I was just thinking about the recent case where no charges are to be made against the couple who shot burglars on their farm.

I voted other.

Althought I definitely wouldn't immediatly go out and buy a gun, having never been in a situation where other people have (repeatedly or otherwise) threatened me by burgling my home, and increasing my anxiety and stress and making me more likely to make rash decisions, I don't know what I might do.

I'd like to think I wouldn't, but when pushed to the edge I really don't know.

I went for 'I would consider it, but probably no'. Only considering it as far as that it's been documented that people have had intruders and been able to use a gun to defend themselves, but like Matt, I wouldn't go out and buy one just because it's legal to do so. Spades, chainsaws, axes and nailguns etc are all legal to buy and would prove just as an effective weapon when dealing with intruders, and though I own a few I don't feel it necessary to keep one by my bedside. Wonder if the couple who shot the burglars would have got off if they'd taken a nail gun to the intruders? :/

A lot more people (and members of their families) are killed by their own guns, than are killed in the act of burglary by gun-wielding citizens. Guns (especially handguns) are extremely, wildly dangerous to have around.

Hard to say definitely yes , but I'd certainly consider the option.

 

That said, I do hope it doesn't become an option.

I'm the same, would consider it

I don't think it will become an option, the Gov wouldn't want to arm the people it spends a lot of time pissing off

I can't see me needing one for home protection. I'd be strongly tempted for work. A taser would be spot on to be fair, just something other than a metal stick or glorified deodorant..

I voted "other" because I wouldn't bother with one for defence, but I want one for fun. :C

I never considered that - trust you to come up with a reasonable option not previously covered

What PB said. I wouldn't want one for defence, partly for moral reasons, partly because I don't think they're a particularly effective form of defence in anything but very well trained hands.

I'd like one for fun though.

I'd like one for killing things. Cats mainly.

I'd presently like one to use on people who refuse to upgrade IE. :[

I'd like to use one on people who insist that others (e.g. me) should have to use IE at all. And cats.

Well yes. but at least if you can upgrade to IE9 I don't have to spend several hours coming up with workarounds for Microsoft's incompetence.

I had a dream about a cat last night (or possibly the night before). It wasn't the right cat though because it didn't have a black and white face - it was more of all dark grey. I don't remember if the dream was about anything, or what relevance either of the cats had to anything.

They're bound to introduce a new one that you hadn't thought of.

I prefer Safari, although I could accept Chrome, especially since Safari on Windows (which we're forced to use at work) is going the way of IE Mac. Hell's teeth, if it really came down to it I could use Firefox, but I hate myself for saying that.

Nah, IE9 is actually acceptable from a webdev point of view (see attached for support of HTML5/CSS3).

Safari on Windows has already gone - can't be downloaded any more and existing installs don't receive security updates.

If you define 'acceptable' as adherence to standards (which you have), then I'm sure you're right. If it's anything like IE8 from a usability perspective, then I beg to differ. But anyone's MMV!

Oh no, from a usability perspective it's way worse than IE8.

Worst desktop browser out there in that regard.

Whichever fuckwits decided on and allowed the ridiculous UI need to be shot. After being forced to lick a dead cats rear for half an hour.

I voted Mayhaps, but I have always liked and owned guns anyway. Wife won't let me have one now.

 

She hates me having fun with guns unless I am on an official shoot or range.