My Ideal Home Defense Shotgun

Remington Model 870™ Express® Youth

870expyouth.jpg

First, I like the idea of a shotgun. Handguns are too heavily regulated, and, I suppose, for good reasons. If a gun in the house is an accident waiting to happen; that goes double for handguns. After a bit of research on the internet, I decided on a 20-gauge. Who wants a 12-gauge cannon in their bedroom, that will deafen you and knock you down with recoil after the first shot? Unless, of course, one needs to take down a velociraptor or a gorilla. Smaller-gauge shotguns carry all the punch that’s needed for human assailants. In fact, Mossberg makes a dedicated home-defense shotgun in .410, and they claim that it has more stopping power than a .357 Magnum. I don’t know about that, but I am sure that even a .410, at household distances, is quite lethal. (A .410 is smaller than a 20-gauge, which is smaller than a 12-gauge.)

I do like the idea of relatively short-barrelled shotgun. While I don’t envision tight maneuvering through hallways, there’s no need for a 26-inch barrel. The legal minimum is 18 inches; below that is prohibited as a “sawed-off shotgun,” essentially small enough to conceal. The Mossberg and other home-defense shotguns are all about 18 inches.

I also would want more than a single shot. Again, I doubt I’d win any extended gun battles with any well-armed intruder, but a single shot weapon just wouldn’t seem adequate. This one carries four shells. There’s also the question of ammunition. #3 buckshot seems wholly adequate. (Although I see that there a plenty of gun-bloggers who want their 12-gauge shotguns loaded with seven rounds of 00 shot.)

But there’s a problem with those dedicated home-defense guns, as I read on the net. If you ever kill an intruder with your firearm, you’ll probably wind up in court (see John White). And you don’t want your gun to look like a black assault weapon, all tricked out with “gun nut” attachments. Nope. You want to be a hunter, who had his gun handy when he needed it. (The qualification here is that a light actually does seem like a good idea.)

Thus the Remington Express Youth meets all my requirements: a 20-gauge shotgun with a relatively short barrel that looks like (and actually is) a hunting gun. It would even be possible to go hunting with it sometime! If I found a .410 that also looked like a hunting gun, with a short barrel, I might like that too.

From the Remington website:

For an outstanding combination of proven quality and moderate cost, nothing can compare to our Model 870 Express Youth Gun. Designed with the same durability and reliability as the legendary Model 870 Wingmaster®, this lightweight 20-gauge makes an excellent, fast-handling field gun for the smaller shooter.

The 21-inch vent rib barrel with Modified Rem™ Choke balances perfectly with the 13-inch length of pull stock (1-inch shorter than standard). Both the fore-end and stock are crafted from durable hardwood and feature a low-luster finish and checkering.

MODEL 870™ EXPRESS® YOUTH GUN
Gauge - 20
Chamber - 3″
Mag. Cap. - 4
Barrel Length - 21″
Overall Length - 40 1/2″
Avg. Wt. (lbs.) - 6 1/2
MSRP* - $373

So, after I buy the shotgun, I’ll only need one more thing: another house that my wife would require me to live in if I actually purchased said weapon. ;)

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. SayUncle » House Guns on 03 Jan 2008 at 12:09 am

    […] Der Commissar posts his ideal home defense shotgun. […]

Comments

  1. a former european wrote:

    Back in the 70s I spent a brief time living in Arkansas due to a work-related transfer. IIRC, shotguns were very popular for home defense and the ammunition of choice was rock salt — very painful but rarely lethal. The traditional sequence of events, after shooting someone’s backside full of stinging salt, was to yell “Git off mah land!”, usually accompanied and emphasized by shaking one’s fist in the general direction of the fleeing interloper.

    Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 6:40 am

  2. John the Marine wrote:

    Shot guns for home defense? You should look at what a firearm was designed for. If it is made for shooting birds, well then that is what it is intended for. Handguns are designed for close defense in closed quarters. So, as far as home defense is concerned give me a handgun. I keep a nice .45 cal handy for unexpected guests.

    Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 10:10 am

  3. BloodSpite wrote:

    But there’s a problem with those dedicated home-defense guns, as I read on the net. If you ever kill an intruder with your firearm, you’ll probably wind up in court (see John White).

    Must be a New York thing.

    Here in Missouri we have the Castle Doctrine

    It permits citizens to use deadly force to protect themselves against anyone illegally entering their home by allowing the assumption that the criminal is present to cause physical harm or death.

    Second, it establishes a rule of engagement that says the citizen may strike first to protect human life without waiting to first be attacked.

    Lastly, the model specifies that the citizen should not be prosecuted for causing death or injury when following the first two guidelines..

    Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 11:42 am

  4. rho wrote:

    Handguns are designed for close defense in closed quarters.

    Be careful that you don’t shoot through the wall. And make sure you’re a crackerjack shot.

    The arguments for a properly configured shotgun for home defense are pretty good. The right loads won’t penetrate the standard sheetrock wall (or if they do, they’ll do little if any damage), yet still have plenty of stopping power. A handgun will require a larger caliber bullet and/or a hotter load.

    Not to mention that merely by racking the shotgun you might discourage intruders who hear it.

    I’m not in particular need of a home defense weapon right now, but I long ago came to the conclusion that a properly configured shotgun would be ideal and a better choice overall than a handgun.

    Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 1:31 pm

  5. John the Marine wrote:

    rho, Yes and no to the above.

    Penetration is not a problem, frangible rounds are easily obtained for common handgun calibers.

    Crackerjack shot? I don’t think so. The distances in your home at the very longest are probably no more than 25 ft. Confrontation with an intruder will more than likely be at even shorter distances. If you can’t hit a man size target at that range you shouldn’t be allowed to drive, let alone own a gun of any sort. Also, along these lines I like to know who I’m shooting at. Shot guns have a spray and prey aspect to them. Novices like that because you just kill what ever is in the way. However, in my house I want to control any fire to the intended target for obvious reasons.

    Look, home defense is like life insurance. Hopefully you never need it.

    Oh, just as an aside. I bet I could rack the action on just about any weapon and it will make you think twice.

    Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 4:25 pm

  6. David C. wrote:

    John,

    Handguns are fine for home defense, but so are shotguns. If you look at “expert” recommendations for home defense, you will find shotguns prominently featured for many good reasons. Personally I’ll take a shotgun over a handgun any day for home defense. But, they both work.

    Stephen,

    I first fired a 12 gauge shotgun when I was 6 years old. The recoil isn’t really that bad, depending on the type of weapon. I still have an old single shot, exposed hammer shotgun that I got for my 10th birthday. It kicks vicously because it is very light, but with gas-operated semi-autos the recoil is more of a mild push than a kick.

    Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 9:01 pm

  7. canuckistani wrote:

    I can think of 2 occasions when my wife would have shot me by accident if there had been a gun in the house, and at least one where she would have shot me on puirpose. :-)
    I’ll stick to a crowbar for home defense, thanks. There just aren’t enough armed break-ins up here to justify anything more.

    Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 4:17 pm

  8. John the Marine wrote:

    I can think of 2 occasions when my wife would have shot me by accident if there had been a gun in the house, and at least one where she would have shot me on puirpose.

    Sounds like a case for a trigger lock. So, what did you do that would give the wife cause to shoot and ask questions later? On second thought, it is probably none of my business.

    Posted 02 Jan 2008 at 6:14 pm

  9. USCitizen wrote:

    Good choice and well-reasoned (IMO) from a legal perspective.

    On the bright side, housing prices are looking very affordable today as well.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 12:21 am

  10. Regolith wrote:

    Good choice. Personally, I went for the 12 gauge, wiht a 28 inch barrel, but I bird hunt as well. I’m looking into buying a 20″ barrel for it, probably in the next month or so.

