Home Defense by Nick

jesse said:
Very few of us have talked about "expensive high caliber firearms".
Click to expand...

800px-Smith-et-Wesson-modele-500-p1030121.jpg


Can we now? :D
 
jesse said:
Very few of us have talked about "expensive high caliber firearms".
Click to expand...

Good point! I don't even know what these things cost. They just sounded fancy and expensive with all the big numbers and calibers and so forth.
 
steingar said:
Good point! I don't even know what these things cost. They just sounded fancy and expensive with all the big numbers and calibers and so forth.
Click to expand...
I own exactly one firearm that cost over $500, and zero that cost over $1000.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
HOW did he reload six that fast? I presume he didn't drop in one bullet at a time, but had them already "grouped" in some manner with a clip or something?
Click to expand...
The term you're looking for is "speedloader". Basically has 6 cartridges in a holder that's set up to match the cylinder, with a knob on the back. Open the cylinder, dump the spent cartridges, put all six in with the speedloader at once, twist the knob, pull the speedloader off, close the cylinder, resume firing. It takes longer to say than do.
 
Just went and blasted 100 rounds at the local indoor range.

Springfield XD SC .40 (3" barrel), 10 rounds, at 21 feet. (several went through the same holes):

try2.jpg


Another example..a little looser (12 rounds):
try1.jpg


I am getting better for sure.
 
jmaynard said:
I own exactly one firearm that cost over $500, and zero that cost over $1000.
Click to expand...

Ouch! That's expensive in my book! Sorry, I'm not laying out that kind of coin for something with such a low likelihood. But I'll stop posting in this thread; I'm being kind of a kill joy and that isn't fair to you guys.
 
steingar said:
Ouch! That's expensive in my book! Sorry, I'm not laying out that kind of coin for something with such a low likelihood. But I'll stop posting in this thread; I'm being kind of a kill joy and that isn't fair to you guys.
Click to expand...
If you flinch at a $500 piece of durable equipment, aviation is not for you... :nono: :D
 
jmaynard said:
If you flinch at a $500 piece of durable equipment, aviation is not for you... :nono: :D
Click to expand...

Oh how right you are... especially when even filling up a Cherokee with low tanks will likely cost around $200.
 
steingar said:
Ouch! That's expensive in my book! Sorry, I'm not laying out that kind of coin for something with such a low likelihood. But I'll stop posting in this thread; I'm being kind of a kill joy and that isn't fair to you guys.
Click to expand...
Buying a gun isn't all about protecting yourself from a random Chinese invasion. Too many people think that people who own guns own them so that they can kill bad guys or something stupid.

Yes, a gun is not a toy and must be respected. At the same time, the craftsmanship is amazing on many firearms. There are few things you can buy that will last your entire lifetime and several lifetimes after that.

I have some really neat guns, some of which have a lot of history in my family. One in particular was rebuilt by my great great uncle. The entire stock was carved by hand and it is an absolute work of art.

I own guns because I can. I own them because I enjoy shooting. I own them because many are beautiful. I own them because they will last forever. I will defend myself with my guns if it ever came down to that--but--that isn't the primary reason I own them.
 
jesse said:
Buying a gun isn't all about protecting yourself from a random Chinese invasion. Too many people think that people who own guns own them so that they can kill bad guys or something stupid.

Yes, a gun is not a toy and must be respected. At the same time, the craftsmanship is amazing on many firearms. There are few things you can buy that will last your entire lifetime and several lifetimes after that.

I have some really neat guns, some of which have a lot of history in my family. One in particular was rebuilt by my great great uncle. The entire stock was carved by hand and it is an absolute work of art.

I own guns because I can. I own them because I enjoy shooting. I own them because many are beautiful. I own them because they will last forever. I will defend myself with my guns if it ever came down to that--but--that isn't the primary reason I own them.
Click to expand...

