Poll: One-Gun Household, prepared?


October 4, 2006, 09:29 PM
Here's the hypothetical: There is a family that owns a house in the suburbs of a reasonably safe town. The family consists of a man and his wife, both in their mid-thirties. They have two children who just started high school; one boy and one girl.

The only firearm in this household is a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, which belongs to the father. The father practices with the pistol on a monthly basis with some friends and has become quite skilled in its use at the firing range. He does not have a concealed carry permit, but does live in a right-to-carry state.

The question, very simply: Is this household adequately prepared for the significant majority of violent crimes that might be perpetrated against it?

If you enjoyed reading about "Poll: One-Gun Household, prepared?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
October 4, 2006, 09:39 PM
No, If he is injured or killed by an intruder, while he has the gun, the rest of the family is defenseless.

October 4, 2006, 09:45 PM
Crap, looks like I double-posted this one. The post with the poll attached is further down the page right now.

Mods, please delete this one.

C-grunt, I appreciate your input. If you'd be so kind as to make your post again under the other post, I'd be much obliged.

October 4, 2006, 09:49 PM
How prepared are any of us? Sure, many of us think, perhaps know, how we would act if a common street thug broke into our home. But how about our defenses against terrorism? Would having ten thousand guns have stopped the twin towers from being hit? I don't think so. We have to look at the bigger picture here. Most of us are fairly prepared for an intruder, but how many of us are prepared for a true terrorist attack on this country? Is there anyway we can prepare? It's coming...y'all do realize that, right?

October 4, 2006, 09:52 PM
I think it is all up to how well he trains or prepares. As well as the rest of the family.

I think that the majority of gun owners who did not inherit their guns usually buy one gun for the sense of security and the peace of mind that they feel.

s&w 24
October 6, 2006, 04:36 AM
He should have a permit to carry and if she will his wife should learn to shoot as well and have her own firearm,idealy the same make and model as the husband. I won't recomend the youths learn how to shoot because that is a choice only the parents can make.

More importantly when is the last time he had a cpr/first aid class and do they have basic fire fighting and first aid supplys on hand. Fires and injurys are far more common than gun fights.

October 6, 2006, 09:27 AM
No, in any circumstance a handgun is a compromise. It is inaccurate (comparitively) and underpowered. The reason we carry handguns is because we can't go walking around with slung rifles/shotguns.

If (and this is a very big if) you absolutely had to take only one gun to defend your home, a 12 gauge is by far your best bet.

So, as a round about way to answer your question, no. Every home should have at least 1 rifle, 1 shotgun and 1 handgun. Different tools for different situations.

October 6, 2006, 11:00 AM
I agree that if I had to pick just one gun for defending my home, it would be a shotgun. Much more reliable stopping power and it's easy to tailor your ammunition to your situation.

That said, if you're talking strictly about protecting your home, your gun(s) are farther down on the list than the home itself. If you're worried about a push-in, invasion, burglary, etc, your time and money would likely be better spent on doors, lighting, alarms, etc.

I think even the best trained and most heavily armed of us would much rather have the bad guys pass on by or not be able to get in. Well, most of us...

October 6, 2006, 12:16 PM
I wouldn't pick a mouse gun, but on the whole, yes. Given their situation and the actual probabilities they are probably doing fine. CCW? Not necessary if the weapon is for home defense. Just one gun? Our Rambo fantasies aside, how common is it in the real world to switch guns during a robbery? At those odds he'd be better off investing in a reinforced umbrella to protect against meteor strikes.

October 6, 2006, 05:22 PM
He's certainly prepared enough since the likelihood that he'll need it is miniscule at best. It's small enough to hide from the kids and powerful enough to stop an intruder with reasonable accuracy.

Green Lantern
October 6, 2006, 06:55 PM
Okay, even with the countless "modifiers" out there...after some thought I can answer with an unqualified NO.

Reason? If the gun is used in a home defense situation, then it is taken by the police for evidence purposes. Six months, give or take, is what I've heard quoted as to how long to expect to be without it...

So, what are they gonna do while they are without their one & only gun?

