Skip to comments.Should every family own a gun?
Posted on 04/25/2012 5:21:47 AM PDT by marktwain
Anti-gun rhetoric has been a fact of my life as long as I can remember. As a new mom, I even tried keeping toy guns out of the house, because I had bought into some of the myths surrounding gun ownership, such as:
1) Accidental gun deaths are bound to happen with a gun in the house.
2) A gun-free home will keep kids safe from guns.
3) If kids play with toy guns, they will grow up to be violent.
All of those are nonsense, of course, but as a mom, all I wanted was for my children to be safe. My husband wasnt exactly on board, and I knew that. As a lifetime member of the NRA, he has always been vocal in his support of the Second Amendment and our right to own firearms, if we choose.
I suppose I could continue to tiptoe around the issue of firearms, but I am convinced that every survival minded family must own at least one gun, train their children in gun safety as well as in shooting skills, and that a firearm should be part of their preparedness plan.
Its shocking to read comments from non-preppers and a few preppers, alike, that part of their survival plan is to take by force the food and supplies they need from people who have prepared. If you are putting time, effort, and money into supplies that will help your family survive future crises, then you absolutely must include firearms as a layer in personal and home safety.
Which should you choose? My #1 choice for overall home protection is the shotgun. Either a 12-gauge or the slightly smaller 20-gauge are excellent choices. Although practice with this firearm is vital, shot placement isnt as critical as with handguns. Ill be posting an article on my blog this week listing the reasons I believe the shotgun is the Queen of Home Defense.
What about handguns? Theyre an excellent choice as well. Their main advantage is that they can be concealed, not providing any hint that you are lethally armed unless or until it becomes absolutely necessary. In a shootout, law enforcement officers miss their target some 70% of the time, and theyve had plenty of training and practice. Firing and missing when its your family under attack isnt a pleasant thought, so ongoing training and practice is absolutely necessary.
One more myth I would like to debunk is that of, The Bad Guy. Its a fact that bad guys have buddies. One critical reason to own a firearm is that a single person has very little chance of survival when faced with multiple bad guys, intent on harm, and very possibly armed themselves.
Theres no reason to put your life and those of your loved ones in harms way because you want to be politically correct. Being smart beats politically correct every time.
Lisa runs a great blog for preppers and you can find it right here! ~Mike P. Guns & Gear Editor
Not just every family - every member(old enough and trained obviously) should have their own firearm.
Wife and I each have personal handguns, plus a shotgun and rifle.
Daughter has a handgun.
All three sons have a handgun and a shotgun minimum at the moment.
full disclosure - all my kids are grown and 2 are married and have their own homes. Two sons are still at home and in college.
We all enjoy going to the range as a family whenever possible.
The reasons for this, if not self-evident, will become clear in time.
No, people who tend to vote for Democrats are shown to be less trustworthy with firearms than others. So ,no.
it used to be the law.
Every American that loves freedom should own a firearm. Unfortunately, the left are slaves, either to their desire to control or their laziness to allow it.
I’m more of a fan of the AK platform and other Russian rifles and shotguns. For pistols, either American or Austrian.
every family needs to own more than one gun...one per person perhaps.
though I wouldn’t wish a poodle shooter on any family.
a revolver...or a short barreled pump shotgun with appropriate indoor ammo would be the most reliable imho.
Otherwise, I might suggest that every household should own several, of varying manufacture and calibers. A gun is pretty much useless if you can't get ammo, parts or repairs for it.
You adhere to the old maxim...”No one NEEDS a gun of any kind..until the moment he/she REALLY, REALLY, REALLY needs one. Better to own the gun and NEVER NEED IT, than to fervently wish you had one.
Food for thought: We need to be thinking beyond traditional notions of home defense. In a SHTF scenario, the only valid purpose of your civilian weapon will be to obtain a better weapon (i.e. a selective fire weapon). The vast majority of selective fire weapons in the USA are 5.56 “poodle shooters” based on the M16 platform. A stockpile for an AR15 will serve an M16.
That’s like standing at a crosswalk and someone in a Pacer motions you across...
“no, you go ahead, you’ve already proven you’re a poor decision maker”
Every family should have a gun,
a vegetable garden,
and two chickens.
Just think how much better this country would be even with THAT level of independence.
And make sure you have natural crops. Don't use GMO sterilized Monsanto "terminator" seeds or else you'll have nothing to eat the year after. And for chickens, get 3 hens - 2 for eggs and 1 for breeding, and 1 rooster.
