I'm Serious About This Question. Is Arming the Neighbors A Good Idea?

[Treo]

Ok let's try this again; A hurricane is very unlikely in Colorado Springs, but something similar to the L.A. riots or flooding is a realistic possibility.

In such a situation would the benefits of loaning your nieghbors guns ( more people to keep watch) out weigh the risks( the guns are no longer under your direct control)?

PS Wez & Toe Cutter still think your daughter is HOT!

 

[Ed Ames]

There are too many factors for a simple answer, but...

My main thought is that, in that scenario, you are too late. I mean that both ways... firstly, many of your neigbors are already armed and you should assume, until they prove otherwise, that they all are. Secondly, if you have neigbors that you think should be armed you should be taking them out shooting and the like before a disaster strikes so they'll have a chance to learn in a safe and controlled environment. Taking them has the advantage that the "loan" is short term and controlled (it's just at the range) and if they find shooting/the idea of self-protection interesting they have time to go get their own weapons.

However... that isn't a blanket "no"... there are circumstances when it would be prudent to arm (or re-arm) your neigbors. Circumstances dictate tactics.

 

[DWARREN123]

If they don't already have guns then no I do not believe I would arm them.

 

[xsquidgator]

Probably not for a short term crisis (anything less than a month or two), probably not even for something more. If it's someone who already knows enough about firearms and defense to be trustworthy, then they likely already have some sort of firearm. And if it's a neighbor that would be starting totally from nothing knowledgewise about firearms, I can't think of any way I'd be confident enough in their abilities to give them one of mine. It's not just about being able to work the controls and load/unload, it's at least as important for someone to have a clue about when deadly force is and isn't called for. I don't see how I could impart any useful level of competence in that respect very quickly. If I gave someone a gun who barely could operate it, that's the kind of person who I think stands a good chance of a bad guy taking it away from him or her when he/she hesitates on the trigger.

The thought of arming the neighbors has occurred to me if some sort of extended societal breakdown happened, but I haven't though of a workable way to do it and actually feel safer. I have thought about buying a dozen or so cheap whistles though for this kind of purpose so at least everyone on our block could warn of impending trouble.

 

[jwxspoon]

There's an interesting story about a neighborhood that shared arms in Chris Bird's "Thank God I Had a Gun"

Basically they ended up as a collecting point for firearms in the neighborhood.

jw

 

[harbingerm]

No. Who knows what people are capable of in a panic/crisis situation. You might just end up having your own guns used against you. It's not anyone else's fault but their own if they aren't prepared.

 

[bensdad]

No. Short term scenario? They can go spend the week at Gramma's if things are that bad here. If they made the choice to stay, they made the choice to do so under present circumstances. The fact that they do not have a gun is not my problem. The possibility that they could shoot someone with my gun and create a legal difficulty for me later is my problem.

Long term scenario? Stupid should hurt. If they don't have a gun before it hits the fan, then a gun after it hits the fan will not help them much. My neighbors and my friends are not the same group. My friends have guns, knowledge, other critical equipment and skills. My neighbors have pretty much nothing to offer in the event of a SHTF situation. They're pretty much soccer moms and beer-belly dads in chinos. If things go really bad, they'll all be dead before the first freeze.

I guess I might trade a gun I didn't really need (I have a few) for something really useful. Another generator or a drum of diesel, maybe?

 

[Fred Fuller]

If you pose it in serious terms, it'll get treated as a serious question. Zombie fantasy or end-of-the-world fiction stuff will get it locked.

It's bad form to answer a question with a question, but it's the shortest way to clarifying what you had in mind in this case I think. So here goes:

Why would you want to pass out firearms to people living near you who didn't care enough about being armed to get their own firearms before circumstances arose to make them need arms?

Are your neighbors responsible? Careful? Trained? Tactically proficient? How can they be these things if they are not armed already?

