I say this as someone who was at one point extremely good with one kind of gun: guns take a lot of training to be useful for self defense. If you don’t already have that training, I’m extremely skeptical they will be useful to you.
Strong disagree. Anyone who knows how to operate their weapon and is willing to use it is a formidable threat to all but the most trained and determined invaders. The level of accuracy needed to hit a man sized target inside a house with a long gun is really low. Low enough that if you miss the problem isn’t that you aren’t yet skilled in the art of aiming, it’s that you didn’t make sure to aim at all before you pulled the trigger.
The bigger barrier is psychological. If you can’t get yourself to take deliberate aim on another human and pull the trigger knowing what will happen, then a firearm might not be useful. If you can do that though, the mechanics won’t be a problem except in the difficult cases.
1) Less so than pistols, but still yes. As Jimmy points out, at least some of the training requirement is psychological—running enough rounds through the gun under simulated conditions that your muscle memory allows actual aiming under insane amounts of stress. Long arms (shotguns and rifles) do require a bit less skill at aiming, and are somewhat harder to shoot yourself with. But still a very high chance to miss and destroy something behind or near your target rather than your target itself.
2) Pepper spray. Air horn or noisemaker (unless it’s sci-fi levels of anarchy, in which case none of this advice applies—you’re dead anyway). Solid door locks and barred windows.
3) For what purpose? If you’re in active combat with lots of bullets flying, and you have time to prepare, you probably want body armor. But that’s not a likely scenario outside of military or movies.
There is an inherent asymmetry, unrelated to weapon availability, between people asking this question and the potential assailants we’re worried about. That is about psychological preparation and willingness to use lethal force. And a very assymetrical situational awareness—the attacker knows exactly what’s going on and is ready to meet you, the defender is confused and unsure.
These important differences mean you really need different tools and options for defense than for assault. This isn’t a showdown with two gunslingers equally prepared to shoot. This is an ambiguous, terrifying, sudden decision with an unknown but VERY short timeframe for success. Non-lethal defenses are FAR more powerful, in the case where you’re sleepy, confused, unsure of your target, or just not convinced you want to kill someone, because you can actually pull the trigger in time.
And, of course, “why not both?” is a FINE question. If you’re prepared for the responsibility of having a gun around, and you’re willing to drill quite a bit so the option value is greater than the solution-search cost of having to decide on the fly, that’s great.
I say this as someone who was at one point extremely good with one kind of gun: guns take a lot of training to be useful for self defense. If you don’t already have that training, I’m extremely skeptical they will be useful to you.
Strong disagree. Anyone who knows how to operate their weapon and is willing to use it is a formidable threat to all but the most trained and determined invaders. The level of accuracy needed to hit a man sized target inside a house with a long gun is really low. Low enough that if you miss the problem isn’t that you aren’t yet skilled in the art of aiming, it’s that you didn’t make sure to aim at all before you pulled the trigger.
The bigger barrier is psychological. If you can’t get yourself to take deliberate aim on another human and pull the trigger knowing what will happen, then a firearm might not be useful. If you can do that though, the mechanics won’t be a problem except in the difficult cases.
-
1) Less so than pistols, but still yes. As Jimmy points out, at least some of the training requirement is psychological—running enough rounds through the gun under simulated conditions that your muscle memory allows actual aiming under insane amounts of stress. Long arms (shotguns and rifles) do require a bit less skill at aiming, and are somewhat harder to shoot yourself with. But still a very high chance to miss and destroy something behind or near your target rather than your target itself.
2) Pepper spray. Air horn or noisemaker (unless it’s sci-fi levels of anarchy, in which case none of this advice applies—you’re dead anyway). Solid door locks and barred windows.
3) For what purpose? If you’re in active combat with lots of bullets flying, and you have time to prepare, you probably want body armor. But that’s not a likely scenario outside of military or movies.
-
There is an inherent asymmetry, unrelated to weapon availability, between people asking this question and the potential assailants we’re worried about. That is about psychological preparation and willingness to use lethal force. And a very assymetrical situational awareness—the attacker knows exactly what’s going on and is ready to meet you, the defender is confused and unsure.
These important differences mean you really need different tools and options for defense than for assault. This isn’t a showdown with two gunslingers equally prepared to shoot. This is an ambiguous, terrifying, sudden decision with an unknown but VERY short timeframe for success. Non-lethal defenses are FAR more powerful, in the case where you’re sleepy, confused, unsure of your target, or just not convinced you want to kill someone, because you can actually pull the trigger in time.
And, of course, “why not both?” is a FINE question. If you’re prepared for the responsibility of having a gun around, and you’re willing to drill quite a bit so the option value is greater than the solution-search cost of having to decide on the fly, that’s great.