Giza aka Douglas Muth&#39;s LiveJournal

Lock your door next time! ;-)

From:

mindslide.livejournal.com

*laughs for forever*

From:

...and your drunk spouse takes five seconds to get the gun from the nightstand table and blow your head off.

Oh, right, you're a responsible gun owner -- you have a gun safe. Of course your partner knows where the key i. So make it ten seconds.

(A gun in the home is forty-two times as likely to kill yourself or a family member as to stop an intruder. That's 4200%. The pro-gun "debunking" of this statistic only lowers the ration to 450%. Not odds any sane person would take.)

From:

You'll get no argument from me on that. That's one reason I haven't yet bought any guns, I'm trying to come up with a way to store a firearm securely yet be able to get to it in a hurry if I need to.

Something that I've been trying to figure out though, regarding being shot by family members, why aren't family members being stabbed by kitchen knives more often? I'd argue that a good set of knives is as deadly as any gun.

From:

My understanding is that fewer people kill with knives because then you'd have to touch the victim. No, really -- it's a strong psychological barrier. Killing with a gun changes it from an intimate personal act to (effectively) a video game. You didn't do it "with your own hands".

From:

greenreaper.livejournal.com

Also I'm guessing it's a little harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. Maybe a good set of knives is just as deadly - in the right hands. However, you have to a) have those hands, b) have those knives, and c) get them close enough. Just about anyone can point and shoot, from a distance. And I'd guess most people owning guns spend more on them than the knives.

From:

zealianbadass.livejournal.com

it's remarkably easy to kill someone with a knife, but most people have a couple issues that prevent it.

- any idiot can fire a gun and cause a lot of damage. People know that, and trust in that. They're prepared to uphold that. Not many people trust themselves with a knife. People are afraid to run with scissors, for chrissake.
- an untrained person will most likely spill a lot of blood trying to kill someone with a blade, and those same untrained individuals aren't prepared to stomach it.
- lack of awareness of vital areas and how to hit them means a lot of wounds that are messy, but not lethal. Stacks with the previous one to a degree
- you need a knife that can stand up to being shoved into flesh and bone. Doesn't have to be big, anything over three inches is fine if you can rip with it, but it's gotta be a good blade.

Those are the main ones I can think of offhand...

In the hands of an amateur, I don't remember which one was harder to overpower. I've dealt with a lot of knives in my face, but only one or two guns. I'd rather not deal with any more guns.

From:

zeeth_kyrah

What are the statistics if you restrict that to people with concealed-carry permits?

The problem with guns in the homes of idiot rednecks and white trash is that those weapons are owned by idiot rednecks and white trash, for whom guns are toys and any means to harm someone is valid for use in a domestic dispute.

From:

What are the statistics if you restrict that to people with concealed-carry permits?

Good question -- I'd like to know that, too.

Not that it changes the equation, since (I assume) only a tiny minority of gun owners have such permits.

From:

I'd also like to see the results of a study like that, broken down by intended use of guns. It'd be interesting to see the difference in murders and accidents between people who own guns for self defense versus people who own guns for hunting or sport.

From:

Good point!

It would be a hard survey to get right, I think. Two reasons:

1) Intention will determine the types of gun(s) owned -- i.e., handguns for self-defense, rifles for hunting. So would you be measuring effects by intention, or gun type? Does it matter?

2) Some of the self-reporting would be suspect, i.e. people who say they buy guns for hunting, but it never leaves the house. I think it would threaten the self-image of some people to admit they bought a gun because they were scared. But I don't know how big that population is among gun owners. (Sort of like people who avoid facing their alcoholism by saying they drink because it's "medicinal" or "traditional among my people", as one alcoholic British boss said).

From:

I thought about this a bit more... your question, while interesting, isn't related to the graphic Giza posted. *That* says a gun will stop "an intruder in your home". Statistics show that statement to be ludicrous.
Statistical comparisons are fun. Here's one: You have a greater chance of having a third nipple (2-3%) than of your gun killing a home intruder before a loved one. :)

From:

thraxarious.livejournal.com

...Supernumerary nipples. Yeah.

I Guess If you have a third nipple, you should REALLY stay away from owning guns.