I own guns for 2 primary reasons:
1) To protect myself against home intrusion
2) To protect myself against country invasion

You have to realize that I live in a much different place than you do, in that crime is a VERY real thing here in Albuquerque, and in reality, an invasion is a larger (albeit small and not likely at all) possibility as well. Its very much still a bit of "wild west" out here in many ways.

I agree, guns are awesome works of art in many cases, but I'm one of those people that has had bad things happen that wouldn't have happened had I had my gun with me at the time. I've been through an attempted carjacking (with a fake weapon, but still), I've witnessed robberies and I've been mugged. I've had bullets shot into my home, and I've had people die within my sight. Honestly, I'm realistic enough to realize that I can't stop all of the above, and in many cases would not even pull my weapon unless I KNEW I could make a difference, but at least there's a possibility.

I've had threats on my life, and had law enforcement tell me that I need to be willing to protect myself against home intrusion. So I disagree that it is "something stupid" that causes that kind of concern. I prefer not to live my life in fear over things I can control. Guns give me that control.
 
SkyHog said:
I own guns for 2 primary reasons:
1) To protect myself against home intrusion
2) To protect myself against country invasion
Click to expand...

I own guns for exactly the same reason Nick does. I'd add another
one though:

3) To protect myself against a tyrannical govt.

I don't hunt. I go to the range enough to remember which end to
point at the bad guys and stay reasonably proficient. I've had guns
most of my life and have a 38 I got in the late 60s.
 
I own firearms (rifles, shotguns, hanguns) because I want to.

I don't need to justify through "reasons" my ownership of horses, azaleas, 1/2" drive breaker bar, or butterfinger Ice cream.

Why should firearms be any different?
 
Nick, you make a fair point in your post. You seem to live in almost war-zone conditions. Well, maybe not that bad, but you are clearly in a situation where domestic security is not a foregone conclusion.

For someone like myself, living in comfortable semi-rural neighborhood, the notion of a violent home invasion borders on ludicrous. The danger to my household of firearm possession far outweighs whatever pinhole risk I might wish to defend myself against. Violent crime is virtually unheard of, and almost without exception domestic. I have absolutely no need for a firearm, other than if I wanted one for fun (which is why Dan owns his, and that makes sense to me too).

I read some of these gun-ownership stories, with wild home defense scenarios and think, "That's nuts." Now I think, maybe not so nuts if you face troublemakers day in and day out. I now better understand your desire to own a firearm as a home defense tool.

The stuff I read about protecting against the federal gov't (not from you Nick) is still laughable.
 
flyersfan31 said:
That would explain Rush Limbaugh....
Click to expand...
Dude, this is HT. You're obscuring the subject.

You had posted that you were/are against ownership. Then Nick had illustrated certain things to which your response was sort of like, 'Oh I see. Thanks, Nick.'

But within that same response you mentioned chance, pinholes, etc. As if that bad ol gun, just by nature of being in your home will invite harm upon you...as if assigning intent to an inanimate object. The epitome of ignorance.

Guns don't cause trouble, it is those who don't know how to properly handle firearms that cause inadvertant harm. Again, the epitome of ignorance when one takes all they know, colored with perception, and tied pretty with a bow, and present it as substantive opinion worthy of arguing the point. The thing is, they don't know anything (of the subject at hand) other than how to formulate hearsay into what they think to be a cogent argument.


So, in one post you admit (or at least, allow) that you were formerly wrong about a person owning a handgun; you express being now more knowledgeable after being supplied with anecdotal scenarios; and you still reject certain scenarios and the anecdotes which support them.

The bottom line is, those without the knowledge which permits one to be comfortable around firearms should either gain that knowledge or just stay avoid firearms. But don't project your discomfort and the attendent negative perceptions onto others who do not share your ignorance-based opinion.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Dude, this is HT. You're obscuring the subject.
Click to expand...
No, just making a connection.

Richard said:
You had posted that you were/are against ownership. Then Nick had illustrated certain things to which your response was sort of like, 'Oh I see. Thanks, Nick.'
Click to expand...

Where? Point me to the post where I said I was against gun ownership. Review this thread carefully.

