Guns are useful for defending yourself from a home invasion

[AZ Progressive]

You can show me statistics but when people see videos like this, it'd be hard to come to the conclusion that guns are not useful to deter / defend against home invasions. The more extreme position on gun control is just not a winning position.

Home invasions can often be deadly, as is here:

[Jim Beard]

1. The hunters always have the advantage.

The hunted would always need to keep a pistol beside them and ready to use. You would not have time to go to the locked gun and unlock and use it but the hunters have the advantage. The hve their guns ready and the hunted does not.

[Renew Deal]

2. They are also useful for invading a home

[kentauros]

3. And,

stealing from the home.

[CBGLuthier]

4. I read a story today about a man who was shot in his yard

His mother went outside and fired shots at the fleeing vehicle. She is such a hero. Except

She also put a bullet through the neighbor's front door. Fortunately her neighbor was not between that bullet and the door or this fucking half-trained Rambo wannabe would have killed an innocent person.

http://newsok.com/man-in-critical-condition-after-northwest-oklahoma-city-shooting/article/5465457


About 7:30 p.m. Monday, Shydler Rosborough, 25, was found with multiple gunshot wounds in the 3900 block of NW 56 Place, police report. His mother fired numerous shots at a vehicle that fled the scene. One of the shots went through the front door of a house in the 5700 block of N Sapulpa Ave. No one there was injured.

[AZ Progressive]

9. Why would someone care more about hurting their neighbor than defending themselves?

For most people, survival and defending their family is #1 priority

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. Yeah, in today's fuck everyone else society, that sounds about right.

So "progressive".

[AZ Progressive]

15. So your life and the life of your family doesn't matter?

Your sounding ideologically blind to the real world.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. As long as the innocent person who dies isn't from my family, even by my hand, it's all good?

Holy shit, are you fucking drunk?

[AZ Progressive]

17. Most people think their lives and their family lives is priority #1

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

18. I would hope if you killed your innocent neighbor's child....

....you'd have the common decency to turn yourself in, plead guilty, and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Somehow, I bet you wouldn't.

Or maybe they could just come over and shoot you or an equivalent family member. Fair is fair. They have a right to protect their family from nuts, right?

[Kelvin Mace]

53. I do, but weirdly, not at the expense of another innocent person's life

Yes, I know it violates the "law of the jungle", but we are supposed to be a bit more evolved than animals.

[Straw Man]

21. Here's a question:

As long as the innocent person who dies isn't from my family, even by my hand, it's all good?

Holy shit, are you fucking drunk?

Would you trade your family's lives to avoid the possibility that a stray shot fired in their defense might hit someone?

In some situations, nothing is good. That's why there's no honor in claiming the moral high ground based on hypotheticals.

[CBGLuthier]

27. None of the bullets fired in this incident were in defense.

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Her son was shot. The car was fleeing and she had seen one movie too many so thought she should be shooting at a fleeing car. That is not defense. That was an attempt at revenge.

[Straw Man]

41. I'm not talking about that incident.

I'm talking about Rhody's sweeping generalizations. I agree that the woman fired unnecessarily.

[Kelvin Mace]

54. If someone wants my stuff so badly

they can have it.

A gun in the home just increases the chance of an bad outcome. If someone invades my home, my chances of getting to the gun in time and using it are pretty slim. The chances of a fire fight are better than even and how does that keep my family safe?

[Straw Man]

60. What if they want more than your stuff?

If someone invades my home, my chances of getting to the gun in time and using it are pretty slim.

It depends on how where it is and how prepared you are. Safe storage doesn't have to mean that your guns are not accessible. There are storage arrangements that allow for both safety and accessibility.

Home invasions have been the occasion of rapes and murders. If people break into your home with weapons, you are theirs to do with as they please. Are you comfortable with that? Do you want to entrust your family's lives to the good will of the person who is breaking down your door?

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Yes, home invasions can result in rape and murder,

but how often does that happen? And again, if there is a firearm in the house and it is stored safely from children (locked up, not security by obscurity) it will be useless in the event of a home invasion. If it is not stored safely, then it becomes a danger to the home's occupants. Tens of thousands of people are "accidentally" shot every year handling firearms, I don't think there are tens of thousands of rapes/murders due to home invasion.

Statistically speaking, I am far more likely to die in an auto accident or a fall at home, than a home invasion. My three dogs are not going to "accidentally discharge" while I am cleaning them. I won't shoot myself during a fit of depression with my deadbolts or re-enforced doors.

Now, if you want to keep a gun in your house, that is your right, under current law. However, just as there are limits on every other right we have, I see no reason that limits may not be placed on gun possession. There is no logical reason not to limit the number, types, or types of ammunition. A single shotgun or .357 magnum will allow you to fend off the scary "home invaders", so there is no reason to have an arsenal of dozens of weapons. There is no reason some people should not be prohibited from legally owning firearms, such as people convicted of violent crimes, mentally ill people, or people who have demonstrated an inability to possess a firearm responsibly (like folk who allow children to get hold of them, or who "accidentally" shoot themselves or others).