From:

For the record, having a third nipple is no indicator of intelligence -- it's just random. My ex had one. :)

From:

An interesting question. On one hand, in some states, such as Virginia, concealed carry permits are incredibly easy to obtain. In others, Maryland for example, it's rather difficult to get one. (You basically have to either need it for work or have a serious, documented death threat against you)

As a result, one would assume that people with CC permits are going to be a lot more careful and responsible in states where it's more difficult to get the permit.

On the other hand, one thing that's drilled into folks taking the required course(s) (well, required in most states) is all the potential liability and potential jail time that can result from using a firearm even for personal defense in a life threatening situation. As a result, it's possible that people with CC permits are going to be a lot more likely to refrain from using a firearm in cases where others might grab one and start shooting.

Personally, I do have a permit to carry a concealed handgun in Virgninia and states with reciprocacy agreements. It's unlikely that I ever will actually carry one though. When it comes to 'home defense' I'd rather let some intruder make off with the tv or computers or whatever, so long as they don't try to hurt anyone in the process.

From:

nemetfox.livejournal.com

Hence why I keep several small (but sturdy) knives around the house, in addition to the katana behind my bed.

From:

firedhusky.livejournal.com

owning a gun is a privilege and a responsability.
Like anything else that is dangerous, if you are untrained to use it.. you might just simply die or kill somone else.

I think the lack of training in people that own a gun is a big deal.

For example, a friend (who shal not be named) got a carry permit. The intesting thing is that not even once, he fired a gun before the police issued him a permit.
No training was requited to give him a permit. He didn`t even have to know where he could carry or what was the extend of his rights or others rights.

Actually people should consider practicing with a toy gun and a fake rober to realize how little chances they generally have to defend themselfs with a gun under pressure, in a dark enviroment and while in panic. and having the gun at reach.

Also consider a lot of facts that might be unknown when you fire a weapon inside an enclosed room.
for example,like the bullet going thru the skini plywood walls of 90% of houses in this area and killing your neightbour. not to mention that after the first round (if you hit something) you ll hear nothing than a ring in your ears. and if you fail, a very anger person will fire back at you or your family (that if they didnt run away).

knowledge is power, ignorance about guns is just pure stupidity.

FDH

From:

Wow, I'm surprised to hear about the carry permit aspect. I thought at least SOME training would have been required.

Heck, to get my ham radio license, I had to take a 35 question test that had several hours of study.

Some things in this country as bass ackwards, I'll tell you.

From:

sirfox.livejournal.com

carry permit licences vary VASTLY from state to state. the requirements can be as simple as firehusky's friend went through, or can require large fees, detailed questions, background checks, interviews with the local sheriff, etc. Also, depending on the state issuing the license, other states will or will not honor them.

(deleted comment)

From:

kellic.livejournal.com

Fucking with people’s heads is infinitely more fun then killing them. HEHE

From:

boixboi.livejournal.com

Man I just love the all-or-nothing condescension and use of strawman arguments that this website has embraced. This, essentially, is the equivalent to what this site is saying:

I would rather...
A. Live in a state of perpetual fear with the strongest militia groups ruling a totalitarian government by force but get to have guns
OR
B. Live in a state of freedom and genuine democracy with a stable government but not have guns

There are a number of false assumptions being made here, but I'll just address a few. First, there is an assumption that an arms race can avert conflict via fear of consequences. However, at a pre-nuclear level, this strategy doesn't work (and some would argue it's a failure at the nuclear level as well, because nuclear nations still use non-nuclear weaponry to fight their wars). Ignoring the large-scale conflict comparisons, This theory operates on the same principle as the death penalty as a form of crime deterrent. It has been proven, however, that states with the death penalty have more murders per capita than those without and also that murder rates increase when the death penalty is implemented.

Second, there is the assumption that a violent revolution or the threat thereof can result in a peaceful and stable government. The fact is, however, that violent overthrows lead to violent governments-- post-revolutionary Russia, the age of the guillotine in revolutionary France, the Chinese Civil War, the IRB/IRA in Northern Ireland following the development of the Irish Free State and Irish Civil War, and so on, not to mention the warlords of Pakistan or Pinochet or Franco or various military dictatorships in Africa. The only cases I can find where massive acts of violence toppled a government and replaced it with a more peaceful state are in the case of colonial rule where the actual governing nation's sovereignty is not being threatened, such as the American and Indian revolutions (and India's movement was helped along quite handily by pacifism) or in cases when the violence overthrowing the government was considerably lesser than that perpetrated by the government, most specifically the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge (another example of the results of violent revolutionary action). Peaceful governments come mainly from peaceful resistance-- the orange and rose and velvet revolutions, the fall of communism in Russia, and so on.

