Which is better, a big mean dog, 911 on the phone or a gun?

[Wcross]

If someone was breaking into your home right now, which would you be more comfortable with? Why?

Just curious :)

[Mercurius]

1. This might not be popular...

...but, as a young woman that lives alone - a gun.

[will work 4 food]

2. GUN

[alwynsw]

9. It'spopular here

I prefer a shotgun, 12 gauge with #6 or smaller shot in the house. If I happen to have the cordless phone handy, I'll use a .45 acp semi-auto.
Both live near my bed - laoded. (No kids in the house - EVER.)

I can speak from experience that I will most definitely shoot an intruder.

That is, with me being a middle-aged married guy and all.

Forget age, gender, and household companions. Shoot the son of a bitch - or daughter - as the case may be.

[Wcross]

11. Mercurius....

Would you rather be popular or dead? Life is a precious commodity and your choice is appropriate.

[lcordero]

3. not just a gun, a BIG gun

a gun that leaves a big and messy exit wound.

[alwynsw]

18. Wanna borrow my new .500 S&W?

[Wcross]

19. .500 S&W?

How do ya like it? Thats a whole lot of handgun you have! I am partial to the 1911 model.

[alwynsw]

22. I got 6 1911's and clones along with

several other assorted handguns, ranging from .17 HMR to the above mentioned Smith. The Smith is for doing some serious moose hunting in Alaska. (Don't know how I'll eat the whole thing. Guess I'll go on the Atkins Diet out of necessity.)

As for pure pleasure shooting, I like my Smith Corona WWII vintage slabside (1911 in .45 acp to those reading this who just thought I described typing bacon).

It's a hobby. I'm now retired. Just bought my 4th safe. I keep busy.

Oh! To answer your question about liking it: the bigger the better the tighter the...oops wrong ditty. I love it. Pricey to shoot, but worth it.

[Wcross]

53. I bought a Kimber pro carry

It is by far the best 1911 I have ever owned. I am thinking about buying another Kimber- the one with the rail on it, after I sell my ar-15 and upgrade to an m1a scout. I am not a collector yet- still on my first gunsafe.

[alwynsw]

57. Good choice!

I like the kimber. Got one myself. You need to catch up. i just brought home safe #4 tonight.

[demsrule4life]

4. Having a gun is

the best thing to have while you are calling 911.

[mmm]

5. 911

of course

[billbuckhead]

6. An alarm that wakes up the whole neighborhood and calls 911

like we have at work. I have to commend the police in the city of Atlanta and Cherokee county for how fast they can get to a problem.

[Wcross]

8. What about....

People that have no neighbors or such a fine police force?

[billbuckhead]

26. What if you kill an innocent person by mistake?

It happens all the time. What if they have more guns or body armor? What if?

[Wcross]

32. By mistake?

It would be no mistake if someone was inside my home uninvited while I was there. If they have body armor, thats life. If they have more guns???? You can really only use one at a time so thats not an issue.
My question is legit, my nearest neighbor is 1/2 mile away and we have 4 deputies covering my 700+sq mile county. I do not expect a loud alarm to be of any good in my situation.

Do you have any proof that "It happens all the time" regarding innocent people being shot? Accidental shooting is the lowest of the three types of gun deaths and it is on a decline,

[Champion Jack]

7. The gun is only IF they make it past the dogs

[alwynsw]

10. I'd shoot him so the dog can have a snack

OK. That was flippant, but you get my meaning.

[grayrace]

12. the chances of accidents go up with both dogs and guns

a big mean dog is liable to attack someone else besides an intruder, especially children. Guns in the home increase chances of accidents, suicide and theft potentially arming a criminal. 9/11 is of course the right answer thats why it covers the entire country, thats why it took for ever to get the word out about it, and thats why it probabaly saves more lives than guns have or ever will. Besides GOOD doors with strong locks, and a security fence with a motion sensor light are better 1st choices.

[Wcross]

14. Ok, but why.....

Why wait? Why would you call for a man with a gun to come to your house? The only reason I can see is reinforcements.

[RoeBear]

20. Excellent, awesome point...

...when you call for the police you are calling for the (wo)men with guns. Why not avoid the middleman and learn to protect yourself with a gun?

[alwynsw]

15. I must disagree

If you can't train the dogproperly or afford to have it trained properly, you have no business owning it unless it's simply a pet. It is essential to train a dog to guard properly. If you have a mean dog of any size, it needs to be either trained or put down.

