This looks like a real fun thread for a gun thread. I'll have to find time to read it! In the meantime what I have to add is that I keep a couple of cans of Bear Assault Bear spray hanging around - they're not lethal but man are they lethal! Ya just sorta don't know what yer gonna have time to grab (like in that prior post there)!
I don't like the AK-47 much; good for the weak minded; the AR-15 is more aesthetic gun, but after the last 2 weeks you can see that the social engineering collectivicrats have that gun front and center in their sights so to speak. Hard to argue with a Glock 9mm.
Slavs work cheap. If the Marine's Phalanx proves too costly, you could always go old school with a Macedonian phalanx. The tweakers would be totally f*#ked.
Well, sure she's taken the safety off, it's a DIY double mastectomy. I'm not sure how much tissue she's going for, but I'd call it a radical mastectomy anyway.
I did not realize she was pointing at herself. I thought somebody else was holding the guns. Now that I look - I see they are my sisters hands. She used to chase me with a knife too.
These stats apply more to urban areas, so maybe they don't apply as much to your situation:
"54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
He concluded that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned".[8] Critics of this study noted that it was restricted to firearm-related deaths, effectively excluding incidents in which gun owners used their firearm to injure and frighten away an intruder. But the study also excluded incidents in which individuals were non-fatally injured in a firearm accident, criminal assault or suicide attempt, as well as instances in which a homeowner used a gun to threaten or terrorize another member of the household, as sometimes occurs in the context of domestic violence. A subsequent Kellermann-led study identified both fatal and nonfatal injuries occurring in homes in 3 cities – Seattle WA, Memphis TN, and Galveston TX. It noted that for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. (J of Trauma, August 1998. pp: 263-267). He then developed the now much criticized 43:1 ratio that states every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.
The ratio was numerically accurate but, according to pro-gun groups, misleading because it compared harmful life-taking uses of guns not to life-saving defensive uses (the benefit corresponding to the harms of lives taken with firearms), but rather only to the tiny subset of defensive uses that involve killing a criminal assailant, i.e. justifiable homicides. The NRA and other pro-gun groups argued the ratio that seemed to imply a sort of cost-benefit ratio for gun ownership was actually nothing of the kind because, allegedly, it did not take account of any benefits that corresponded to its costs."
The idea is that statistically speaking, the likelihood of you using the gun effectively for self defense is quite low, compared to it being used for homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.
I am not saying, that you shouldn't buy a gun, but be aware that even having them in the house poses its own dangers.
Let us know!