Third, there is an assumption that there is an eternal criminal element springing out of the ground and intending to murder and rape without reason. This is very convenient logic that allows us to view those we intend to kill as pure evil, which has a two-fold value: primarily it allows us to kill without fear of responsibility for the act and secondarily it allows us to believe that there is no peaceful means to resolve our conflict. Naturally, pure evil is not interested in fair agreements or terms, and to invite it to the bargaining table is merely to play the role of Neville Chamberlain in WWII. In reality, however, most people who eventually become criminals are not serial killers or budding Hitlers. We need to deal with the situations and environments that breed rapists and other criminals, not simply accept them as a fact of live and then kill those who come out of such environments.

From:

Oy. Talk about another polarizing issue. The website is a little insulting to read. But it bugs me whenever someone tries to boil an issue down in such a way that the opposite viewpoint seems unthinkable. They make arguments that draw pretty far-fetched conclusions. The world is not quite so black and white.

Somewhere between this website and the anti-gun lobby, the truth lies.

From:

kovucougar.livejournal.com

I don't get what that sites trying to say. And their survey is, in the words of statiticians and economists, extremely biased in the questioning specifically designed to make the person filling it out think in a specific way to garner support for whatever cause (I can only assume it's an NRA site by the overall tone of it) they are trying to support.

From:

I've thought about getting a handgun but just not having any ammunition for it, for use as a deterrent. It's then obviously not going to accidentally harm anybody with no rounds in it, but if some crook were looking down the barrel, who'd know? I mean, I don't know much about guns, but I'm guessing there's no obvious way to tell it's not loaded short of it not having a clip, or something equally stupid.

From:

My only problem with that is it violates one of the rules of gun safety which I read: never draw a weapon unless you intend to use it.

Personally, I've thought of getting a handgun with some rubber bullets which can stun, but not kill.

From:

Eh. I don't know if that's such a sensible rule of gun safety. You have to put it at odds with the possibility of the gun harming something or someone else in the process. That site you linked to really seems to think the deterrent value of a gun is its biggest asset, and that most of the time it wouldn't need to be fired.

From:

I agree. Guns tend to scare the hell out of people. If you draw a gun but don't to fire it because the other person runs away like Brave Sir Robin, then so much the better.

But, if he's insane, or high on something, you may be in a situation where you are forced to use the gun. I'd definitely like to have some form of projectile loaded in the case that it might come down to that.

From:

Something non-lethal might be nice, if it can work. I don't know enough about guns to say.

My belief is that the chance of your needing to brandish a firearm as a deterrent is particularly low. Further, my belief that you'll have to point it at someone who won't be deterred (like someone who's high) is that much lesser that the possibility of the loaded weapon being used on you or a loved one or in some kind of accident becomes too great.

But, that's my belief. Obviously, some people disagree.

I do agree that the law has been far too restrictive on what law-abiding citizens are allowed to have, in terms of firearms, stun guns, pepper spray, and whatever. I do think those go to far, because criminals have the weapons and won't give them up and these laws do make such people more susceptible. And I agree that you really can't rely on the police to be prompt or helpful in a moment of crisis. I think that's why the law recognizes one's right to respond with lethal force when one's life is threatened.

I sometimes wonder if I'm safer than most by living in Texas, where concealed carry is a way of life. :)

From:

I guess risk factors play a part, too. If you visit gay bars regularly, it might not be a bad idea to carry more. :-)

From:

cerisewolf.livejournal.com

You almost got the rule right.

"Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot"

The other three rules are
Keep your weapon on safe untill you intend to fire
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger untill you are ready to fire
And the big one that kills everyone: TREAT EVERY WEAPON AS IF IT WERE LOADED

... the form you stated only bothers me because somebody who doesn't know if they are capable of using a weapon shouldn't own it, much less draw it. It is a good thing to handle weapons and become intimately familiar with them before you actually need them.

Heh, this is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

From:

There might be two different rulesets out there, because the #1 rule I learned was: All guns are loaded. That seems to me to be a little stricter than "treat as if loaded".

