The problem is that the UK includes a variety of less serious crimes in its statistics. For instance, simple assaults are “violent crimes” in England, not in the US. Most US states call those misdemeanors.

A full-frame .357 revolver is an excellent choice for you first gun, as it is easy to use, effective for self-defense, and can use lower-power, cheaper .38 Special for some training (or if you decide the recoil of a .357 isn’t for you).

The only thing I might suggest is that you consider a long gun also, either in place of or in addition to the revolver. An AR-15 or AK-pattern rifle makes a very effective weapon in the home, and in the case of the AR, is safer from an over-penetration standpoint. A .357 slug will pass through many more layers of drywall than a 5.56mm.

Long guns are somewhat safer with children as well, as it’s very difficult to accidentally shoot one’s self with a rifle. Not impossible mind you – I’m making no statement on how you should store your weapon – but harder.

From a political standpoint… well, I’m an absolutist. I’ve never harmed anyone with a firearm, though there have been two instances where I wielded one as a last line of defense of my family. Both of those instances resulted in the the situation immediately resolving and I didn’t have to follow through with employing it – though, of course, I was prepared to do so if necessary. I have already considered the costs of disarmament, and it’s simply not an option for myself or my family.

They were a bit concerned that one day they would come home and find a burglar or two trapped in the house.

I doubt that the Cates murderers would have stopped at yelling. If they saw a weapon, “almost” certainly they would have stopped.

Then again, during the LA riots, the Korean store owners found having weapons was a good thing.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151526930/korean-store-owner-on-arming-himself-for-riots

What I am saying, is you have to make a choice as to what level of protection is enough. You can never be 100% safe. I and most people are weak compared to even the common criminal, much less the truly nasty ones out there. I protect my valuables with insurance. I protect my family in whatever way necessary.

It isn’t paranoia, it is preparation to protect yourself by whatever means necessary. Not preparing is unwarranted optimism.

Against “your average run of the mill burglar”, just shouting “get out here!” is probably sufficient.

Its highly unlikely that someone is going to defend themselves with a gun against a “bunch” of violent burglars. For one thing, burglars don’t usually wotk in “bunches” and, for another, they aren’t usually violent.

Guns do work well for imaginary fights against largely imaginary criminals in imaginary situations. I guess some of us just lack imagination or don’t watch TV enough.

Sticking to the actual questions, but only as home defense. Concealed Carry is a huge other topic:

1)”Does gun ownership make sense to you in your circumstances?”

In my circumstance, absolutely. Before I go on, I have not taught my GF how to shoot. I have only enforced her training growing up that you never touch a gun unless you are trained how to use it. The reason that I have not trained her is that she would not have the commitment to learn what she would need to to defend herself safely and properly. That would be a large post to explain why, but as an example: I came back from the restroom at an outdoor cafe in a big city, where we had a table next to the sidewalk. My GF had gone to the bathroom, and left her pocketbook on the table, did not see the risk of theft. Situational awareness is not her strong suit. I keep my guns locked up when I am not home. I rent, and cannot easily have an alarm. The fact that I “could” have a gun in the house reduces my chance of someone coming into the house when I am home whether I have a gun or not. Having a gun allows me protection against anyone that might want to cause us harm. I could not defend myself from your average run of the mill burglar, much less a bunch of them without a weapon. Just as with finances, you cannot prepare for every scenario, so you have to choose for yourself what you will prepare for. Would you be willing to put a sign on your door saying “Gun Free Zone?” How about “I have Guns in this House?” Either would be bad. A bit of mystery here is a good thing.

2) “Have you ever been in a situation where guns have either protected you or endangered you?”

The only situation where I have been directly protected by a gun was when I killed a rabid raccoon that scratched her way into our house. It is my belief, but I have no solid evidence other than some reported interviews with criminals, that concern that there may be a person home with a gun has prevented break-ins when I was home. I was broken into once, and the perp made sure no one was home, but unsure if that was probably so that he would not be caught.

OK, drifting from the original questions (hard not to do for me):

As with finances, the first thing we have to do is layout our goals. My goal is to protect myself and my girlfriend from harm. I really don’t care much about property. If someone wants to break in and steal all my stuff, I would be pissed, but I would not kill someone to stop it. The second thing we need to do is imagine likely scenarios. I don’t expect zombie hordes to be banging on my door. A reasonable scenario is, however, a home invasion. Third, we have to decide what level of protection we are willing to put up with. I want my home to be a castle, NOT a dungeon.