Richard said:
But within that same response you mentioned chance, pinholes, etc. As if that bad ol gun, just by nature of being in your home will invite harm upon you...as if assigning intent to an inanimate object. The epitome of ignorance.
Click to expand...

The epitome of ignorance is illiteracy. I'm hard pressed to see how my commenting on there being a pinhole risk of me facing a home invasion is other than fact. Now go check the statistics and report back to us the likelihood of an accidental shooting in a house with a gun. If I were to own a gun it would be locked up, with ammo locked up elsewhere in the house. Why? Because I face a pinhole risk of needing it for home defense. The chance of an accident is greater. Yes, training. Yes, making sure the kids don't do something dumb. What about cousins? Visitors? I choose not to accept that risk. I made, and again, correct me if I'm wrong here, no comment about the gun inviting harm on me.

Richard said:
Guns don't cause trouble, it is those who don't know how to properly handle firearms that cause inadvertant harm.
Click to expand...

Again, please show me where I said they did. Maybe I've forgotten how to read English. I will say this: if there is no gun in the house you have a 0% chance of a gun-related accident in the house. I made no statements about people who do keep guns in their house.

Richard said:
Again, the epitome of ignorance when one takes all they know, colored with perception, and tied pretty with a bow, and present it as substantive opinion worthy of arguing the point. The thing is, they don't know anything (of the subject at hand) other than how to formulate hearsay into what they think to be a cogent argument.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the epitome of ignorance is the inability to read someone's opinion without having one's own opinion cloud their understanding.


Richard said:
So, in one post you admit (or at least, allow) that you were formerly wrong about a person owning a handgun; you express being now more knowledgeable after being supplied with anecdotal scenarios; and you still reject certain scenarios and the anecdotes which support them.
Click to expand...

I said I can see why he wants one. If you are implying that I still reject the argument that I need a gun to prevent the New World Order stormtroopers from occupying my town, well, yeah, I do.

Richard said:
The bottom line is, those without the knowledge which permits one to be comfortable around firearms should either gain that knowledge or just stay avoid firearms. But don't project your discomfort and the attendent negative perceptions onto others who do not share your ignorance-based opinion.
Click to expand...

Facts not in evidence, counselor. Where was I projecting anything? Lighten up, Francis. You're coming at me as if I supported overturning the 2nd amendment, which I don't. Read, carefully, my posts, then think about it. Sheesh.
 
flyersfan31 said:
The danger to my household of firearm possession far outweighs whatever pinhole risk I might wish to defend myself against. Violent crime is virtually unheard of, and almost without exception domestic.
Click to expand...

Unheard of...? You live near, Philly, right?

I lived in Lancaster County and we had greater claim to low crime than anyone within drive-by of Philly....

Anyway....

As far as " danger to my household of firearm possession far outweighs whatever risk.." My children grew up in a household with firearms -- the bloom was off the rose, and they knew what to do if some ignorant playmate wanted to show off dad's 6 shooter.

You're perpetuating a myth if you think owership necessarily increases risk.
 
dmccormack said:
Unheard of...? You live near, Philly, right?

I lived in Lancaster County and we had greater claim to low crime than anyone within drive-by of Philly....
Click to expand...

Virtually unheard of. Thus I said pinhole risk, not zero risk. Regardless, I'm not worried about bangers and tweakers where I live. Not an issue.


dmccormack said:
As far as " danger to my household of firearm possession far outweighs whatever risk.." My children grew up in a household with firearms -- the bloom was off the rose, and they knew what to do if some ignorant playmate wanted to show off dad's 6 shooter.

You're perpetuating a myth if you think owership necessarily increases risk.
Click to expand...