But, I'm still learning. That's one reason why I don't any firearms yet.

From:

If you're interested in shooting, target or otherwise, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a basic gun safety course. It's a lot better way to learn than learning from a friend or relative.

Much as I hate to admit it, what are quite probably the best courses are the ones the NRA teaches. I'm no fan of the NRA, but I do use their range in my area and did take a course there a few months back. I was surprised that it was not just informative, but also very unbiased. There wasn't any going on about the right to bear arms or anything like that. It was all business. Now that could just be because the range and classroom are at their national headquarters here.

Anyway, it'd be a way to see if you actually might enjoy some target shooting or whatever.

Rubber bullets...eh. They're still potentially fatal, especially at the close range that self/home defense encounters occur. Just about any kind of bullet, with the possible exception of a frangible round, is going to go straight through clothes, walls, and people. In a typical house or apartment, anything more than a shotgun loaded with #8 birdshot or lighter is going to go through a wall.

From:

That would be a very bad move, actually.

Having a handgun, albeit unloaded, pointed at someone is likely to escalate an intrusion situation. With that threat, the other person might back down, or they might become more aggressive.

Sadly, one of the rules of handling firearms applies in this situation: never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot/destroy. While that's intended as a safety rule - don't go pointing guns at friends/pets/people on the sidewalk outside your house - it has a relevance to an intruder situation as well. If you don't feel comfortable with the concept of shooting and potentially killing somebody, you shouldn't point a gun at them.

Another factor to consider is that in high stress situations, even trained people can end up pulling the triggur on a gun when they don't intend to. Hearing a revolver click on an empty chamber or seeing the trigger move back harmlessly on an automatic could anger an intruder even more and lead to them attacking when they might otherwise not have done so.

Faced with you pointing a gun at them, an intruder could just go for broke. There's always a (very good) chance that you'll hesitate or back down since most folk don't really want to go killing somebody. An empty gun isn't much use other than maybe as an awkward thing to hit people with. You'd be better off with a baseball bat or a chair or lamp or even better, barricading yourself in a room and letting them know you've called the police.

Yet another thing to keep in mind is that in many states, brandishing can get you arrested as well. For example, I have a CC permit. If you and I get into some argument where I end up feeling threatened by you and I pull my coat/shirt aside so that you can see that I have a gun, you could actually file a complaint and I could potentially be arrested for brandishing.

Oh, and one big pet peeve of mine which is off-topic: The thing that holds bullets that you shove into the grip of a handgun or underside of a long gun is a magazine, not a clip. :D

From:

You'd be better off with a baseball bat or a chair or lamp or even better, barricading yourself in a room and letting them know you've called the police.

Yeah, that's a pretty good idea.

Yet another thing to keep in mind is that in many states, brandishing can get you arrested as well. For example, I have a CC permit. If you and I get into some argument where I end up feeling threatened by you and I pull my coat/shirt aside so that you can see that I have a gun, you could actually file a complaint and I could potentially be arrested for brandishing.

I don't expect that would be an issue if someone has broken into your house, though.

Oh, and one big pet peeve of mine which is off-topic: The thing that holds bullets that you shove into the grip of a handgun or underside of a long gun is a magazine, not a clip. :D

See? Shows what I know about guns. I'll just call it a hold-the-bullets-thingy.

From:

While it's something I hope to never have to implement, my plan has always been to try to get into the bedroom, lock the door and announce that I'm armed and have called the police. Go away and things'll be fine. Try to come in and I'll shoot ya.

The laws in this and most states are pretty convoluted when it comes to self or home defense situations. Even though somebody broke into your house and by your account was being threatening, you can still easily end up being arrested and/or sued by the intruder or his/her family. It's a very tangled and tricky issue from both sides of the fence.

I just hate seeing sites and such that try to paint everything in black and white from whichever viewpoint they have. I own guns. I enjoy shooting 'em at targets. I'd really rather not have them taken away or banned, but I have no problem with background checks or waiting periods or requiring training for purchasers.

From:

Even though somebody broke into your house and by your account was being threatening, you can still easily end up being arrested and/or sued by the intruder or his/her family. It's a very tangled and tricky issue from both sides of the fence.