    Now, there are some misconceptions in the comment section I’d like to address:

    “The right loads won’t penetrate the standard sheetrock wall (or if they do, they’ll do little if any damage)”

    False. “The right load” in any self defense gun is going to penetrate dry wall like nobody’s business. This is because a good seld defense load needs to be able to penetrate approximatly 12″ in flesh to be effective, in case you end up shooting through an arm or at a bad angle. Hence, the smallest effective load for a shotgun would be lead BB shot, which will penetrate sheet rock quite easily. I personally use T, because I can’t find any buckshot locally. The #3 buck chosen by the author is decent. 00 is chosen fairly often both because of its availability for 12 gauge and because its fairly authoritative - 8 or 9 9mm sized pellets.

    Birdshot sometimes works, but it often just creates a shallow, nasty wound that might kill the intruder several hours later but will still allow him to turn your head into mush in the meantime.

    “Shot guns have a spray and prey aspect to them. Novices like that because you just kill what ever is in the way. However, in my house I want to control any fire to the intended target for obvious reasons.”

    False. Pattern a shotgun sometime. Shot groups at average home distances (5 or so yards) are less than a couple of inches in diameter. YOU STILL NEED TO AIM WITH A SHOTGUN.

    Fact of the matter is, a handgun is fairly anemic in terms of power. We use them for self defense because they are small, easily concealable, and fairly maneuverable. They are not, however, ideal. For the home, where transportability and the ability to conceal is not an issue, a shotgun is a much better choice, as would be a rifle if you lived in an area where penetration isn’t as much as an issue (while shotguns still penetrate, buckshot does so far less readily than a rifle round).

    Also, don’t rely to heavily on driving them away with the slide racking. While it may work on some, it mostly just gives away your position and the fact you’re armed, which ruins the element of surprise.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 1:37 am

  11. SandH wrote:

    Regolith nailed it on all counts.

    A 12-gauge is still one of the most fearsome weapons ever devised for close quarters combat (a 20 is right close). Think of it this way, if you fire a 12-gauge loaded with 00 Buck then you’ve just launched 9 projectiles at the target. Each of those projectiles is around 9mm. That’s 81mm total. Compare that to the 11.43mm of a .45! It’s a massive amount of damage. At room distances you’ve just hit the goon with a quick machine gun burst by pulling the trigger once. You have to aim just like with any weapon, but when you hit him he’s just received an incredible amount of damage in a circle of 2-5 inches.

    That being said, a .45 is a good choice too. It puts a nice big hole in the water bag. Personally, I like to make a lot of holes in the water bag, but I want something easy for me to grab too. So I have a .45 by the bed and a 12-gauge in the closet. The .45 is my last ditch. The 12-gauge is my serious work gun.

    The real issue is the false belief that any home defense weapon will put a bad guy down with a single round. Everyone wants a guaranteed easy one-shot-stop. That’s a nice idea, but it’s not something you should count on. Shoot until the threat is eliminated (he runs, surrenders, becomes incapacitated, or dies). If that’s a single round from a .22 single-action revolver then that’s great. If it’s six rounds from a 12-gauge, well, then that’s what it takes (and God be with you).

    Whatever you buy you need to practice with it. Spend as much time as you can afford at the range getting familiar with your weapon and making sure that it functions flawlessly with the ammo you’re going to load in it. Then go back and practice with it at least once a month to stay familiar with the mechanism.

    As for penetration, do the test yourself. Get a few 1′ square pieces of sheetrock, put some insulation between them, and fire at it from combat distance. You’ll learn just how little spread there is with a shotgun at 10-15 feet and how much penetration your particular ammo can be expected to match. I’ll bet that just about anything you put in your 20-gauge will punch right through two pieces of sheetrock (and probably more). Same with the .45.