Firearms accidents are nearly always not accidents. We may wish to call them accidents, but, as my Granddad used to say, "That don't make it so." As with automobile accidents, falls, etc. the fault most often lies with the person performing an unsafe act while using the device, be it a car, a ladder, a knife, etc. Human error is not an accident. It is just that: hman error.

As is the case with the dog, firearms owners need to be trained in the proper use, handling, care, and storage of said firearms.

Will people make mistakes with either the dog or the firearm? Most assuredly. There are no perfect humans.

Regarding theft of firearms: buy a safe, dammit. And use it. Under $1,000.00 for a godd 20 gun capacity safe is cheap insurance. (Under $100.00 for a single gun model that bolts into the wall or floor.)

Kids and dogs or firearms? What kind of mental defective knowingly keeps a dog that is out of control around kids? (There are child endangerment laws to cover that.) What kind of idiot leaves firearms within the reach of kids who are not yet old enough to understand the proper use of firearms without COMPETENT adult supervision? The age varies on this, depending upon the kid. I've been hunting solo since I was 8. The only time I ever got shot was by a intruder when I was in my 20's. The fool was older than me. I'm still here, he isn't. I was in bed, he came through the window and shot as I was retrieving my pistol from the locked box in my nightstand. I got a scar. He got a coffin. I do not lose sleep over it.

/end of rant

[demsrule4life]

21. Where I live a 9-11 call can take up to 40

minutes for a response, depending on yard size a decent fence can cost thousands of dollars, how many poor folks can afford that? Like I said a gun in hand while I dial 9-11 is the best, if the cops cant get here in time I can take care of the problem. Other points, look up statics on accidental deaths in the home, firearms are waaaay down the list. If a person is serious about killing themselves they will do it gun or no gun. My youngest sister killed herself 13 years ago by sitting in a running car in the garage though there was several guns in the house. Japan has a much higher suicide rate then us and guns are totally banned. I support the right for anybody to shoot themselves in the privacy of their home. It sure beats driving down the highway the wrong way and taking others with them. (which happens a lot in Germany)

[alwynsw]

24. 911 is not an option where I live

small county population, small sheriff's dept., live on a farm. I'd have to shave twice before Barney gets here. Good thing I wear a beard.

[demsrule4life]

25. I live in the same type of area

by the way a mint Singer 1911-A1 on Guns America for the low low price of only $39,000. :)

[DoNotRefill]

36. NWA seems to think differently...

ever hear "911's a joke"?

[DonP]

42. 911 may not work, even in urban areas

Last year we had a high profile incident in Chicago wher a young woman, Ronyale White called 911 when her ex started pounding on her door late one night. She had done everything by the book restraining orders (whcih he continually violated) new locks and deadbolts (which he kicked in) and called 911.

She called them back twice (IIRC) and it took the Chicago police 16 minutes to respond to her call.

By the time they arrived he had broken through the door and killed her. She had no final recourse except to die at the hands of a madman. Fortunately her children were not harmed.

The speculation was if she had even had a legally ownable .410 shotgun and had either fired it at the door or let him know she was prepared to defend herself, her kids might not be orphans today.

You rely on 911 at your own peril. The police have no legally enforcable responsibility to protect you. But they will be happy to investigate your or your loved ones death very efficiently.

[CO Liberal]

44. What We Really Need is Restraining Orders With Teeth In Them

Anyone who has a restraining order against them should have to put all their guns in storage, and be barred from acquiring a new one for as long as the restraining order is in effect. And if they attempt to get a gun, they should serve jail time.

[alwynsw]

45. That's fine and dandy

but you still have to consider what happens between the time the accused gets his/her hands on a "new" firearm and the time he/she is caught.

For the sake of discussion; what about kinves, tire irons, a good ol' Louisville Slugger, etc.?

Restraining orders, including DVO's, aren't worth much if the person in question is committed to causing harm to the offended party. our legal system does not allow for preemptive arrest and detainment. And that's as it should be. Arrest and detention for what one might do is unacceptable.

[CO Liberal]

46. And So Is Easy Access to Firearms.....

...by those with a proven personal history of violence aainst others. To me, that's equally unacceptable.

[alwynsw]

47. Easy access to firearms is going to be a problem so long as

firearms exist. How tough is it to get your hands on (enter illegal item here)?

