion Lathria,
(Who has used a firearm in self defense)

I too have had to draw a gun for self defense. Having a gun does not mean it will solve all your problems but when it does, it is a good thing to have with you. I have had to defend myself with a knife. I prefer the gun mightly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Best bet in a high crime area is to give poor people more assistance to survive without resorting to crime. It's MUCH cheaper to pay the extra taxes for welfare and support payments, drug rehab programs, and high quality education, than it is to pay for the damage and losses due to crime.

High crime is a symptom of a badly run society.

The crime isn't because they don't have the means to survive. It's because they don't have the means to survive in the fashion they desire. (Note that drugs are a big part of this--an awful lot of crime is driven by the need for money for the next fix, something that would be considerably lessened with legalization.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A personal firearm which is purchased because of a perceived threat serves the same purpose as a pacifier or a security blanket for an infant and the analogy would be more applicable if more babies choked to death on their pacifier or hanged themselves with their blanky.

Property crimes tend to occur when no one is home, so a pistol does little deter thieves.

Note, however, that you have gained in this case. If you aren't at home when the burglar comes in there's no chance of you being hurt by an unintended encounter. In countries where homeowners don't have guns the hot burglary rate is around 50%. In the US it's about 1/3 of that. By making them wait until the place is empty you have improved your position.

Note, also, that some years back we had a burglar hitting around here. It pretty much had to be a local (probably a teen) as they showed great knowledge of who lived in the various houses. No house where I would evaluate any occupant as either a possible physical threat or someone who very well might own firearms was hit.