And if you live in the city, God help you. There's a storm brewing. Better make provisions now.
I’d prefer the reliability of Mr Kalashikoffs piston driven AK than Mr Stoners direct impingement jammer.(though a number of AR clone manufacturers are now making piston driven ARs and it’s about time
Should every family own a gun?
NO! Not just one gun, but many guns including an AK47 or AR15 and plenty of ammo, pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles with scopes.
1. Stealing is wrong. Planning to steal later is wrong.
2. You have the opportunity to right now get what you’ll need. Waiting to steal it from someone later is STUPID every which way. You know you’ll need it, so get it now so you’ll have it before you need it. M16s et al _are_ legal (if not in your jurisdiction, MOVE ALREADY), just expensive - but a lot cheaper than risking your life trying to steal one.
3. Those you suggest stealing from are, by definition, much better equipped and trained than you. They operate in teams, are practiced at finding people like you, and will take it VERY personally when one of their own is so abused.
4. Unless you’ve got orders of magnitude of cases of ammo already, select-fire won’t do you much good. By definition you’ll be in a situation where fire discipline - to wit make every shot count - will be paramount. You won’t have the resupply to make “suppressive fire” viable.
5. If, for some reason, suppressive fire _is_ needed, you can still pull the trigger fast for the same effect.
6. In a SHTF situation, if you need select fire you’re up against superior opposition - make your last seconds count, and throwing the happy switch on “high” won’t help.
Don’t get me wrong. If you can get the happy switch thru sane & legal means, great. I sure want the option too - but I’m not stupid enough to plan to steal one.
That’s your call. I prefer Mr. Garand’s perfect battle implement myself, but if it comes to the long haul we will all be relying the 5.56, for the same reason that the French Resistance relied mainly on the 9mm. Availability.
We not only teach the 4 rules,
but we have a rule “1a”.
Not only is every gun loaded,
but every gun is REAL until proven otherwise by an adult.
I love the garand...but it is too friggin big(especially for my age).
Hey...instead of the french 9mm, how about a mac 10(or a thompson or a grease gun) in 45acp....now thats a pistol caliber.
anyway here is my standard garand vs AR picture
1. Select fire weapons are worthless to the individual. It just wastes ammo. You only use it in large-scale operations for suppressive fire.
2. If I can find ammo, I can probably find the weapon that goes with it.
3. 7.62x39 is much cheaper than .223. I can store more of it with me in that SHTF situation. And you can’t beat the Russian spam can.
4. The 7.62x54R is very cheap and the Mosin-Nagant rifle is easy to find and inexpensive. Good deer rifle.
5. Saiga 12 - 12 gauge AK :)
1. So what? When the SHTF, there will be no rules. No one held it against the Frenchman who took an MP-40 from the Nazi that he killed with an antique revolver. Same scenario.
2. Obtainng a Class-III license and getting a registered selective-auto weapon is A: beyond most people's financial means and B: a great way to attract all the wrong kind of attewntion to yourself, even before the SHTF.
3. In a SHTF scenario those people will be looking to capture or kill you, whether you steal from them or not. It won't be an even fight, I'll admit. But having the right gun is just one component of a larger strategy.
4. Modern low-intensity conflicts and insurgencies are fought with automatic weapons. Those without automatic weapons die. Ammo supply is the whole reason I recommend the 5.56. Of course no one can stockpile enough ammo for the long haul. But 5.56 can be picked up on the field.
5 & 6: See point 4.
No, every household shouldn’t have a firearm; some are hoplophobes, some are incompetent, some are criminal. But EVERY law-abiding citizen should have the option of owning firearms and carrying them for personal protection.
Not every family should have a gun. In fact the loons a quarter mile down the road (my next door neighbors) are a good part of the reason I bought my new bride a S&W .38 and a shotgun.
In all seriousness, a (near) fully armed society is the best protection of freedom. Nearly as good is the widespread knowledge that we are all armed, paying attention and not stupid.
That is my next purchase, an AK.
Unless you have a family member who is not stable or trustworthy around firearms. Goes along with responsible gun ownership. That should be the family’s call and not Eric Holder’s.
You can *hope* your opposition has select fire and believes in suppressive fire. As long as they are not the government supplied by ammunition plants, they will run through their ammo supply very quickly. It takes tremendous discipline to conserve ammo with a full auto during combat.