So… just as an exercise, lets pick a home invasion that happened near here a couple years ago. Four young men decided they would go to the country and find a house and rob it. If anyone was home they would kill them. They broke in, killed the mother and left the 11 year old daughter for dead. Their choice of weapons? Knives and Machettes.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/517488-196/cout-documents-in-cates-murder-released.html

There have been many other posters that had good things to say. I will concur with, FIRST, get a good alarm system. Even if you choose to arm yourself, an alarm will give you early warning when someone enters your house IF used correctly. England is considered far more violent than the US by some recent studies. (depends how you measure it I suppose) In the US, most break ins (90% IIRC) are when no one is home. In the UK most (80% IIRC) are Hot, when people are home. One of the ways they do this is either breaking in when people are out and about so have the alarm off, or they go up to the house with some story and get the homeowner to turn the alarm off then barge in. Second, IF you choose to get a firearm, ensure that you at a minimum get trained on safe operation and practice. Any one else in the house should also be trained, either in use or to stay away from it. You are not only responsible for the use of the gun by you, but also if it is mishandled by others in the family, or visitors.

If you choose to have a weapon, you have just made the choice that, if necessary, you will use deadly force to stop someone from doing the same to you. By NOT having a weapon, you have decided that, in the unlikely event of a home invasion, you will do nothing effective to stop someone from using deadly force on you or your family. Both are very tough choices.

The Twin Towers in New York were destroyed, and over 2,000 people were killed. The terrorists responsible for it used BOX CUTTERS, not guns.

If a criminal really wants to kill a bunch of people, he can use tools other than guns. If that mentally disturbed person in China had *wanted* to kill as many people as he could, he would have chosen a different method, such as plowing into them with a car, or using a homemade bomb (easy to do). He could have easily done it without any gun at all.

That being said, I don’t think you need to purchase a gun just for personal safety. If you want protection for being out & about, I don’t see why a can of pepper spray wouldn’t serve the same purpose. It’s much less costly and not fatal (unless some kind of weird reaction happens to the victim). If you are wary of intruders to your home, get an alarm system. I do support both gun laws and citizens owning guns for both personal protection and for sport (i.e. going to a firing range), but unless you really live somewhere very dangerous I really don’t understand the people who feel the need to get a concealed carry permit and have a gun on them all the time. That’s a bit paranoid.

When it is just my wife and I – I will probably opt for a shotgun as in California we cannot carry the weapons or used them outside of a range (in the city’s).

I can defend myself assuming I use a bit of deception or acting but as I get older – I will not be able to depend on that.

Good luck with your decision.

My point here isn’t to discourage people from researching such options for personal protection, but rather to make clear the dangers and liabilities that may result.

“The strange contradiction, however, is that contrary to international comparisons, within the U.S., the states with more gun restrictions seem to have the highest crime rates. I don’t know how to explain this.”

There are political agendas all over this post. For instance, his comment about affordable housing and rent control is similar political nonsense.

He can’t even get his facts straight. He wasn’t “robbed”. He was burglarized. And it wasn’t his home, it was a storage facility. In short, his personal experience had nothing to do with whether he owned a gun. He could have had a whole arsenal in his storage facility and they would have been just one more loss of property.

The personal decision to own a gun for protection really has several simple questions, none of them political. Are you safer with a gun in your home? Are you safer with a gun on your person? What are you willing to kill someone over? How much are you willing to spend? Are there other ways to use those same resources that would make you more safe?

For most people the answer to those questions is that they are safer without the gun. If you are a drug dealer, that may not be true. If you have a protection order against a violent former partner, that might not be true.

Unless you have a very specific threat you are protecting yourself against, you are like Nerdo. He apparently thinks if he had owned a gun his storage locker wouldn’t have been burglarized. Not rationally of course, its purely irrational. Which is true of most of the belief in guns as protection.

Just saw your post this morning not sure if you will check later but a more similar issue than cooking I think would be “should we buy organic” or “facts and myths about GMOS”.

Organic foods and GMOS have an environmental/safety impact, are steeped in politics, and have an impact in both our wallets and society at large.

One person could argue GMO corn is safe and cheap and beneficial to our population, and consuming it will help you save money and get rich slowly, while another person could argue GMO corn is murdering the earth and destroying our bodies.

These are highly political issues with many angles where people often get lost in the passion as well.

I am not against politics at all, I believe that everything is political because how we choose to live is a social act.

But rather than frame the issue in broad policy terms (eg constitution vs gun control) I was seeking to frame it from the point of view of the individual/family economic interest (risk/returns).

This still political of course, but at the micro level.