This issue IMHO is a lot larger than just passing around hardware.

lpl/nc

 

[Ed Ames]

As an add-on for those who express ideas like: "who knows what people are capable of." You haven't thought the issue through.

They have guns. They really do. 40% of your neighbors admit to being armed and the actual percentage is probably higher. If they are going to cause you harm they already have the means to do so. If you are so afraid of your neigbors that you don't want them armed because "who knows what people are capable of..." you have already lost. You either lost because you are out of touch with your neigbors or because you picked the wrong neighborhood to live in. You have also totally missed the point of a free society.

One of the basic tenets of a free society is that everyone gains (more than they lose) when powers are equally distributed in a social group and everyone loses more than they gain when those powers are limited to a subset of the social group. In other words... everyone gains (on average) when the entire group is armed, and everyone loses (on average) if only some people in the social group are armed. Everyone gains when the entire social group can choose the sort of work they want to do for themselves. Everyone loses when some people can choose the sort of work that others do.

That doesn't say you must, or even should, give everyone guns... but it certainly helps to point out why the idea that you want to make sure nobody but you is armed will end up with you losing more than you gain.

You want your neighbors to be armed. You want them armed today, and you certainly want them armed come a disaster. You benefit from their strength... assuming you aren't intending to abuse them because you think you're going to be the only one with a gun come that day.

 

[harbingerm]

Good points, Lee. Besides, ammo is too damned expensive to just be giving it away!

 

[harbingerm]

If you are so afraid of your neigbors that you don't want them armed because "who knows what people are capable of..." you have already lost. You either lost because you are out of touch with your neigbors or because you picked the wrong neighborhood to live in. You have also totally missed the point of a free society.

Completely baseless. If I give them arms, they are no longer under my control. What if they give it to another family member whom I don't know because they "herded" up together or bugged out essentially stealing them from me? That person could be a felon, unstable, etc. How am I to know about all their aunts/uncles/cousins/in-laws, etc whom I've probably never even met once? If they don't own guns, then they most likely don't have a proper safe, either. What if they get stolen? Their kids (or their friends) get a hold of them? Love my neighbors or not, but I'm NOT going to be responsible for MY firearms voluntarily turned over to them and completely out of my control. It's also NOT about NOT trusting whether or not the neighbors would use them against me in normal times. We're talking about a CRISIS/SURVIVAL situation. Understand? I'm sure you're the nicest, meekest person (normally), but how far would you go to feed your starving and freezing family? These situations can bring out the darkest behaviors in ANYONE.

 

[Ed Ames]

They are armed and not under your control now.

That's the point. Your neighbors already have guns. All that stuff you mention can happen no matter what. So selling or giving them a gun doesn't actually change the possibility of that stuff happening at all.

If you really don't trust your neighbors to be armed you should either move or get to know them better.

 

[harbingerm]

You assume too much. Lots of liberal people live lollypop land where they believe nothing can ever go bad. For me, that fictional neighborhood is in Connecticut. Did you hear about the nice Dr. in the wealthy bedroom community of Cheshire? He had his wife and two daughters murdered, he was beaten to within an inch of his life and his house was burned down in a very publicized home invasion. It was later shown that they did NOT own any firearms. I know for a FACT that many of my neighbors are unarmed and would never have a gun in the house. I have actually heard the "it's for my children" excuse, too, when the discussions have come up and neighborhood block parties, bbqs, etc. Their apparent lack of proficiency is probably one of the LAST reasons I would NOT pass out any of my firearms. Like someone else already pointed out, if they use that firearm, right or wrong, it's still traceable back to me and I just might not be able to actually prove I was NOT is possession at the time of use. Not going to take that chance.

Besides, these "fairy land" sheeple with their heads in the clouds who deliberately deny themselves and their families proper protection probably aren't the most mentally sound people in the first place. Another reason NOT to give them a gun. They'll probably run around wielding it like some magical talisman, too.