There is no reason that firearms should not be taxed, registered, chipped, or have palm-readers to prevent accidents or unauthorized use.

You are arguing the need to possess a firearm from a position of fear, never a good place to be when handling a dangerous weapon.

[Straw Man]

70. Misconceptions abound ...

... not to mention outright errors.

And again, if there is a firearm in the house and it is stored safely from children (locked up, not security by obscurity) it will be useless in the event of a home invasion.

I live alone and I have no children. Any gun in my home that is not locked up is either on my person or in arm's reach. In any case, since I do live alone, I could safely have a loaded firearm in every room, as long as I secured them before admitting anyone else to my home or leaving the premises myself.

Tens of thousands of people are "accidentally" shot every year handling firearms, I don't think there are tens of thousands of rapes/murders due to home invasion.

Statistically speaking, I am far more likely to die in an auto accident or a fall at home, than a home invasion. My three dogs are not going to "accidentally discharge" while I am cleaning them. I won't shoot myself during a fit of depression with my deadbolts or re-enforced doors.

You're also far more likely to die in an auto accident or a fall at home than in a firearms accident. Tens of thousands accidental gun deaths? Not even close. 505 in 2013, per the CDC. See Table 18:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

There is no reason some people should not be prohibited from legally owning firearms, such as people convicted of violent crimes, mentally ill people, or people who have demonstrated an inability to possess a firearm responsibly (like folk who allow children to get hold of them, or who "accidentally" shoot themselves or others).

I absolutely agree, as do numerous laws, both state and federal.

There is no reason that firearms should not be taxed, registered, chipped, or have palm-readers to prevent accidents or unauthorized use.

They are already taxed. All of my handguns are registered, as per the laws in my state. Chipped? Not available. Palm readers? The technology for reliable application to firearms isn't even close to ready.

There is no logical reason not to limit the number, types, or types of ammunition. A single shotgun or .357 magnum will allow you to fend off the scary "home invaders", so there is no reason to have an arsenal of dozens of weapons.

I don't think you understand how the power of the state and the rights of the individual interact. The burden of proof is on the limitation. I collect military surplus guns and I compete in several different events with pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Tell me why I should not have dozens of weapons.

You are arguing the need to possess a firearm from a position of fear, never a good place to be when handling a dangerous weapon.

No. In fact, I'm not even arguing the need to possess a firearm. Don't own one if you don't want to. I own firearms primarily for recreation. But I would certainly use a firearm to defend myself, in the home or elsewhere.

[Kelvin Mace]

75. Okay... Let me try again

I live alone and I have no children. Any gun in my home that is not locked up is either on my person or in arm's reach. In any case, since I do live alone, I could safely have a loaded firearm in every room, as long as I secured them before admitting anyone else to my home or leaving the premises myself.

The people launching the home invasion still get to pick when they attack, you will never know when it is coming, so again, the chances of the gun making any difference are small. Also, if people know you have an arsenal (home invaders, when they do attack, generally do their homework on who they are breaking in on and what they can expect) what is to stop them dropping you outside your house, then looting at their leisure? Sure you can go around armed, but one bullet from cover is all it takes. And starting a massive firefight in your home is not a wise move, unless you are going to tell me you have armoured walls, doors and windows, thus the neighbors are safe from any of your shots that go wild.

You're also far more likely to die in an auto accident or a fall at home than in a firearms accident. Tens of thousands accidental gun deaths? Not even close. 505 in 2013, per the CDC. See Table 18:

Excuse me, but where did I say "accidental gun deaths"? I didn't. I said "Tens of thousands of people are accidentally' shot every year handling firearms..."

In 2013, non-fatal gunshots clocked in at 84,258 according to the CDC. Last I checked, 84,000 meets the criteria of "tens of thousands".

Again, my point is that my chances of dying in a car crash or a fall in the home are far greater than my chances of dying in a "home invasion" robbery. Home invasion murders are pretty rare, I could only find 222 mentions of them in the FBI database, and that was spanning over a decade.

They are already taxed. All of my handguns are registered, as per the laws in my state. Chipped? Not available. Palm readers? The technology for reliable application to firearms isn't even close to ready.

Well, the taxes are not high enough, nor are they apportioned correctly. Taxes collected on firearms and ammunition should go into a victims compensation fun to help people and families harmed by firearms. Giving a shooting victim a $7,200 check to cover hundreds of thousands in medical expenses and lifelong physical and mental disabilities doesn't cut it.

Glad you register your firearms. As to chipping, would you object if chipping were required? And as to palm readers, would you object to them being required by law if they had a failure rate as good as or better than the incidence per 100,000 of gun owners shooting themselves or others?

I absolutely agree, as do numerous laws, both state and federal.

And yet, we can't get laws passed to prohibit these people from owning firearms.

I don't think you understand how the power of the state and the rights of the individual interact. The burden of proof is on the limitation. I collect military surplus guns and I compete in several different events with pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Tell me why I should not have dozens of weapons.

I understand how the power of state and the rights of the individuals interact and that ship has sailed.