    You made a good choice in what you bought. Now make sure you know how to use it, what its capabilities are, and what the legal ramifications may be should you have to enter into combat. As Bloodspite says, there are states that have passed Castle Doctrine laws, however those laws are not a free pass to go blasting away. They just protect you when you had no other choice.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 6:34 am

  12. Rob K wrote:

    John the Marine, as a Marine you should know better. Let me remind you of the Winchester M1897 - the first trench gun, and the Marine’s fondness for it at Belleau Wood.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 10:17 am

  13. Tennessee Budd wrote:

    Let’s see…when I sleep, there’s a Mossy 12-gauge, a .38, & a .357 GP100–those are the ones within easy reach. Of course, on the other side of the bed are an SKS, a .22 rifle, and the girlfriend’s .357. I think we’ll be OK.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 2:02 pm

  14. canuckistani wrote:

    Let’s see…when I sleep, there’s a Mossy 12-gauge, a .38, & a .357 GP100–those are the ones within easy reach. Of course, on the other side of the bed are an SKS, a .22 rifle, and the girlfriend’s .357. I think we’ll be OK.

    Where do you live? Iraq? Harlem? Somewhere where 10 of your neighbours have been killed in their sleep in the past 6 weeks? I may be wrong here, but I’d say the odds of your home being invaded by 40 armoured punks are somewhat lower than someone telling your wife that you’ve been running around with Mitzi at the local Hooters.
    I hate to wave this red flag around, but Michael Moore is right about this at least - you guys have been trained to live in constant fear.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 2:16 pm

  15. canuckistani wrote:

    JTM- she was suffering wild mood swings when she started on some medication to get her through chemotherapy. Other times, my astronomy nights had been rained out and I thought it would be smart to try not to wake her when I came in at 3 am. I haven’t actually done anything that she knows about worthy of murder :-)
    But a trigger lock wouldn’t have helped her if she had wanted to kill an intruder at 3 am while I was out.

    Budd - Sorry, I meant “girlfriend” instead of “wife”. Unless you have both :-)

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 2:27 pm

  16. Stephen wrote:

    Canuckistani,

    Hobbyists tend to have a lot of stuff that, to the non-hobbyist, seems excessive. I must have over 30 bird guides, or maybe I’ve trimmed that down to 12 since I don’t go birding much anymore. I read about an Edsel fan, who has 27 of them.

    Indeed, that is the point of having a hobby - to revel in the distinctions between hobby-things, that fascinate the hobbyist, but to the non-cognoscenti, seem obscure or inexplicable.

    Thus, Tenn Budd isn’t necessarily trained to live in fear; he just appreciates the difference between a Mossy 12 gauge and a .357 handgun.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 2:47 pm

  17. SayUncle wrote:

    you guys have been trained to live in constant fear.

    How precisely does a hobbyist’s collection indicate he lives in fear? I think Sarah Thompson, M.D. was correct: projection. Particularly odd since you joke about your wife shooting you.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 3:47 pm

  18. canuckistani wrote:

    If Tennessee Budd had talked about his cabinet full of guns instead of all the guns he keeps by his bedside, and no one had brought up th Castle Doctrine and there hadn’t been long discussions about the best weapons for bringing down home intruders, I might go for the hobbyist defence. I have hobbies too, but I don’t keep all my telescopes stacked up by my bedside in case I need them in the middle of the night. And the words “I think we’ll be ok” don’t make sense from a hobbyist point of view, but are straightforward spoken by someone who feels he is now protected from danger.

    But you guys are talking about the best weapons for home defence. That’s not hobbyist talk. That’s people
    who feel they need to defend themselves.
    And for the record, I don’t live in mortal fear of my wife. She’s not a violent person, and would walk out and leave me long before she got mad enough to kill me. But the point I was obliquely getting to is that all those domestic guns are far more likely to be used in a domestic crime or accident than they are in repelling home invaders, unless you live in a genuine Bagdhad-style danger zone.
    I’m not a gun hater - I used to do a fair anount of target shooting in my youth - but I wouldn’t keep a gun in the house for protection any more than I would wallpaper my kids rooms with asbestos to keep them safe from fires; the gain isn’t worth the risk.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 4:29 pm

  19. Stephen wrote:

    I have hobbies too, but I don’t keep all my telescopes stacked up by my bedside in case I need them in the middle of the night.