How can it be a myth? I'm not making some sort of grand statement, merely recognizing that it is fundamentally impossible to have a gun accident in the house if you don't own a gun. 0+0 = 0

And keep in mind, I haven't said you shouldn't own a gun. I'm fine with you owning a gun. I don't need one. I might get one for fun someday.
 
dmccormack said:
As far as " danger to my household of firearm possession far outweighs whatever risk.." My children grew up in a household with firearms -- the bloom was off the rose, and they knew what to do if some ignorant playmate wanted to show off dad's 6 shooter.
Click to expand...
Amen. It's not possible to kid-proof guns, no matter how much some folks scream that it should be done. It's only possible to gunproof kids, as Dan has.
 
jmaynard said:
Amen. It's not possible to kid-proof guns, no matter how much some folks scream that it should be done. It's only possible to gunproof kids, as Dan has.
Click to expand...

I had to laugh when Gov Glendenning in MD managed to legislate gun locks on handguns. They seemed pretty Rube Goldberg, IIRC some sort of combination to be clicked on before it would unlock. Stupid. Treating the symptom, not the cause.
 
flyersfan31 said:
I'm not making some sort of grand statement, merely recognizing that it is fundamentally impossible to have a gun accident in the house if you don't own a gun. 0+0 = 0
Click to expand...

...unless some knucklehead visitor / guest in your home (not an intruder--say an invited guest or one of the kids playmates) brings one in on their person. Then you could still have a gun accident in the home, even though you don't own a gun. The risk isn't exactly zero... but it sure is lower than if you have a gun in the house--especially one that's not properly secured from kids.
 
I hope I never have to use any of the numerous firearms that I have in my house. I prefer to shoot competitively, to hunt or to target shoot. I also hope to never need to use the emergency procedures that I have learned with my private pilot certificate, but I'm really glad I learned them. I'm fortunate to have some pretty expensive handguns and when I'm actually carrying concealed, it's nice to know that IF I ever need it, the gun will perform.
 
jlwilson said:
I'm fortunate to have some pretty expensive handguns and when I'm actually carrying concealed, it's nice to know that IF I ever need it, the gun will perform.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious, how expensive? Do you really feel that a super expensive handgun is more reliable than a $500 glock or glock clone?

IME, the super expensive handguns, have much tighter tolerances and as a result are more accurate at the cost of reliability do to everything being tighter. In competition--no problem you maintain the gun well.

In the field--people tend not to maintain them that well. I'm personally a nut when it comes to cleaning and inspection / function checks..but most aren't.
 
jesse said:
I'm just curious, how expensive? Do you really feel that a super expensive handgun is more reliable than a $500 glock or glock clone?

IME, the super expensive handguns, have much tighter tolerances and as a result are more accurate at the cost of reliability do to everything being tighter. In competition--no problem you maintain the gun well.

In the field--people tend not to maintain them that well. I'm personally a nut when it comes to cleaning and inspection / function checks..but most aren't.
Click to expand...

When it comes to working all the time, right out of the box, with all ammunition, yep it's definitely worth it. Realize that I'm not saying that Glocks, Sigs, etc. aren't good guns as well. www.wilsoncombat.com

We build our guns for self-defense first and competition thereafter. Not all of the higher end manufacturers do that. I just happen to be part of the Wilson Combat family ( the pilot, the wife :smile:)

I'll be the first to admit that I have a Beretta that will go at least 3000 rounds with out a good cleaning and lube job. After that I can feel the slide cycle. I prefer to clean and lube my WCs a little more often than that but not necessarily more than every 1000 or so rounds.

There are lots of good handguns on the market today. I'm just really comfortable with 1911s. We have probably one of each of every variety ever built and I still prefer the 1911 platform. It's a preference just like high wing vs. low wing, singe vs. multi. Quality does matter though.

Joyce
 
jlwilson said:
When it comes to working all the time, right out of the box, with all ammunition, yep it's definitely worth it. Realize that I'm not saying that Glocks, Sigs, etc. aren't good guns as well. www.wilsoncombat.com

We build our guns for self-defense first and competition thereafter. Not all of the higher end manufacturers do that. I just happen to be part of the Wilson Combat family ( the pilot, the wife :smile:)

I'll be the first to admit that I have a Beretta that will go at least 3000 rounds with out a good cleaning and lube job. After that I can feel the slide cycle. I prefer to clean and lube my WCs a little more often than that but not necessarily more than every 1000 or so rounds.