The 1st and 4th-8th Amendments have all been either abridged or effectively nullified. We live in a de facto police state, which according to 2nd Amendment advocates, was what all the guns were supposed to prevent. However, the state has learned that it can strip us of all of our rights with little consequence by scaring the population with existential threats from non-white people, while letting us keep all the guns we want.

Given that all of my other rights are now abridged, I see no reason that the 2nd Amendment should enjoy an exemption, collections not withstanding.

Don't own one if you don't want to. I own firearms primarily for recreation. But I would certainly use a firearm to defend myself, in the home or elsewhere.

I don't. I put more faith in sensible security and a stout axe handle. I am just tired of of the constant bloodshed caused by a nation awash in firearms. It is way past time to reduce the number in circulation.

[Straw Man]

83. We can play scenario games all day and night ...

Last edited Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:51 AM - Edit history (1)

... but the fact remains that armed self-defense is viable. Shotgun pellets and frangible ammo don't overpenetrate, so my neighbors would not be endangered. As for "dropping me outside my house," I imagine that would cause my neighbors to call the police, which is why it's not exactly a common home-invasion strategy.

Excuse me, but where did I say "accidental gun deaths"? I didn't. I said "Tens of thousands of people are accidentally' shot every year handling firearms..."

In 2013, non-fatal gunshots clocked in at 84,258 according to the CDC. Last I checked, 84,000 meets the criteria of "tens of thousands".

Thanks for the clarification, but your numbers are still off. You said "accidentally." The figure you cite includes all firearms injuries, including intentional ones like assaults, attempted murder, self-defense, police shootings, failed suicide attempts, etc. The actual number for unintentional (in other words, accidental) non-fatal shootings was 16,864. Pardon me, but the last time I checked, the plural "tens of thousands" requires at least two of those "tens" -- 20,000 or more, in total. You're still more than 3,000 short.

I absolutely agree, as do numerous laws, both state and federal.

And yet, we can't get laws passed to prohibit these people from owning firearms.

You missed my point: the laws exist. If it's an enforcement failure, you won't solve it with more laws. If you're talking about the "private sale loophole," perhaps it might pass if it were presented as a stand-alone, without the poison pill of "assault weapon" bans and the like.

The 1st and 4th-8th Amendments have all been either abridged or effectively nullified. We live in a de facto police state, which according to 2nd Amendment advocates, was what all the guns were supposed to prevent. However, the state has learned that it can strip us of all of our rights with little consequence by scaring the population with existential threats from non-white people, while letting us keep all the guns we want.

Given that all of my other rights are now abridged, I see no reason that the 2nd Amendment should enjoy an exemption, collections not withstanding.

We may be tending toward a police state, but if you believe that we live in one now, you don't really know what the term means. I've seen police practices in other ostensibly democratic countries that would make most Americans' blood run cold. Pardon me for saying so, but this sounds like sour-grapes petulance: "If I can't have what I want, why should they?" Because some rights are under threat, all rights should be surrendered? What kind of sense does that make?

[treestar]

91. Yes it is inconsistent too with the argument

"well the mass shootings are rare, don't worry about them." Home invasions are rare too. A Panic room or a dog would be more effective for people who fear those.

[Ed Suspicious]

127. What if lightning were to strike? We should all have portable lightning rods just in case.

[Straw Man]

131. Science lesson.

What if lightning were to strike? We should all have portable lightning rods just in case.

Such a device would do you far more harm than good, making you all the more likely to be struck. However, I do hope you have some sort of lightning protection on your home.

[Skittles]

25. it's called narcissism

[Trajan]

76. This whiny shit has gotta end ...

Here and now ...

Gone ...

[hunter]

46. You seem to have Hollywood slow motion fantasies of the gun violence sort.

I prefer romantic comedies myself, and occasionally subtle science fiction fantasies where space-time warps around me and I don't get hit by bullets.

Hmm... that's my actual experience with both flying bullets and shrapnel.

Nah, let's be real, it's just stupid luck. I've got no mutant superpowers.

Having experienced a few rough situations involving guns, not once would ME holding a gun in my hand have improved the overall outcome of the conflict.

Guns have a strong propensity for turning resolvable human conflicts into horrible irresolvable tragedies.

Worst case, you're the dude who shot your teenage daughter's secret boyfriend because you assumed he was a rapist, you're the one who shot your wife in a fight, you're the one who shot the harmless drunk who walked into the wrong house, you're the one who shot yourself because you were having a bad day, you're the one whose kids grow up to be gangsters or neo-nazis.

Here's how gun violence usually is: BAMBAMBAM! and then, if you are not suddenly dead or bleeding, you are looking around thinking

It doesn't much matter if you are armed or not.

I live in a community that ranks very high in gun violence for any so-called "first world" nation, and even in this gun crazy U.S.A.. We're somewhere in the top 25 for U.S. cities with populations greater than 100,000.

Most of it is gang vs. gang violence, police vs. gang violence, and far too many police shootings of unarmed people behaving strangely.

Civil people here tend to loathe "gun cultures" of any sort.

My great grandmas were all wild west hunting-fishing-fighting-fierce women. The families of their descendants are still matriarchal. There is zero tolerance for fools with guns. A fool and his guns are soon parted. As a child I witnessed my mom literally grab a gun from a stranger, unload it, and smash it beyond repair. The fool was screaming he was going to sue her as he ran away. Whoopee... He never did.

My mom also took away her mom's guns when grandma became a danger to herself and others. Her mom eventually had to be removed from the home she fully owned and had fortified, in a battle with police and paramedics that lasted hours, with grandma throwing things, cussing in the foulest ways you can imagine, hitting, kicking, and eventually biting as they strapped her to the gurney and drugged her.

As my mom and my sister were cleaning my grandma's house afterward, a big job because grandma was a hoarder, they found another gun and some ammunition that my mom hadn't found when she took away grandma's other guns.

Maybe my grandma had forgotten where she'd hidden the gun, but I like to think that even though she was increasingly insane and anti-social, that she simply never wanted to shoot anyone, good guy or bad guy.

Most people turn into idiots when they're holding a gun. Many people who love guns are full time idiots. I include the vast majority of cops in these assessments.

If my grandma hadn't already been known by the police for her eccentric behaviors, and had she not been white, I suspect the police would have simply shot her dead.

[Squinch]

68. This is my experience too:

Having experienced a few rough situations involving guns, not once would ME holding a gun in my hand have improved the overall outcome of the conflict.

In two of these situations, if I did have a gun, I would be dead now.

[Straw Man]

86. Idiots?

Most people turn into idiots when they're holding a gun.

Like these people?

[hunter]

92. I have some awesome pictures of ancestors holding guns.

Mostly for hunting deer and such.

My brother has some of the old family guns, antiques.

My ancestors, just as I do, mocked anyone who carried a gun for "self defense," or thought shooting at the range would be a keen hobby.

What a waste of time, bullets, and money. Yes, guns make people idiots. Even the hunters. Maybe it's lead poisoning.

Someone has probably got photographs of me being an idiot with a gun, but kids and young adults are often idiots, in so many ways. (I was also an idiot with an automobile a few times in my youth.)

I've hunted, and I've also eaten domestic animals I've seen alive: Chickens, pigs, cattle, lambs, rabbits.

That's probably why I don't have any huge appetite for meat, wild or domestic, most especially the "factory farm" crap.

I've also seen people shoot people.

Fucking idiots with guns.

[Straw Man]

96. Let's see them.

I have some awesome pictures of ancestors holding guns.

That might be interesting. As it is, I glean nothing from your posts except the fact that you like to use the word "idiot" a lot.

Someone has probably got photographs of me being an idiot with a gun, but kids and young adults are often idiots, in so many ways. (I was also an idiot with an automobile a few times in my youth.)

So now you project your regrets over past misbehavior on others. Nice.

[hunter]

113. This is my most civilized great grandma and my great granddad.

My great grandmas were all wild west matriarchs.

Their men were artists and dreamers.

You can tell who the hunter is in this photo, no? The one you wouldn't want to mess with?

One of my great grandmas, not this one, lived in a two room cabin without plumbing. Bathe in the kitchen in a galvanized tub in water you carried from the creek about fifty yards uphill to the house. This great grandma never accepted indoor plumbing, and she was pissed off with her husband forever, even after he was dead, for signing onto Rural Electrification. He'd passed away leaving her two forty watt light bulbs and a god damned radio. She didn't need any of that shit. I remember watching her cook. She could pick up a knife and turn freshly killed fish, chickens, or small game into dinner faster than I could see her hands move. I used to stare, awed. I also remember her threatening my dad with a knife over some bone-headed artist thing he'd done. He wisely begged her forgiveness. In great grandma's universe minor screw ups killed people. No 911 to call, no antibiotics, the nearest doctor a day's ride away, and that doctor was probably a fraud.

That was on the homestead my mom's cousin still owns, which is just about as far away as you can get from a Wal-Mart or MacDonalds here in these continental United States.

I don't have regrets about my youth, none at all, because I'm not too terribly PTSD or physically maimed. I always walked away, even woke up a few times not knowing where the hell I was, sometimes not even which nation I was in, but with some new stories.

More importantly, I can tell my stories to my children and they'll be thinking, "Okay, got it. Don't be like dad."

Hell, I used to pick up hitchhikers whenever I had a car, and hitchhiked whenever I didn't. I lived in my car at times too.

Two of my brothers liked very big motorcycles. I was more into explosives, or walkabouts in the wilderness. Here is a picture of me on one of my brother's very big motorcycles:



Obnoxious geek.

One night I borrowed that bike to ride headlight mostly off under a full moon to Badwater, Death Valley, average speed greater than 100mph. Death Valley used to be one of my "goto" places whenever I was feeling a little down. Walking across the lumpy salt was my kind of meditation.

Top speed of a six cylinder CBX was just past my own "terrifying" mark so I only ever went full throttle uphill. My brothers were never so cautious, and one of them once ended up in a body cast, which was complicated because he'd left a lot of skin on the road.

My gun stories are not so fun.

Fuck guns.

[Straw Man]

115. Thanks.

That was both interesting and informative.

I'm glad you were able to live through all your youthful indiscretions. I hope your children will heed your advice.

I don't know what to tell you on the gun issue. You've obviously seen some things that I haven't. Our experiences have been different, and I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

[peace13]

52. Bottom line is...

....people with a conscience know that they are responsible for their actions. They understand that life, after killing an innocent person, is never the same.

[SheilaT]

77. Yep. The neighbor doesn't matter at all.

Unless you happen to be a neighbor.

[Humanist_Activist]

87. This post right here is why you shouldn't be allowed to have firearms...

that is defending my family.

[JonathanRackham]

30. Training and education should be mandatory.

Too many Yahoos own them but don't understand the legal ramifications. The net result is more laws.

[951-Riverside]

5. ...Unless you happen to be next door or in the line of fire

but fuck em!

"MUH GERNS! MY RIGHT!"

[Straw Man]

13. Please get your eye dialect straight.

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 05:35 AM - Edit history (1)

"MUH GERNS! MY RIGHT!"

Or explain why your hypothetical redneck sometimes says "muh" when he or she seems perfectly capable of saying "my."

Classist nonsense.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. I'm guessing you're not a South Park fan.

[Straw Man]

39. No.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. That's the reference.

[RandySF]

6. how many home invaders are killed

compared to those killed accidentally or during a domestic dispute?

[Straw Man]

11. You do realize ...

how many home invaders are killed

compared to those killed accidentally or during a domestic dispute?

... that it isn't necessary for someone to be killed for armed self-defense to be successful. It may not even be necessary to fire a shot.

[RandySF]

12. Let me rephrase

How many home invasions were stopped compared to accidental shootings, suicides and domestic violence cases during which a gun was used?

[Straw Man]

19. Let's see ...

First, let's unstack the deck: you're comparing one armed self-defense scenario with a grab-bag of gun death scenarios, including suicide. A much fairer comparison would be to all scenarios involving self-defense with guns. Shall we see what a CDC-commissioned study says about armed self-defense?

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

[maxsolomon]

61. These numbers are suspect, to say the least.

Let's just take the low end, 500k DGUs/year. That's >1300/day, 57 an hour. It just doesn't pass the smell test. The US is not that violent. 3 million is absurd.

You won't accept this analysis, but the poster asking the question will find it a useful counter point:

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/

The report cited in the Slate article is also suspect. It is a survey of existing studies, cites Kleck's "up to" 3 million/year estimate, and is NOT a NIH study, but was funded by it.

You have your facts, I have mine. Too bad one side of the debate has prevented the Feds from studying the truth.

[branford]

67. Well, here's a fact...

The government can, and does, thoroughly study gun violence. I should know, my former employer, the USDOJ, National Institute of Justice, engages in or sponsors much of that research, and something as easy as a Google search reveals ample evidence of this fact, although much of which does not support gun control arguments. Further, even the CDC is actually free to study firearm violence, they just cannot engages in firearm politics and advocacy. If they were so sloppy and partisan before, they wouldn't even have these restriction.

In any event, we hardly need government sponsorship to study anything to do with guns, violence, or much anything else. There are ample private researchers at universities, foundations, and interest groups, the majority of which are actually anti-gun (to say nothing of a pet billionaire), who can and do study the issues. You might just need to accept that the "truth" is not defined as results you agree with.

Complaint about lack of government funding for studies of gun violence are little more than whining that the government no longer subsidizes gun control advocacy.

[Straw Man]

71. Suspect?

Let's just take the low end, 500k DGUs/year. That's >1300/day, 57 an hour. It just doesn't pass the smell test. The US is not that violent. 3 million is absurd.

The low end is actually 108,000. That's the figure from the VPC. That's 12 per hour. Why does 12 a day "pass the smell test" when 57 doesn't, in a nation of 319 million people?

The US is "not that violent"? Exactly how do you know this?

The report cited in the Slate article is also suspect. It is a survey of existing studies, cites Kleck's "up to" 3 million/year estimate, and is NOT a NIH study, but was funded by it.

You have your facts, I have mine. Too bad one side of the debate has prevented the Feds from studying the truth.

It cites Kleck's number, but doesn't accept it. It was funded by the NIH? Actually the CDC, but I thought the Feds have been "prevented ... from studying the truth."

[Humanist_Activist]

88. The reason its suspect is because, the amount of DGUs, on the high end, exceeds the amount...

of violent crime in the United States, so either these crimes are not being reported(unlikely) or they aren't happening.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

On the low end, up to half of all violent crimes in the United States are being defended using firearms, which also seems unlikely. The estimate of about 100,000, or approximately 10% of violent crime seems more reasonable. Please bear in mind that the amount of households that have guns has been roughly steady at about 40% or so. So in order for the figures you site to be believable, most crime victims would have to be gun owners, there would have to be some type of additional risk factor associated with gun ownership that leads to increased DGU incidences.

[Straw Man]

90. Unlikely?

The reason its suspect is because, the amount of DGUs, on the high end, exceeds the amount...

of violent crime in the United States, so either these crimes are not being reported(unlikely) or they aren't happening.

I think it's very likely, since it's entirely possible for a DGU to succeed without a shot being fired or a crime being completed. It's called deterrence. Assailant approaches victim, victim draws gun, assailant flees: some might report that, but many wouldn't.

So in order for the figures you site to be believable, most crime victims would have to be gun owners, there would have to be some type of additional risk factor associated with gun ownership that leads to increased DGU incidences.

A "risk factor"? Has it not occurred to you that people who live in high-crime areas might be correspondingly more likely to arm themselves?

[Humanist_Activist]

93. Considering only a quarter of gun owners live in urban environments, it seems another argument of...

yours is inaccurate.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

Most gun owners live in rural and suburban areas.

In the scenario you laid out, how are we supposed to tell who is the alleged victim and alleged perp? Without some type of investigation, how are we supposed to know its not just intimidation?

[Straw Man]

95. How is that relevant?

Urban, suburban, rural: criminal activity exists anywhere.

In the scenario you laid out, how are we supposed to tell who is the alleged victim and alleged perp? Without some type of investigation, how are we supposed to know its not just intimidation?

Are you saying that people who have used their guns to intimidate others are likely to report it as a DGU? That's pretty farfetched.

[Humanist_Activist]

97. Most violent crime happens in urban environments, and yes, why not, especially if they feel...

justified. You just said the gun can be used as deterrent, but the fact is that without an investigation, we won't be sure a crime was even going to take place in the first place.

Also, and this is important, if the self-reporting is accurate, then that means that a small proportion of the population is involved on some level with a significant fraction to a few times the current reported incidences of violent crime, with the only factor being gun possession.

[Straw Man]

98. Unlikely.

You just said the gun can be used as deterrent, but the fact is that without an investigation, we won't be sure a crime was even going to take place in the first place.

Even with an investigation, you'd never establish it to a certainty. Yet a DGU may very well have taken place, and if you don't account for these, then you will under-report.

If some drunk pounds on your door in the middle of the night because he thinks his wife is sleeping with you, and you say "Go away -- I have a gun" and rack the slide on your shotgun, has a crime occurred? No. Has a DGU occurred? Absolutely. Will the incident be reported? Possibly.

If you go road-rage and point a pistol at another driver in traffic, has a crime occurred? Yes -- brandishing. Has a DGU occurred? No. Will the incident be reported? Not by the person pointing the gun, so not as a DGU.

Also, and this is important, if the self-reporting is accurate, then that means that a small proportion of the population is involved on some level with a significant fraction to a few times the current reported incidences of violent crime, with the only factor being gun possession.

If this is so important, perhaps you could express it more clearly. Did you get my point about people in high-risk areas being more likely to own guns for protection?

[Humanist_Activist]

102. You last assertion is demonstrated to be false, unless most violent crime happens...

in rural and suburban environments, is that the case?

Also, what are the criteria and controls for this reporting of DGUs, are there any, the number of incidents vary so widely, it seems rather useless to use it as a justification for gun possession.

[Straw Man]

104. Are you claiming ...

... that people who live in high-crime areas don't own guns for self-defense? And that you can demonstrate that to be true?

Have at it. You've asserted it, but you've proven nothing.

[Humanist_Activist]

108. I linked to the Pew research poll about it, did you fail to read it? n/t

[Straw Man]

117. I read it.

It doesn't change the fact that some urban people own guns and some rural areas have a lot of crime per capita. I think you're trying to use demographics to prove something that they can't prove.

[Humanist_Activist]

122. You are incorrect here as well.

Warning, PDF file:

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/ncvrw2013/2013ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf

Ok, a couple of things, when it comes to violent crime, the stats don't lie, it happens in the city more per capita than in the country. Property crimes are more at parity, but those don't apply because you wouldn't seriously suggest that people should be threatened with death over property, correct?

[Straw Man]

125. Again, I ask you ...

... how that is relevant. Some city dwellers are armed. DGUs can happen in cities.

[Humanist_Activist]

129. I'm pointing out that, unless you want to argue that armed people are seeking trouble...

the estimates on the amount of DGUs that occur every year is greatly exaggerated. In addition, this will require more research, but do the amount of DGUs that actually occur worth the societal cost in intentional and unintentional firearm deaths that occurs every year due to the relative ease and availability of firearms?

[Straw Man]

130. I'm saying that there's no reason ...

... to correlate DGUs with crime stats because DGUs aren't necessarily reported. The numbers come from polling.

Unintentional firearms deaths are a very small number. Intentional gun deaths are not going to be significantly impacted by gun control, which predominantly affects non-criminal gun owners.

[Humanist_Activist]

132. What percentage would you say go unreported? 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%?

That's the issue, this is survey data only, which is not the most reliable. We had a guy here in my area who had a noise complaint with a neighbor(the complaint was non-existent, he was hearing things), he put on his bulletproof vest, took his gun with him and then confronted, shot and killed the neighbor in question.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/maryland-heights-man-was-wearing-bullet-proof-vest-when-he/article_e01ee342-793f-5182-9fcd-6e26ef7af179.html?

He stayed at the scene after killing a man in cold blood and is claiming self defense. He was law abiding up until he wasn't, I do wonder if he purchased the gun legally or not. Given his attitude(he felt he was justified), I would assume he did purchase it legally, and you are right, gun control would do little to dissuade gun owners, regardless of how they obtained the weapons.