    Then you’re not a real hobbyist. :)

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 5:10 pm

  20. SayUncle wrote:

    But you guys are talking about the best weapons for home defence. That’s not hobbyist talk. That’s people
    who feel they need to defend themselves.

    It’s both. It still does not indicate he ‘lives in fear’

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 5:17 pm

  21. Stephen wrote:

    Canuckistani,

    Have you ever considered a ‘home defense telescope?” You know, holding the big end up to a bright light, and pointing the eyepiece at your attacker to blind him?

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 5:24 pm

  22. Regolith wrote:

    That’s because we do.

    Someone did break into my house once. They decided, right after seeing a 12 gauge shotgun pointed at them, that they had pressing business elsewhere, and left immediately. No shots fired. Although it was probably mistake, I didn’t even call the police, since they came through an unlocked door and had not broken anything.

    Quite frankly, I shudder to think what might have happened had I surprised them and not been armed (I do not think they expected the house to be occupied).

    People do mean things to other people all the time, and since we can’t have police posted on every corner, we have to be able to fend for ourselves until the police can arrive. Even with a 5 minute response time, often the police end up cleaning up the mess, rather than stopping a crime in progress. Its simply a fact of life.

    I do not expect to have to use my shotgun again except for bird hunting, but I still keep it at the ready. The same as I keep a fire extinguisher handy, or wear my seatbelt while driving. I do not expect or hope for a fire or to get into an accident, but I wish to be ready in case it does happen, in order to minimize the potential for injury to myself or others.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:15 pm

  23. Regolith wrote:

    My above post was in response to Canuckistani stating

    That’s people
    who feel they need to defend themselves.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:17 pm

  24. canuckistani wrote:

    Let me revise my remarks - they should not apply to people who do live in dangerous neighbourhoods. If you call 911 and the cops tell you to fend for yourself, then by all means arm yourself.
    Regolith, I’m curious - was the intruder armed? If he was, I will not question your use of armed force to scare him off. But around here, breakins are usually done by young punks looking for something to fence for drug money. Almost never armed, since they would have sold their guns for drugs months ago. A call to 911 and a baseball bat to make them think twice about jumping you is usually enough to clear them out.
    I understand your seatbelt analogy, ( and I’ll make the assumption that since we are all sane adults in happy relationships that we’re all on the far end of the bell curve,) but your argument fails when the safety device is statistically more likely to cause you or your family harm than it is to protect you from any external danger.
    As I said before, I’m not strongly anti-gun. Guns are fun in a way that would make Freud piss himself. But I wouldn’t keep one in the house.

    Stephen - the astronomical community is full of stories of helpful neighbours calling the cops because “some people are setting up a rocket launcher or a cannon in the park”. I’m sure I could scare off burglars with an 8″ cannon poking out of my front window. Unless they figure I must really have something worth guarding.

    Uncle- I don’t sleep with 6 weapons in easy reach of my bed, so that I will be “ok”. Keeping a pistol or shotgun may be cautious. Keeping a shotgun, 3 pistols, a rifle and a semi-auto carbine in reach is something else.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:51 am

  25. Regolith wrote:

    Regolith, I’m curious - was the intruder armed?

    I do not know, as they didn’t stick around long enough for me to find out. However, it’s irrelevant, as an unarmed intruder can become an armed one fairly quickly. Lots of murders, particularly when you’re dealing with break ins, happen with weapons of opportunity. These are items, such as kitchen knives, fire pokers, etc, that the intruder has found laying around the house.

    Given that they had broken into the kitchen that had a lot of fairly sharp pointy objects, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they wouldn’t have availed themselves to all of the pointy objects lying around had I not met them before they got two or three steps into the house.