Chris Rhines
October 6, 2006, 07:34 PM
No way to tell. A gun isn't the be-all-end-all of personal security. Does he have a home alarm? Deadbolts and heavy exterior doors? Fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, first aid equipment? Has the family gone over emergency plans for burglary, fire, medical emergency? Does anyone in the family have first aid training? Et cetera, et cetera.

- Chris

October 6, 2006, 08:24 PM
No. Keep the 9mm under the pillow, have a shotgun in the closet, and teach all household members how to shoot. Maybe buy a .357 Snubbie for the wife.

October 6, 2006, 08:39 PM
If he does have to use the "one gun" a couple things can happen. He can have it taken away and eventually get it back. Or he can be barred from access to firearms. In the first case he can go buy an inexpensive but effective shotgun in the interim. In the second he'd just be losing more guns to the police.

October 6, 2006, 09:10 PM
They have two children who just started high school; one boy and one girl.

they should both be trained, and the boy at least should probably have his own gun.

stiletto raggio
October 6, 2006, 09:37 PM
I understand that you said "at least," but I wonder why people think it is somehow more important or appropriate for a boy to have a gun than a girl. I'm not trying to be combative, just wondering what it is about our socialization, even as shooters, that make us think this. Women are far more likely to be the target of an attack than men and almost always less physically powerful than an aggressor.

Anyhow, my opinion is that a home should have enough firearms to effectively arm every person in it. Those people should be familiarized with any weapon kept for defense and trained in gun safety and effective self-defence, both armed and unarmed. Everyone should know first aid, fire prevention and containment, and CPR. At least two good first aid kids ought to be kept in the home, and one smoke detector and fire extinguisher in every bedroom. Also not to be overlooked, everyone old enough to use one responsibly ought to have a cell phone. This is just stuff for in-home emergencies. Vehicles and travel are a whole other can of worms, but there is some good overlap on the training side.

So, in my opinion, no, that family is not prepared.

October 6, 2006, 10:34 PM
I understand that you said "at least," but I wonder why people think it is somehow more important or appropriate for a boy to have a gun than a girl

it seems to me that as a general rule boys like guns more then girls, and are more likely to want a gun in the 1st place. of course this is not always true.
for exapmle my dad taunght all 5 of us to shoot. my went sisters to the range a few times but had no desire to keep a gun in thier rooms or even have a gun. i felt different and had 3

October 6, 2006, 11:05 PM
I've been a LEO for 10 years I am an FBI certified firearms instructor and a hunter I own many guns and shoot at least a couple times a week, so I think i'm as "prepared" as anyone, but I have a great deal of respect for the person that doesn't particularly like firearms. That owns one handgun and practices with it often for home protection. I would say he is more prepared than most in his situation. Even with all of the training that I have had i'm not "prepared" to have some crackhead armed with a shotgun kick in my door at three in the morning... IMO

October 7, 2006, 01:14 AM
I would have to say yes. If the guy practices regularly and is competent with his weapon, he is more than likely more prepared than an entruder. Besides, the guy doesn't have to track down the intruder, simply protect his family. For instance, if all of the bedrooms are on the second floor, all the guy must do is cover the stairway.

October 7, 2006, 04:59 AM
they should both be trained, and the boy at least should probably have his own gun.

hell no, give two to her and him two one for each hand!:D
train them all up on how to use them.
+ the wife 2 and the man of the house another and he probally won't even have to be bothered with intruders, the other members will ambush him on the way in!:D

in all seriousness i think that would be just fine having one gun, if and it is highly unlikly that someone does break in and he uses it in self defense and the ploice take, it i am sure that he might go get another one to cover his butt until the original is given back. but what is the liklyness of it happening once especially happening twice in a 6 month period. i do agree all should know how to use it though. dad might bot always be home.

October 7, 2006, 07:48 AM
Get the girl a plate for her back and let her stand behind the boy if someone tries to shoot her.

I've given up on trying to make sense of the world and the people in it.

If I'm ever in a situation where I'm being shot at, I'm going to use a man as a human shield. Screw it. No point in breaking a nail or anything.


If you enjoyed reading about "Poll: One-Gun Household, prepared?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!