There are lots of good handguns on the market today. I'm just really comfortable with 1911s. We have probably one of each of every variety ever built and I still prefer the 1911 platform. It's a preference just like high wing vs. low wing, singe vs. multi. Quality does matter though.

Joyce
Click to expand...

Ah crap, I just have to try and debate with an expert :D

I don't currently have a 1911, I used to shoot a M1911A1 a lot growing up but when a family member died it just disappeared along with some other neat guns.

I'm sure the stuff you guys build is top-notch. Beyond what I can pay though.

Glad to have you on the forum. Does your husband fly as well?
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
Ah crap, I just have to try and debate with an expert :D

I don't currently have a 1911, I used to shoot a M1911A1 a lot growing up but when a family member died it just disappeared along with some other neat guns.

I'm sure the stuff you guys build is top-notch. Beyond what I can pay though.

Glad to have you on the forum. Does your husband fly as well?
Click to expand...

I'm no expert :redface:. Heck, my husband has forgotten more than I'll ever know:D

And like I said, there are lots of good guns out there. The big key is to put some rounds through whatever you get to make sure that it will function all the time.

It's really pretty neat, he's the gun guy and I'm the pilot. He thinks of the plane as transportation. The coolest thing was flying back in our 182 from the SHOT show in Orlando back to Harrison, AR ( which is an awesome plane - especially for my first plane) and he says ' I really think we need a little bigger, faster plane' :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
The only justification for gun ownership that i find unreasonable is to protect ourselves from our own government. It sounds so Wacoish to me, and honestly, no homeowner will win a battle against the United States government without the use of huge, unobtainable weapons that even the whole country of Iraq apparently failed to procure.
 
SkyHog said:
The only justification for gun ownership that i find unreasonable is to protect ourselves from our own government. It sounds so Wacoish to me, and honestly, no homeowner will win a battle against the United States government without the use of huge, unobtainable weapons that even the whole country of Iraq apparently failed to procure.
Click to expand...

I agree individually, however, collectively may be a different situation. And if, and a really big if, the SreallyHTF, there won't be much of a g'ment to battle with.

Waco and Ruby Ridge are still well known to the gun industry and most gun owners. There have been two companies in the gun industry who have basically gone belly-up for supporting those who are deemed to be anti-gun or at least anti-'civilian'.

There is a very large percentage of the rural population that are not impressed with the 'change' in the g'ment.
 
jlwilson said:
I hope I never have to use any of the numerous firearms that I have in my house. I prefer to shoot competitively, to hunt or to target shoot. I also hope to never need to use the emergency procedures that I have learned with my private pilot certificate, but I'm really glad I learned them. I'm fortunate to have some pretty expensive handguns and when I'm actually carrying concealed, it's nice to know that IF I ever need it, the gun will perform.
Click to expand...
IMO, what you say EXACTLY sums it up. My own experience plus those of those many others I know hope to never have to use it in defense, but, by Thor's hammer, they be glad they have that option.

Anecdotal, I know.....

And I recognize the dedication and the competitiveness which is required to shoot competively.:)
 
jesse said:
People need to accept and understand: if they can good penetration that is capable of deep wounds against vital organs their bullet will penetrate a wall.

If you can't penetrate some drywall you sure the hell can't get deep enough into a human that is cracked out and bound and determined to kill you.
Click to expand...
Which seems to beg the question of whether the "average" home intruder really is "cracked out and bound and determined to kill you." If not, might it make sense to have the first one or two loads be frangible to allow for a warning shot without inadvertently killing your neighbor or roommate, or to allow for a potentially non-lethal shot? Just like in aircraft emergencies, it's probably better to think through the possibilities beforehand. Does anyone know what the actual statistice are about the percentage of home invaders who are armed? Those who attacked people in the home? (I specify armed because if they aren't, they're going to need to get close to you before they could do serious damage, and you want to be taking care of this from a distance if at all possible.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top