    There’s also the fact that a person with a bat CAN be overwhelmed by an unarmed individual, especially if that individual is larger, stronger, and/or faster. Personally, I don’t want to risk my safety by betting one whether or not the guy breaking into my house spends more time at the gym than I do.

    but your argument fails when the safety device is statistically more likely to cause you or your family harm than it is to protect you from any external danger.

    This is false. There is no statistical evidence showing that having a gun in the house makes it more likely for you to cause your family harm than to protect from external danger. There was one study that purportedly showed a link, however it was thoroughly discredited, as the author had cherry picked his data.

    Given that there are an estimated 1-2 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States each year (it’s difficult to say exactly how often this occurs, as many instances, like mine, are not reported), and only 700-800 accidental deaths, 16,000 suicides, and 10,000 or so murders using firearms, I find that saying it is more likely for you to be killed with a firearm than to defend yourself with one a bit unlikely.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:04 am

  26. John the Marine wrote:

    Rob K, as a Marine I had the opportunity to spend a year working in the PMO (Provost Marshal Office), base Military Police Station armory on Camp Pendleton. PMO had both the Winchester and the Remington 870 12 g combat shotguns. By far the Remington was the better weapon. By the way, we Marines were much more fond of our 03-A3 30-06 Springfield rifles which were used to kill Germans at up to 800 yds with iron sites.

    I have a healthy respect for shotguns but personelly feel a .45 auto is a better choice. One shot to bring down the intruder is indeed the goal and at the short distance in your house with a large caliber shot gun, 12 g, or pistol, .45 cal, that is a likely outcome.

    Respecting shotguns and patterns. SandH offers some very realistic observations. However, one thing I didn’t read was a discussion of barrel length and how that controls pattern diameter. I have a 12 g Mosberb 500A. It has a 18.5 in barrel. Its pattern will be a lot broader than the bird gun variety. Also, the ammuntion has an obvious role. If you don’t like a pattern buy yourself some slugs. No spread with slugs just one really big hole. If you are a dual use kind of guy by all means go with the shotgun, but if your purpose is home defense I advise going with the tool designed for and proven to the job.

    Again hat’s off to SandH for this:

    You made a good choice in what you bought. Now make sure you know how to use it, what its capabilities are, and what the legal ramifications may be should you have to enter into combat.

    This is the best advice and or point made.

    I guess the whole matter comes down to personel preference. However, I have to admit my opinion on the matter is at odds with the general consensus.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:16 am

  27. SayUncle wrote:

    Uncle- I don’t sleep with 6 weapons in easy reach of my bed, so that I will be “ok”. Keeping a pistol or shotgun may be cautious. Keeping a shotgun, 3 pistols, a rifle and a semi-auto carbine in reach is something else.

    Do you have a fire extinguisher? I have six of them so
    that there’s always one close (spacious house). And none of that indicates I ‘live in fear’ of fire. And that is your assertion that I’ve been addressing and you’ve ignored defending for going on three posts now.

    Gun people (and gun nuts) simply don’t live in fear, despite what your sage Michael Moore tells you. Of course, given his factually decrepit work, it shouldn’t be a surprise.

    Keeping weapons in reach does not indicate living in fear. As a guy who owns lots of guns, it indicates to me that he doesn’t have small children. I do so most of my weapons are in a safe.

    but your argument fails when the safety device is statistically more likely to cause you or your family harm than it is to protect you from any external danger.

    That statement is utterly and completely false. I’ll let you google up the various refutations of kellerman study yourself.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:29 am

  28. canuckistani wrote:

    The point of the baseball bat isn’t really to fight them, just make them hesitate long enough to understand that the cops are coming (assuming they are), and they’d better get the hell out. But I will back down and concede that if crime in the US is that bad, I’d probably arm myself too, I’d probably go for the shotgun, on the grounds that it’s more intimidating for people who have grown up seeing people shrug off handgun wounds in the movies.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:31 am

  29. John the Marine wrote:

    The point of the baseball bat isn’t really to fight them, just make them hesitate long enough to understand that the cops are coming (assuming they are), and they’d better get the hell out.

