>>As for home protection, I guess there's an urban/rural difference. I believe in my highly populated area, I'm safer if my neighbors don't have guns in their homes and we depend on the police to protect us. (I live less than 5 minutes from the local police station.) Out in a rural area, where police/sheriff could be 10s of minutes away or more, self-protection might be more of an issue.
>>
>>FWIW, though, how often have meth heads invading homes been a problem where you live? I'm sitting here 5 minutes outside the city of Philadelphia and I'm not aware of any such cases in this vicinity.
>>
>>I think the risks of having a gun in a home in a way that would be meaningful in case of a home invasion (loaded and accessible) far outweigh the odds of needing it.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Meth heads are becoming more and more of a problem around here. I haven't heard of any meth heads breaking into somebody's home, but it would not surprise me if they would, and I will not be the first case.
>

So you're protecting yourself against a problem that doesn't exist.

>A few years ago some stupid kids were booze cruising in a rural area well after midnight. They lost control, went into the ditch, and couldn't get back out. They walked to a old farmer's house in the distance, and demanded to borrow his vehicle. When he said no, they beat him to death and took it. Do you think that would have happened if he had a shotgun close? If somebody were to knock on my door at 3 in the morning, I would make sure to have one within reach if I opened the door.
>

Yeah, I don't think I'd be opening the door to strangers at 3 AM.

>What if you didn't open the door? What if they knocked, and knew you were in there but not answering, and started to knock louder and louder. And then started to kick on the door? And then started threatening you? Are you going to call the cops and wait for 10 minutes for them to get there?
>

Yeah, I'd call the cops and I wouldn't be standing right behind the door. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, the police station is 5 minute from here. I think I also acknowledged that folks in rural areas have more reasons to have guns than urban/suburban dwellers.

>What if your kids (and I mean this figuratively... I'm not trying to rile you up by bringing your kids into it) were playing outside and were attacked by a bobcat or a coyote? Or a wild dog? Or an angry bull that got out of your neighbor's pen? Or a rabid dog/racoon/fox? Are you going to fight off a predator with a stick? Sure you would try, but what if you can't get there in time?

Well, where I live, a bobcat or coyote or bull ain't happening. A rabid animal is certainly an issue, though the number of such incidents around here has been exceptionally small, despite the fact that there are plenty of small animals.

I still think the risks of having a gun ready to use outweigh the risks such a weapon supposedly protects from.

This really is a question of risk-benefit ratio. It's no different than whether you put your seat belt on. Doing so protects you from a number of dangers, but increases the danger of being stuck in a burning car. Most of us have long since concluded that the protections a seat belt offers outweigh the risks it introduces.

Tamar