Here's another thing. A lot of states have publicly searchable databases regarding sex offenders. See if yours has one and put in your address. You might just be surprised at what you find. Nationally syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck is one wealthy dude. Do you think he lives in a bad neighborhood? I don't think so, yet a registered child molester just moved in down the street from him after he did a search. Most people wouldn't do that and would never know. So, should he, I, or anyone else have to move? Would you give a gun to a potential registered sex offender (and God knows what else)? You do NOT know your neighbors' complete histories nor virtually anything about their extended families. All you "just pick up and move" folks are giving into the problem. Seriously, how easy is it for the vast majority of people with jobs, family ties, kids in school, this crappy housing market, etc to "pick up and move"?

 

[Ed Ames]

I don't grant that I assume too much but I will accept that my assumption is a lot safer.

Think about it: Assume someone is armed when they aren't and what happens? Nothing much... you exercise reasonable caution around them. Assume someone is disarmed when they are armed and what happens? You treat them as less of a security issue and potentially allow them to cause you harm.

Now, as for you thinking they are "<edit reference>" in "<edit reference>" there's a very good chance that they just don't like you. I've certainly told people I disliked that I didn't have any guns. It's a win/win for me... they let their guard down and are easier to deal with, I don't have to worry as much about whether they have larceny in their hearts. It's not as though I wanted to go shooting with those people anyway.

The fact is that some 40% of households have guns.

You can make all the assumptions you want but the intelligent assumption is that your neighbors are already armed and simply don't want you to know that fact for whatever reason.

I for one would have no problem selling weapons and ammo to people whether there is an emergency or not. The only real difference is that in an emergency my pricing model would change... not so much that the prices would go up but I would factor in security benefits (armed neighbors form a filter to catch more bad guys before they reach my house) and less tangible benefits (such as the possibility of survival-positive partnerships) may be significant compensation.

 

[harbingerm]

Fair enough, but I'm not giving MY guns or ammo to anyone else outside my family. Whether they be armed or not, the smart person is already going to assume ANY and EVERY person is a potential threat in a SHTF scenario. Doesn't matter whether I partied with them last weekend or not. Just like that old saying goes... "Always be polite, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Even more so in the types of scenarios discussed here. I'm pretty darned sure my unarmed neighbors are unarmed. They sure do become uneasy (some to the point of being alarmed) whenever someone brings the "guns" topic up. Why voluntarily offer information (correct or not) that you are completely unarmed? Sure, I may not tell someone I'm armed, but I'm sure not going to volunteer mis-information that I'm unarmed and potentially open myself up because someone tells another someone and so on and something is attempted against me/my house because they think they are "safe". Besides, most gun owners are not going to go into an irrational tirade, either, about how guns are evil, only designed for one thing, you must be a paranoid delusional, that's what the police are for. etc that I've heard so much of. Pretty much a dead give away right there.

You seem to love repeating that 40% of American households have guns. What do you NOT understand about the other 60%??? Even if it's higher than 40%, there's still a LOT of households unarmed out there, ya know...

 

[Geno]

Lee nailed it on-the-head. If they didn't care to buy enough to buy them and to practice with them prior to problems, why do it for them? My arms are for me and for mine...period.

 

[harbingerm]

Lee nailed it on-the-head. If they didn't care to buy enough to buy them and to practice with them prior to problems, why do it for them? My arms are for me and for mine...period.

Actually, I nailed it on the head two posts above his.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Why are you focusing on guns? What would be the point in giving them arms?


Were it an old Korean-era vet, who wasn't allowed to bring his M-1 Garand to the nursing home, sure.

Giving someone unskilled and untrained in the use of a firearm one in an emergency will do no good. Even if you had the time, ammo, and place to shoot off a few to train them up to use it, that doesn't address the underlying issue. Will they? Will they use it appropriately? I don't want my family shot up because the fellow didn't pay attention to his gun handling. Or decided to fire off a warning shot that goes through my window.