Even if all firearms were destroyed today, I can make you a perfectly servicable, multi shot gun, propellant, and projectiles within hours. To eliminate the threat completely, we need to ban all metal, paper, matches, wood, glass - the list is endless.

I plan to keep my firearms - and add to the colection as I see fit. They're here to stay and they won't go away regardless of control laws or even outright bans.

[CO Liberal]

48. I'm Not Expecting Them To Go Away

I just want them kept away from those who should not have them.

[DonP]

49. Totally agree about adding "teeth"

But then you have to deal with the "due process" issue in some fair and equitable way as well.

About 10 years ago my ex tried to get an RO against me, after she moved out and left me, the kids and the house. (Helpful advice from her friends)

Thankfully the sheriff asked her for any proof of a threat to her in any way and she dropped the idea. I have an impeccably clean record and have an FFL so the chief LEO knew who I was.

Another sheriff or another area and she might have gotten an order that would have deprived me of my collection for the 2 plus years the divorce actually took. All with out any recourse legally on my part.

I could have lived very easily with my collection of WW II battle rifles or my 12 gauge trap gun stored somewhere else, but why should I have to? To make her feel safe? To give her a point of imaginary leverage in court?

I'm not sure what the answer is on this but I do know that an RO is fairly easy to get in many areas and the really evil folks pay no attention to them. Kind of like many other gun related laws I guess.

[CO Liberal]

50. Part of the Process of Adding "Teeth"...

...should increase penalties for swearing false ROs. If there's no valid reason for an RO, one should not be issued. And if a spouse provides false information in order to get an RO where none is warranted, she should do some jail time.

[DonP]

52. Stop trying to cheer me up

(Sorry the image of the ex doing the perp walk is almost unbearably funny)

If that kind of penalty was in play it might work.

But then you are going to have people claiming that it would unfairly keep some women from filing for RO's because they would fear the penalties. Kind of the same argument about tort reform.

If you hold the loser responsible for a "frivolous" suit it will depress the number of poor people looking for redress.

But penalizing somone for a false sworn affadavit is fine with me.

[happyslug]

54. Under present law

A person who has a Protection from Abuse order against him (or her) can not posses a firearm (When the Order is served firearms are to be taken by the officer serving the PFA).

The problem I have found is the reluctance of Judges to enter such orders if BECAUSE of the loss of the right to posses a firearm. My Judges just do not want to enter such orders. I found it was easier to get a PFA BEFORE the Feds added the ban on possession of Firearms than since (Especially against a police officer, Volunteer Fireman or other public safety official. As my judge told me, he did not want to take away a person's job).

In my opinion, a PFA should be easy to obtain. The Defendant would still have his right to a hearing, but if he agrees to the entrance of the Order he should be permitted to keep his firearms. More Defendants would agree to PFAs being entered against them (on the ground they want to get on with their lives also) and except for the break up of their relationships the PFA would have minimal affect on them (Unless they are stupid and break the PFA).

On the other hand once a PFA is entered and the Defendant violate the PFA he should be hit quick and hard. By the Entrance of the PFA he (or she) knew NOT to contact the person who requested the PFA, thus by contacting that person they knew they would be punished.

As to false PFAs, does happen (through rare), but if the above was adopted be of minimal problem. Even if the abuse did not occur, that the Plaintiff sought a PFA should put the Defendant on notice that the relationship is over. Given that the relationship is over agreeing to stay away is no big thing. The biggest problem (in my experience) has been firearms. People (especially men) want to keep their guns. I see no reason NOT to leave them have them if their agree to entrance of the PFA.

Please note at the time most PFAs are entered Criminal Charges are also generally filed. If convicted of the Criminal Charge the Guns are taken away. If a person violate a PFA that is a criminal act and the Defendant loses his (or her) rights to possess a gun. Thus I see no advantage to including a ban on possess of Firearms by a Defendant to a PFA. IF you have enough evidence to convict him (or her) of a Criminal Action that will be enough to take away his (or her) guns. If on the other hand you do NOT have enough evidence to convict on the criminal charges, the Entrance of the PFA will put the Defendant on notice that if he violate the PFA he will lose his guns.

Thus I believe that it would be better if the mere entrance of a PFA did NOT have any affect on a person's right to possess a gun. It would make getting a PFA easier and any protection the gun ban does is far outweighed by the denial of PFAs do to the refusal of the Defendant to agree to the entrance of a PFA AND the reluctance of Judges (especially in Rural areas) to take people's guns from them.