“Id prefer the reliability of Mr Kalashikoffs piston driven AK than Mr Stoners direct impingement jammer”
Ignorant comment. Just how many people do you think have been killed by M16/M4s in the last 50 years? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Properly maintained a DI AR-15 is extremely reliable. When you factor in accuracy and availability of 5.56 ammo the AR-15 becomes a valid, possibly better, choice.
“Thats like standing at a crosswalk and someone in a Pacer motions you across...
no, you go ahead, youve already proven youre a poor decision maker”
I have the same reaction when I see an Obama 08/2012 bumper sticker on a car. Give the proven stupid a wide berth.
If the USSC upholds that we are slaves then the Republicans should immediately require every family to own a firearm, and SUV (for the chiiiilren), and a Bible.
yours is not a scientific sampling.
but using your logic...how many have been killed by AK 47s
lots more the ARs, to be sure...
you can buy more AK surplus ammo and cheaper from the former soviet union.
...anyway, for long range accuracy I will take an M-14 or for real accuracy a bolt action....for close in work, I will take the reliability and better caliber of an AK 47(note: not an AK 74...which is another poodle shooter)
hey nobody is saying you shouldn’t enjoy your poodle shooter...thats why its great to live in a country where we can.
No, not everyone should own a gun.
Anyone who wants to own a gun should own one, and those who don’t want to own a gun can be content in being victims of the criminal part of society.
Those who do not own guns in American society benefit greatly from those who do.
A free society has to tolerate a number of free riders for many situations. It goes with the territory.
We dropped crates of Thompsons and Grease Guns to the French during the war. They used them until the ammo ran out. The only Allied weapon that was common with the Resistance was the Sten, because the Resistance could make them and they could fire German ammo.
Full auto ownership isn't practical for civilians anyway. It's way too expensive and attracts too much attention. I'm not advocating it. But in the event of SHTF those actively engaged without automatic weapons will die. This is the consistant lesson of Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and Somalia, et al. Anyone concerned about SHTF needs to plan for this. Like I said, it's just food for thought.
1. When SHTF, individual actors will die regardless of what they are armed with. Teamwork and organization are keys to survival. Within that paradigm, large-scale operations are not out of scope.
2. True, but with the exception of 5.56 not in quantity.
3. Cheap yes. Endless no. SHTF will require a constant supply of ammo, magazines and spare parts.
4. Love the Mosins. The M44 would be my first and only choice for a wilderness survival rifle. But in a SHTF scenario Mosins will have limited utility.
5. Sounds like fun!
And there's the problem, right there.
Safety is not an end in itself, it's a means to an end ... thinking otherwise (or worse, thinking that safety in an absolute sense is even achievable) continues to be the road to seemingly endless mischief.
Mrs. Bedford seems to have gotten her head straight on this matter.
“NO, convicted felons” ....should own guns.”
Really? Why not?
Cool line, and very true on a battlefield with engagements between company sized forces, but I would feel better with an AR or AK before hostilities begin.
If anyone has some good poop on a good 30.06, I’d appreciate a FReepmail. I’ve read a lot of reviews, but would like to hear/read some personal observations shooters.
Finally saved enough of my lunch money...
Thanks in advance.
Except for leftists. They don’t want them.
For a general big game hunting tool, the Ruger 77 comes to mind. I like stainless/composite myself.
then you take their weapon....
And this thread provides ample reasoning for why not.
some people are simply too stupid to handle weapons.
for instance I would give G. Gordon Liddy the ability to own a firearm in an instant...(we all know Liddy's wife ‘owns’ the weapons in his house....)
I agree with this completely. If the SHTF, I want to remain one of the good guys, not become what I despise through thievery. I and several of my neighbors have tons of tactical training from military and law enforcement careers. I will use this to protect what I have, not take what I need.
I made a point to live in a place where I can own the firearms I need to achieve this.
This no felon should have guns thing seems to be a knee jerk reaction to the idea of FELONS, you know, scary criminal types, slinking around your fair city carrying all manner of weapons. Bazookas, “assault” rifles, “switchblades” maybe an 10” barrel .44 mag under their trenchcoat. Just looking to rape and pillage.
If you really think about it, it just makes the court complicit in gun control. Which, IMO, is exactly what it is intended to do.
Just cause someone may be convicted of a felony doesn’t nessesarily make them violent.
Laws of man don’t supercede the God given right of self defense.
Someone up thread referred to this as "stealing." Sigh.
M1 Garand. But I’m biased...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.