Perhaps you forget that I live in Texas. :)

From:

puctiger.livejournal.com

I think it's somewhat amusing the way the poster twists language around. 'Police Response to 911 -might- take 30 minutes'. I've called 911 no less than 3 times in the past 2 years, and police never took less than 5-6 minutes to show up. 'An intruder in your home can reach you in 30 seconds'. People who are typically 'intruding' into your home are hoping people AREN'T there, because they're there to steal your stuff. Plus, how long would it take you to unlock your gun case, load your gun, and all while avoiding the supposed 'intruder'? Besides -- if you're a good American, you have insurance on everything, so what good is it going to do to risk your life over your shit that's already covered by pulling out a gun and waving it around?

Here's what I think the poster should say:
'An intruder in your home might get to you in 30 seconds. So get the fuck out, THEN call 9-1-1. It's just crap.'

From:

You’re nuts.

Firstly, how can you comment on what a criminal is “typically” going to do in your home? Sure, a thief is there to steal and doesn’t want you home. But what is a rapist, kidnapper, child molester, or murderer there for?

Secondly, your own personal experiences with police response times don’t make it the norm for everyone else. What if you were in a large apartment complex, making it tough to locate your exact apartment? Do you have to buzz to get in? Is the light on your floor burned out? Are the stairs slippery? Is old lady McGinty holding up the elevator again? Did the cops get into an accident on the way over? The point is that there are many MANY things that can hold up the police from arriving in those 5-6 minutes.

Then there are other things to think of – like if it is some corrupt police that are the ones coming after your ass for some reason! Yeah, not likely, but it does in fact happen (usually when there is a riot going on, or if there was a catastrophe like a flood or something). The gun laws are actually in place mainly for this reason (protection from a militia, gov or not).

Yet another thing to be aware of – 911 service can be down, overwhelmed or NOT IN YOUR AREA. My friend Billy Kerper lost some friends of his after getting into a car accident, hobbling over to a house to call for help, and then 911 not working. The home owner never knew it either. The service just wasn’t in their area and that caused major delays. Then the ambulances/police didn’t quite know how to get to this person’s house after contact was finally established (as far as I can recall, this was on the boarder of upper Roxborough in Philadelphia around 1993). In fact, I’m pretty sure that because they were on the border of two townships, there was confusion and delays as to what team should respond. Two kids died possibly because help was delayed and that sucks. Now imagine your mother is getting attacked and raped by someone and she has similar 911 problems. Will you feel better because you have insurance like a good American?

And for the record, someone could assassinate a family of 10 pretty easily in those 5-6 minutes. Maybe they even got caught at the scene, but you and your family are still DEAD.

And lastly, gun safes are to keep your rifles from getting stolen; you don’t want your handgun in there in an emergency. My .38 is tucked away right next to my bed. If that’s where you want to keep you phone, that’s your own business!

PS: there’s one entrance to my apartment. If someone comes in, I can’t “get the fuck out” without going through the intruder. My only options are to get THEM out, disable them, or surrender to whatever fate they have in store for me.

From:

"The gun laws are actually in place mainly for this reason (protection from a militia, gov or not)."

I meant gun rights there.

From:

puctiger.livejournal.com

Man, if you live in an area where people randomly go into other houses and 'assassinate' 10 people in 5-6 minutes, I feel REALLY badly for you. Though, I don't think a gun would fix that problem -- a move to a safer area might.

I don't buy the whole 'own a gun because you have reasons to be paranoid' argument. It's the paranoid people I'm worried about shooting me -- not Joe Crook who wants my DVDs. And if you're paranoid enough to keep a revolver next to your bed while you sleep, then you're the kind of guy I avoid sitting next to on the subway. Itchy trigger fingers on people who somehow feel 'empowered' by having a deadly weapon at their side is what really should make people feel paranoid, not the faceless person who somehow MIGHT INVADE YOUR HOME!!1!123

I will never be scared or frightened into owning a gun for protection. I'm not afraid of people. I'm not a pansy-ass who can't handle myself. I live in a safe area of town (with limited means in income), live near safe neighbors who I know, and I have access to a cell phone which can be traced when I dial 9-1-1. And I have faith in that system which I've used in multiple states multiple times. I don't believe in 'absolutes', like you're absolutely going to put your life in danger by NOT having a gun. Or that the only way you can defend your home is by putting a gun in someone's face. That's bullshit. :)