[Baclava]

13. I'm pro-choice...I choose...

oops...can't post right now .....my gun has escaped from it's box and is trying to get out the door......gotta go...

[alwynsw]

16. Bad gun!

Put it to bed without Remoil for that!

[Wcross]

17. Gee Baclava....

I feed my guns too well for them to want to run away! Seriously though, I have six mutts that will bark. Thats all I want them to do. As far as I know, they cancel insurance for certain breeds of dogs but not for types of firearms owned.

[demsrule4life]

23. Great point

Insurance companys, now there is a corrupt industry.

[Baclava]

27. *sigh*

I'm afraid my neighbor's .22's are in heat again...whaddaya gonna do?

[alwynsw]

55. maybe you'll get a new .17 HMR from the crossbreeding

[Superfly]

28. I've used all three....well, 2 of them

I've called the cops... "Cops, somebody is breaking into my home, I have a gun, come to #1234 main Street"

I retrieved and loaded my S&W model 27.

I was thinking about using the dog, but he's a labrador retreiver. He'd be good if the assailant needed a good licking (and I mean a tongue-licking here), but that's about it.

I met the burglars (3 of them) at my front door. They never saw the gun (it was behind my back), but they did see me. They departed.

Later that evening, the cops showed up. I'd say it was about 3 hours later as my wife and I were headed out the door for sushi.

True story.

[Baclava]

29. Sushi? You were going night fishing?

Raw fish is Bait!

[Superfly]

30. Then bait me up cause

me likee the sushi!

[alwynsw]

56. Now you've gone and made me hungry

Here fishy fishy fishy

[CO Liberal]

31. I Prefer The Following

1 - A 70-pound hound-shepherd mix who is very protective of me and the missus.

2 - A 45-pound chow-husky mix who is equally protective of us.

3 - Deadbolt locks on all three doors.

4 - My wife and I both have cell phones with which to dial 911, and the sheriff's office is less than two miles from our home.

5 - An active Neighborhood Watch program. In the little over five years we've lived in the neighborhood, no one has been robbed.

I neither feel the need nor the desire to own a gun, thank you......

[RoeBear]

33. Call the men with guns...

"4 - My wife and I both have cell phones with which to dial 911, and the sheriff's office is less than two miles from our home."

And why is that? Because guns are be used for protection.

[CO Liberal]

35. But I Don't Feel The Need to Own One Personally

Never have - even when I lived in Belleville, NJ - the town right next to Newark.

[RoeBear]

38. Is it possible that you would...

...feel differently if the police were further away? I recall you saying that you are house hunting. I'm sure living in an isolated part of Colorado is a common thing.

Let's say you were back in the hills, no nearby neighbors; isolated by time, distance and maybe a snowstorm. The dogs have been eliminated, the deadbolts are about to give way and when you make the call to the 'men with guns' you find out it will take over an hour before they can arrive, if they can get there at all.

Is it possible that in this circumstance you would prefer to be the 'man with a gun'?

[CO Liberal]

39. None That I Can See

Even if there weren't a cop within an hour's drive.

[RoeBear]

40. But you can understand...

...why some people would want to meet that splintering door frame with something more than a baseball bat, right?

[CO Liberal]

41. That Would Be Their Choice - Not Mine

Owning a gun is a choice that I personally would never make. I'm more concerned with the asshole outside the door not getting access to a gun than preventing the homeowner inside from having one if he or she chooses to.

That's why I favor reasonable gun control measures. Measures that would keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, while allowing acces by those who choose to own them. I am opposed to such concepts as unfettered access and mandatory gun ownership.

[Columbia]

58. And that's fine...

"I neither feel the need nor the desire to own a gun, thank you"

As long as you don't dictate what you think the rest of us need or desire to defend our homes.

You make your choices, we'll make ours and we'll both be happy. :toast:

[DoNotRefill]

34. All of the above.

but a firearm is my last-ditch choice.

[slackmaster]

37. Use gun first, then call 911

To report either that you have just scared off an attacker or that someone has been shot and needs medical attention.

Then give the dog a biscuit while you wait for the cops to show up, if they decide to come.

[SmokingLoon]

43. An XD and a Surefire

keep my daughter safe.

[Liberal Classic]

51. Serious answer

All three.