    Just as SandH has made the best point, Canuckistani has made the worst. Here is why; If you cross the line and declare either by action or spoken word that you intend to use force you better be prepared to do exactly that. The problem with home invasion is that it could be the garden variety punk or then again it could be someone much worse. If I broke into your house and was determined and you confront me with a bat. I will pick up say a kitchen chair an procede to beat you to death if I desire. Because if your bluffing your facade will immediately crack and violent or evil people will know that there is no real threat. No, my Canadian friend for you I suggest running down the street with wife in toe calling the Police on your cel phone.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 11:53 am

  30. canuckistani wrote:

    Well, I guess I should concede that I don’t know any more about fighting off home invaders than I do about dealing with rattlesnakes in my boots, and I imagine my snake/boot ignorance would be just as laughable to an Australian. But living in a big Canadian city, I don’t have any more fear of home invasion than I have of poisonous reptiles. I don’t keep a bedside gun, and after a bit of checking, I find that my friends in the UK, Germany, France, Japan and Switzerland don’t take precautions against home invasions either. My Canadian gun nut buddies keep their weapons in locked basement safes or at their gun clubs. With one exception, the only people I know who actually take precautions against violent break-ins are Americans*. I don’t know if it’s justified by high crime levels or whether you’re spooked by NRA propaganda, but if I felt I had to take precautions to protect my family from violent death, whether by arming myself or digging a bomb shelter, I would consider that living in fear. If you claim it’s justifiable fear, I won’t argue with you.

    *My brother-in-law’s cousin lives in rural Costa Rica near the Nicaraguan border, and back in the 80’s had to climb out a window to avoid being impressed into the Contras. He goes armed. I don’t blame him.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 3:50 pm

  31. John the Marine wrote:

    I find that my friends in the UK, Germany, France, Japan and Switzerland don’t take precautions against home invasions either.

    Western Europe doesn’t allow for private firearm ownership like the US. The UK forbids any private ownership of any type of firearm period and Japan I’m pretty sure doesn’t allow private firearm ownership as well. The Swiss? I’m not sure but I think they are similar to Israel. Also, I think it is pretty safe to say that with the exception of states like NJ or Washington DC, the US is the only country where true private firearm ownership is allowed and securely entrenched. Point being that availability is a key factor.

    It really isn’t about fear. There have been numerous examples provided above by others like fire exstinguishers and other insurance risk analogies. In short I agree with them.

    Respecting gun control I don’t think it can be said that gun control makes a country safer or necessarily less safe. So, I say let us gun nuts have our weapons everything being the same.

    But living in a big Canadian city, I don’t have any more fear of home invasion than I have of poisonous reptiles.

    You know what? Good for you, if your happy and safe that is fine with me. After all if there isn’t a risk why have insurance? However, all ask is that the ability to obtain that insurance not be taken away from a guy like me who might see it differently. Call it fear if that suits you but I would like to make up my own mind just as you have made up yours.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 4:23 pm

  32. Trad wrote:

    I don’t know which large Canadian city that canuckistani lives in but, you had better start paying attention to the news broadcasts. Home invasion is happening all across our country. The insurance/seat belt analogies are well stated and both are mandatory here in Canada.
    Because of our gun registration laws and the difficulty of obtaining weapons here the bad guys are fairly sure that when they enter a home that the owner will be unarmed and venerable. And you can bet your unprotected a*s the those same baddies are not carrying registered handguns. In fact the gun registration data site has been hacked into and the criminals now have the addresses of all the ‘legal’ gun owners in their areas.
    If one or more these drug crazed fools enters you home I hope you and/or your wife can fend them off with your stick (ball bat) but, I strongly doubt it.

    Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 3:59 pm

« Traveler IQ Challenge
Iowa Expectations »