I've had a gun pulled on me twice. I've had a gun pointed at me on two different occasions. One was at a bar with a person who legally owned a gun. He was in a drunken stupor and claims one of the friends I was with pushed into him. I stepped in, apologized, and asked him to leave us alone. He then ran out to his car, grabbed a gun, waved it around and pointed it at my face. We continued to have a heated exchange (where I called him all sorts of names that will send me to hell for sure) while the place essentially half-emptied and the cops came. All of us from my group ended up leaving and the guy went to jail. The second time I had a gun pulled on me I was at a strip mall the day before my sister's wedding. It was late outside and my brother-in-law was in the car with me, along with his brother and a friend. The friend went inside to get a few wine coolers for the limo the next day, when a couple of wanna-be thugs came by. They recognized my brother-in-law's brother as someone they went to school with (and apparently didn't get along with). They pulled out their guns and pointed them at everyone in the car while we screamed back and forth. When the friend came back, the two recognized -him- as a triple black belt, and tucked their guns away. We later called the cops, and found out both of those guns were stolen off legal gun owners.

Those are just personal testimonies, I understand, and are not the rule to apply to all others. But what could have possibly happened if I had a gun in either situation? Someone would have been killed, possibly multiple people. Hardly worth it in either situation.

Now. With that being said. Owning a gun because you think guns are cool . . that's a whole different argument. But you probably just assumed I hate guns and gun-owners altogether, now didn't you?

From:

Wow,

randomzen must have gone off of decaf. ;-)

That being said, I had similar points that I wanted to bring up, namely the following:

- I too live in an apartment with a single door. If someone tries coming in through that door while I'm in the apartment, my only way to get out is through a window, followed by a 6 foot fall to the ground.

- Insurance. Of course I have insurance on my stuff... with a deductable. So I'm still getting screwed in a financial sense.

You make a point about the gun safe, and that's one issue that I'm wrestling with. I want to buy a gun for defensive purposes, but I'm torn over the issue of storing it in a safe (where I couldn't get to it very quickly) or storing it under my bed, where a visitor could find it.

I might just buy some baseball bats instead.

From:

Honestly, I'm not sure what I would do if I had a roomate or even kids where I live. But I live alone so I don't really have to worry about people mussing through my stuff. If anyone is staying over (not that I've had the luxury in a while) they know what the deal is and are told what things are off limits and why. I do have a gun lock, which I put on if I'm gonna be away for a while (or if I'm not here when people crash).

From:

puctiger.livejournal.com

>>- I too live in an apartment with a single door. If someone tries coming in through that door while I'm in the apartment, my only way to get out is through a window, followed by a 6 foot fall to the ground.<<

Six feet is not that far to jump. You can hang from the window and it's only about three feet. And if you're that paranoid, get an alarm system. Or put a REALLY GOOD deadbolt in your door that people can't break unless they use a damn battering ram. I hope you don't live in a neighborhood or apartment complex where breakins are common!

>>- Insurance. Of course I have insurance on my stuff... with a deductable. So I'm still getting screwed in a financial sense.<<

Subtract the deductable for the cost of owning a gun, your gun registration, license, a gun safe or some kind of safety device, ammo, and of course your legal fees for when you shoot someone and have to defend against manslaughter charges. I think one has a considerably less financial risk.

I mentioned some other things up higher. I don't REALLY want to go into a whole argument where I'm biting out against gun owners. I've had this arugment too often. The only comment I was making originally was about that stupid poster, and somehow it got turned into a political bitefest.

From:

I mentioned some other things up higher. I don't REALLY want to go into a whole argument where I'm biting out against gun owners. I've had this arugment too often. The only comment I was making originally was about that stupid poster, and somehow it got turned into a political bitefest.

Fair enough. I'm going to "freeze" this thread to prevent future replies on it.

From:

mindslide.livejournal.com

My roommate and I have a huge shotgun :D

From:

doco.livejournal.com

Aw, puh-leeze.

From:

cerisewolf.livejournal.com

I live in the next best thing to the third world. Last year the president was ousted during non-peacefull protesting. I have gates in front of the house 5 inches thick and I keep a gun.

Lots of guns = evil posts. Guess I shouldn't be surprised, they're not one of our more... enlightening... advancements.

From: