I want to buy a handgun for protection, but I no NOTHING about guns...help me out?

Question

I want a handgun. Fairly new if not brand new. Something simple but with enough fire power to drop someone. Also fairly easy to use for the wifey. I don't want to spend a whole bunch either if possible. Can you recommend any guns, sites, etc? Thanks

Answer 1

First, ignore all the advice you've had thus far. Second, whatever firearm you choose, both you and your wife undergo firearms training from a reliable source, such as a gun range or police training facility, which sometimes offers such courses.Third, since your wife is going to use the firearm, I suggest a revolver instead of a semi-automatic pistol. All semi-auto pistols can be tricky compared to a good reliable revolver.

Now, for choice of weapons: I suggest you look at the Ruger SP-101 in .357 magnum caliber, which also will accept .38 special ammo. It's made from stainless steel, which means it's a low maintenance weapon. Compared in price to a Colt or Smith & Wesson it's a bargain, and is of better quality.

\Go to: http://www.ruger-firearms.com/

Answer 2

Training first. Contact the NRA for a local firearms trainer. .357 Mag might be a good idea because you can use the .38 special ammo in it also. Nothing under the 9MM Luger.

Personally, I don't trust anything under .45 ACP or the .45 Colt. But to start shooting may be a little much for both of you to start with.

I would run a search on gun ranges around your area and see if you can find one that rents guns so you can see what you like

Answer 3

Yah, Brinks Home Security, ADT, and many more. Buddy, if some one breaks into your house, and you kill them, you will be charged with murder. The only time you may use the gun is if they have one or a knide and you physically see it and are threatened. If u have a home security, it'll automatically notify the police so you dont have to encounter the person. Guns only cause more problems than solve. "enough power to drop someone" Implys that you have plans of using this gun for protection which is just such a joke. Unless you live in the ****** boonies or ghetto, you outta not worry about it.

Answer 4

Probably the best hand gun that you and your wife could both use is the 9mm. I would get some expanding or fragmenting bullets for it. Less than 9mm just doesn't have stopping power and higher caliber weapons might have recoil that your wife might find excessive. Do take a fire arms class and learn to use the weapon safely and efficiently.

Answer 5

9mm. can't go wrong. it's usable, your wife could handle it, but it still packs some power. go to the range. i love firing that thing, it makes me feel powerful. anyway...i'm sure you can find a class if you're less than gun familiar. it would be smart, also, so you don't shoot yourself. i grew up in a house where guns were present etc. (i live in michigan, everyone hunts here) so i was already semi familiar with them.

Answer 6

I'm wondering if a taser gun might be a good idea....it would protect without actually killing.

Answer 7

i think that you should rethink the whole idea

Answer 8

I'd say the first answerer has a good idea:

"Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true.

1986
In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that
54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
He concluded that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned". This study design was criticized as flawed, however, because it implied that the homicides were performed with the decedent's gun rather than an intruder's gun and failed to account for attacks that were foiled without killing the attacker. The homicide data was also criticised for being self-selecting. The only gun owners that were included were those that had been involved in a homicide of some sort- a rare occurence for the population at large, but relatively common for people engaged in certain criminal activities. Kellermann noted that many of the slain gun owners in his study were likely involved in dangerous criminal occupations and may have owned the guns for protection.

1988
In 1988, Kellermann published a study comparing robberies, burglaries, assaults, and homicides in Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia, a city "similar to Seattle in many ways" that had "adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns." The study found that
both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.
The study concluded that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community by reducing the lethality of assaults.

1993
In 1993, Kellermann responded to the criticism of his 1986 paper with a case-control study of the rates of all homicides in the victim's home in Cleveland, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Seattle over five years, in homes where a gun was kept versus homes where a gun was not. This study found that
Kellermann's 1993 Table 4Variables Included in the Final Conditional Logistic-Regression Model
VariableAdjusted Odds Ratio95% CI
Any household member used illicit drugs5.72.6-12.6
Home rented4.42.3-8.2
Any household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home4.42.2-8.8
Case subject or control lived alone3.72.1-6.6
Gun or guns kept in the home2.71.6-4.4
Any household member arrested2.51.6-4.1
23.9% of homicides occurred in the victim's home
35.8% of the controls (homes where there was not a homicide) kept a firearm in their home
45.4% of all victims of homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home
62% of victims of firearm homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home (correction to original paper)
other protective measures, (reinforced doors, deadbolts, burglar alarms, and bars on the windows) were associated with small (about 0.8 times) reductions in risk of homicide in the home
after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups
this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house
this risk was significantly less than the increased risk due to sociological factors (rental of a home instead of ownership, living alone) but close to that associated with the presence of a convicted felon in the home (see table at right).
These results confirmed the 1986 finding that, in the net, a firearm in the home represents a greater risk overall than the protection it may offer against intruders, either indirectly or by discouraging potential assaults. Kellermann noted that the study demonstrates the pervasiveness of domestic assault, as compared to better publicized crimes such as home invasion, but continued to stress the role of handguns in increasing the lethality of such assaults.
Critics of Kellermann's 1993 paper responded with a large body of skeptical analysis, some accurate (i.e. the study population was urban and therefore higher risk in general, compared to suburban or rural areas; that residents of homes where there is a risk of fatal domestic violence typically are more aware of the fact than external researchers), and some inaccurate (i.e. that members of rival gangs were tabulated as "family member or intimate acquaintance"; that the data was "cherry-picked"). Particular attention was paid to the fact that he did not "release his data" immediately upon publication, even though Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's grants do not require the individual investigator to make data public until there are no more publications to be developed from it. SUNY-Buffalo's Lawrence Southwick, among others, went as far as to publicly speculate "that Kellermann's full data set would actually vindicate defensive gun ownership." [2] In 1997, Congress cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s injury prevention center by $2.6 million, the exact amount the CDC spent on the firearms research the previous year; the point was not lost on the CDC. Congress has also added language to every CDC budget since then prohibiting the agency from funding anything that might "advocate or promote gun control."
Kellermann continues to be a shibboleth for those opposed to gun control, with large numbers of websites and Usenet postings repeating the attacks (both correct and incorrect) on his research, continuing to claim that he is still "hiding" his data, accusing him of fraud, and claiming that the study has been "debunked".


I'm an ex-Marine, but i feel no need to have a gun around the house.

Answer 9

o k a y ... O.o