This is why the real goal should be reduce gun possession, reducing production of firearms in the country and reducing distribution. Make guns more expensive to own, more expensive to purchase and, eventually reduce firearm ownership in the country to niche markets only(collectors, hunting clubs, etc.) Generally speaking this means focusing on reducing handgun ownership, rifles are less of a problem.

It wouldn't be an overnight solution, but one that would equally affect criminal and non-criminal gun purchasers, scarcity is scarcity after all. We have made great strides in reducing violent crime in this country over the past 20 years, we need to find ways to reduce it further by addressing all issues, including finding ways to reduce accessibility to firearms.

ON EDIT: Not to mention the fact that, according to a recent meta-analysis, having a firearm in the home increases the likelyhood of a member of the household being a victim of a homicide or suicide. It appears that reducing the amount of firearms everyone has access to would be what is best for society.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426

[maxsolomon]

63. see my post #61

for an alternate analysis

[MillennialDem]

38. That sounds like the improper way to use a gun. Not supposed to draw unless you shoot

[Straw Man]

40. Wrong.

That sounds like the improper way to use a gun. Not supposed to draw unless you shoot

Not supposed to draw unless you are defending. If the mere sight of the gun makes the assailant withdraw, there's no reason to shoot.

That's why laws against brandishing should be very carefully written lest they actually encourage unnecessary shootings.

[MillennialDem]

51. Well of course not supposed to draw or shoot unless defending - but how often does a person with

a gun pull out a gun so slowly that the suspect has time to turn tail and flee before the gunner fires?

If you draw a gun you should be firing within a second or two at the most.

[Straw Man]

59. It depends on a lot of factors.

Well of course not supposed to draw or shoot unless defending - but how often does a person with

a gun pull out a gun so slowly that the suspect has time to turn tail and flee before the gunner fires?

If you draw a gun you should be firing within a second or two at the most.

For example, how far away is the person, and what is he or she doing? Is he/she coming toward you with a weapon? Is he/she beating a defenseless person on the ground? Both of these would be sufficient reason to draw a gun and loudly announce that you're armed and that the person should stop doing whatever he/she is doing.

I strongly disagree with your last contention. It only takes a split second to stop. Loosely written brandishing laws might give the person the impression that you must fire if you draw, but there are situations where it's not necessary.

[valerief]

105. ^^^THIS^^^

[HuckleB]

7. The plural of anecdote is not data.

This is not hard.

[jmowreader]

8. Guns are useless for preventing burglaries, tho

In Kootenai County, Idaho, we have essentially no home invasions. There are so many people with guns here, and so many of them are just itchin' for the chance to shoot someone - and the criminal element knows it - that breaking into an occupied dwelling is basically unheard of.

Instead, we have good old-fashioned burglaries. The scum just do a little intelligence gathering, figure out your patterns, wait till you leave the house for the day, and just walk in and take whatever they want. And it seems what they most want are guns and chain saws.

Surprise kids: Not only can't a gun pull its own trigger, it can't keep itself from being stolen by a burglar.

[Maeve]

35. The same sort of thing happens in Ohio

Mom lived out in the country and was fearful of their house being broken into for the guns--because the news was full of stories like that. She got rid of them after her husband died, but still was afraid and moved into town (which is better at her age, anyway--closer to help for any emergency).

[jmowreader]

62. Call it the NRA's darkest secret

Create two variables: A and B.

A is all the crimes a gun in the possession of someone who isn't a cop prevented or stopped. They have to be crimes that are actually happening or in the process of fixin' ta - going to a place where crimes don't happen and letting your gun take credit for the crimes that wouldn't have happened anyway does not count.

B is all the burglaries - Burglary defined as someone entering an unoccupied structure and stealing things from it - in which guns were taken.

It would be impossible to gather accurate statistics for A and B, but I think B is probably from 100 to 1000 times larger than A.

[kcr]

134. When I got broken into, they mostly made a mess and actually left some valuable things

You're right. I think when it was obvious we didn't have what they wanted they booked it out of there.

[tenderfoot]

10. How many home invasions have you stopped?

How about massacres like in San Bernardino?



Where are the good guys with guns when you need them?

[branford]

20. The belief in the right of self-defense

involves the protection of the individual's life and their loved ones.

Although people are generally free to aid others, including total strangers, self-defense, armed or otherwise, is not about being substitute or supplemental law enforcement, heroism, or bravado, despite what you see in the movies or your own obvious preconceived notions or bias.

Your questions are little more than disingenuous straw man arguments.

However, I'll play. What might have happened if some of the many victims in San Bernadino were armed, a quite onerous and often discretionary process in CA's with its extremely strict firearm regulations (although the terrorists procured their weapons, firearms and bombs, in CA). None of the dead would be more dead for trying to defend themselves (and others at their discretion), and maybe fewer innocents would have perished.

