Brits! With the perceived increase in violent crime, have you considered buying a gun to protect your home?

Question

Either legally (e.g., a licenced shotgun) or illegally (a handgun off of the street).

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that one day you might need something with a bit more grunt than the pizza slicer to protect your home, and to hell with the consequences?

Serious responses only please- I am British myself and a few of my friends have voiced this opinion- just wanted to hear what you thought.

Thanks

Answer 1

The answer is in your question mate.

"the PERCEIVED increase in violent crime".

A few high-profile cases does not create a rule. It is sad that a number of teenagers have been shot in rough parts of London this year, but that has no effect on me living hundreds of miles away in Tyne And Wear.

And what has violent crime (considered a street-crime) got to do with burglary (necessitating the protection of your home)?

Burglars are opportunistic criminals and will enter a property only when there is an easy way in, such as a window left open while the owner pops to the shops for 5 mins because it'll be alright (although people forget it only takes 10 seconds to climb through a window, not 5 minutes). Burglars RARELY strike when people are home, or even during the night. Most of it takes place in the afternoon or early evening.

Anyway - you're asking if people would consider getting a gun - such as a licensed shotgun!!! - to protect their homes, as if it's as easy as buying a pack of chewing gum.

Someone living in a terraced-house can't just go and legally buy a shotgun because they want one. Of course they are available legally, but the chances of a standard home-owner obtaining one legally is nil.

Answer 2

By now I would think you know that the liberal gun control bigots LIE. All these liberal gun control bigots want to do is stop law abiding citizens from owning firearms. Here is how the liberal gun control bigots think: Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. -Sarah Brady. "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno. I do hope you noticed this liberal ndmagicm didn't back their LIE in anyway. @ ndmagicm. As usual a liberal lies and has no proof of their lie. Why don't you back up this Bull $hit that when gun sales spike crime goes up? You can't, because it is just anther liberal lie. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a firearm, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation, and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Answer 3

no a gun is to dangerous,i have 4 kids in the house.
I have a few other toys to play with, i wont say what they are lets just put it this way, if someone breaks into my home they are dead,if they are not they will wish they were,and that's no bull,my family comes first.

Answer 4

No, because the innocent victim of the crime gets the prison sentence. That is life. HOWEVER, I am learning self-defence to protect me and anyone else.

Lives are more precious than belonging.

Be Happy :-)

Answer 5

This is a very interesting question.
it was at one time quite legal to shoot a burglar, but people were abusing this law; They would invite people with whom they held a grudge to their homes, shoot them and say they were burglars! Parliament had to act, and it did by passing laws against it. However in order to protect the people Parliament founded a force of men to protect householders;This force was called the Police Force!
It seems to me that the Police force is no longer upholding its side of the bargain!

Answer 6

carolyn- you mean Tony Martin. He was plagued with people breaking into his house, but the police refused to help!
Back to the question; there is an air rifle in my home, bought "for protection", according to the hubby. We seem to have acquired some ornamental samurai swords, which had to be registered at the time of purchase. We have a daft border collie that likes to bark at nothing, and 3 blocks of kitchen knives ( 2 which were given as wedding presents!) and one hubby! (I wouldn't want to see him in one of his moods if I were you!!!!!!)

Answer 7

nope never thougt of that violence isnt the answer...my cousins have alot of guns and stuff but not for protection reasons..i gues sits ok to have one if its legal and for protection and oly used in self defence..i havent needed one but i can see why people feel they do..like me and some of my friends have been like violently shouted at on the streets and nearly knifed once so like...yer..otherwise i thnk nah you dont need one just phone the police :P

Answer 8

I haven't, although I agree everyone has the right to defend themselves in there home.But I have 2 bull terriers so I cant see many people getting past them in a hurry !! :)

Answer 9

honestly i havent ever considered it.........i remember a case a few years ago when sum youths broke into a guys house and he attacked them and he got done for it! madness.................i dont think that everyone should rush out and buy a gun i mean it is not always a good thing that there are so many in the US. however i can imagine that if someone was breaking into my property or attacking me or my friends and family it would be damn handy.................

Answer 10

guns are more dangerous than no guns as you well know by the shootings in America, but people feel the law is too soft in the uk