Its about the same as giving someone who has never driven before the keys to my car, and then go share the highway with them in my wife's car, bringing my family along for the ride.


What possible good could it serve? It introduces far more problems than simply telling them to get in touch with me or another one of us that can handle the problem. You don't have to be armed, just be alert.

Situations like these are thinking problems, not shooting problems.

 

[harbingerm]

Don't worry, BullfrogKen. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you that despite half (or more) of American households are unarmed that all your neighbors are already armed commandos.

 

[CountGlockula]

No, because my family's safety comes first.

But it all depends on your relationship with your neighbor.

 

[Ed Ames]

Shrug.

I don't count the anti/uncomfortable crowd as "certainly disarmed" myself. I know how families work. The husband or wife is uncomfortable, some of the kids are uncomfortable, but one spouse, or maybe one of the over-18 kids, has a weapon or three stashed away in the attic or under the bed. It happens all the time and is part of why I flat don't believe the 40% figure is even close to high enough. I've seen those weapons... seem them when the husband of 50 years died and the wife discovered that, completely without her knowledge and against her wishes, he had not just one or two but ten guns. Beyond that I've had anti-gun people... true antis who openly thought that nobody including them should have a gun, ask me for help in selecting a riot/disaster gun.

As for the "have a plan to kill everyone" stuff it's just silly posturing. I don't need to (or want to) kill everyone. I need to deter and stop behaviors that are harmful to me and my interests. One of the main deterrents is an armed and cohesive community. It's also one of the most effective ways of stopping bad behavior early. By creating and extending a network of self-interested and capable (including "armed") people who can defend their properties I am actively reducing the chance that I'll have to kill anyone AND significantly improving my own security. That's putting the power of freedom to work.

The "me first, the rest of you never" attitude doesn't help cohesion. It's downright disruptive... corrosive. The last thing I'm going to do in an emergency, when things are already frayed and people are already operating at their limits, is start disolving the social fabric out from under myself. That doesn't mean I'm going to start passing out all my supplies but I will take what I consider to be a leadership roll in helping people to help themselves.

Don't want to do that? Shrug.

It isn't about anyone being a commando... and it is about guns because this is a gun forum... if this was a fence building forum I could say the same thing about fences.

People don't need to be commandos to deal with real-world defense situations. You can train someone to use a firearm safely and accurately in about an hour using nothing but a BB gun. Total cost? Maybe $0.50 counting all the BBs and some scrap paper. Doing that enables a positive set of outcomes and creates a more secure situation for me, my family, and everyone around me. A buch of "win" and very little "lose".

What is the down side? A bit of risk THAT I ALREADY HAVE. The ones that are most likely to try and take advantage of chaos for personal gain are also likely to have, or find, arms for themselves.

 

[harbingerm]

Stay on topic. Providing leadership, helping each other out and bonding during time of need was NEVER the premise of this thread, NOR is it something I said I wouldn't do. It was ONLY about giving/loaning firearms to neighbors and nothing else. Please try to refrain from topic "creep" in the future.

Now, I want to see a picture of the "daughter" referenced in the OP!

 

[Ed Ames]

It's part and parcel. The why to the what. Don't like it? Not my problem.

Instead why don't you try to address the issue... tell us what you are really afraid of.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Ed, I have no doubt a great number of families have guns in the house that only one person knows of, and keeps it hidden from the rest of them.

If they come out during a crisis. OK. I have little doubt they will. But I'm not giving mine out to someone who doesn't know how to use it, the will to use it, and at least some knowledge about what not to do with it.

If an innocent person gets injured by a gun I gave out to someone who had no business picking one up, I'm going to feel even worse about it. I don't care about the legalities of it, morally I'd struggle with that knowledge.


These aren't hardware problems, they're software.

 

[BigBadJohn]

In a LA riot type scenario I would arm anyone WILLING to defend the neighborhood. The other that can't or won't would still benefit from the strength in numbers.