[Orrex]

31. Your question is dishonest

However, I'll play. What might have happened if some of the many victims in San Bernadino were armed

Given the number of heavily armed and armored cops who were required to subdue the shooters, there is little to suggest that your hypothetical gun-toting hero would have had any impact. We'd have another family destroyed, and we'd be talking about your dead hypothetical hero as another example of the futility of a CCL.

None of the dead would be more dead for trying to defend themselves (and others at their discretion), and maybe fewer innocents would have perished.

You are simply making up a scenario to suit your pro-gun agenda. We can claim with equal justification that the presence of a hypothetical gun-toter would have escalated the situation, causing the assailants to kill even more victims.

[branford]

65. Obviously, the entire point of most of post flew right over your head.

It was about straw man arguments and irrelevant questions. As I indicated, the right of self-defense, is not about being a hero or acting as a substitute or supplement for the police. However, you apparently had no problem when the prior poster questioned why those who owned firearm didn't prevent crimes or terrorist act unconnected with themselves (the question being even more odd considering that CA intentionally ensures its citizens have some of the greatest difficulties in the nation possessing, no less carrying, firearms). I simply offered a contravening question in response to the poster's own. If the anti-fun rights side engages in hypotheticals. you shouldn't be surprised when you are met some in return.

In any event. as you acknowledge, the dead in San Bernadino are sadly already dead, and the terrorists were quite thorough in their carnage. They cannot be more dead. How exactly could armed innocents have "escalated" San Bernadino? If any of the victims were lawfully armed, they may indeed not have had any effect on the incident. Nevertheless, particularly in tight quarters indoors, even a single lucky shot may have mitigated or stopped the massacre or permitted cover for one or more victims to escape. Moreover, if any individuals were armed, their only responsibility would be to save or protect themselves. It is the gun control side, with their movie fantasies, who demand that anything less than unnecessarily risky heroism is not worthwhile self defense. That is not the standard of the law, nor even simple prudence.

[Orrex]

74. Yeah, please gunsplain it to me.

I love it when the gun lobby shows up to tell me why I'm wrong about thousands and thousands of gun-inflicted murders. Do tell.

[GGJohn]

79. Well, apparently branford did explain it to you and you didn't like the answer,

judging by your non answer.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. ...

 Home protection provides a common, all-too-understandable motive to buy a gun. Few things are scarier than the possibility that some violent intruder will break in when you and your loved-ones are home. This risk happens to be especially vivid for me. My gentle disabled cousin was beaten to death by two teenage burglars in his New York apartment thirty years ago.

Yet having guns around bring risks, too. Practically speaking, it’s not the incredibly rare risk of mass homicide, but the everyday risks of injury, accident, domestic altercations, and suicide. The relative risks matter. And the fact is: lethal home invasions and burglaries are incredibly rare. You might not think so, since dramatic cases stick in your mind and tend to receive disproportionate press coverage. These cases are rare nonetheless.

How rare? I asked researchers at the Chicago Police Department and my colleague Daniel Rosenbaum at the University of Chicago Crime Lab to track down some numbers. In 2011, Chicago experienced 433 murders. Precisely one Chicago homicide that year was listed under the motive of “burglary.” Another seventeen were listed as domestic altercations. Some of these might have involved a nonresident partner entering someone’s home. You get the point. These are really unusual crimes, even in a pretty tough city.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports about 100 homicides per year across America that happen in the course of household burglaries. That’s less than 1 percent of U.S. homicides. Yeah, that’s about one-180th of the 18,735 gun suicides that occurred in America in 2009. Many people who attempt suicide can be helped—unless they have immediate access to the most efficient and lethal method of self-harm. Then of course there are gun accidents and crimes committed by legal gun owners or by others who gain access to those same guns.

http://www.thenation.com/article/we-fear-each-other-when-guns-themselves-are-real-danger/

[Skittles]

24. don't gun humpers have a forum?

[yuiyoshida]

58. That's what

I thought

[Eleanors38]

72. We like to hump in Guns Discussion. That seems OK by the Mods...

If you wish to object, and want this stuff in the two (2) groups, contact the mods



I did. Good luck!

[valerief]

106. PC Principal here! We don't call them gun humpers. That's disrespectful.

They're ammosexuals. Get it right!

[Shankapotomus]

26. All violent confrontation involves a health risk to both parties

A victim with a gun may even the risk out (although the attacker always has the element of surprise in their favor) but there is still a risk of death in engaging in violent confrontation.

A victim doesn't always have an option but when they do I would imagine putting as much distance between an attacker and yourself is safer, statistically, than a face-to-face confrontation.

[CBGLuthier]

28. Here are some points to ponder

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.


Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

[HereSince1628]

32. Very little is needed to validate a thought that one is biased to already believe

And that's far from just being applicable to an issue with the defensive utility of firearms.

[LanternWaste]

33. As keeping a firearm in my home dramatically increases the chances

As keeping a firearm in my home dramatically increases the chances of me or my family getting shot, I think I'll simply maintain its absence, regardless of the melodramatic anecdotes.

[ileus]

34. anytime lives are on the line guns are useful.

even non gun owners call folks to bring guns to save them...

[Logical]

36. Now post some stories of accidental shootings! Nt

[Nye Bevan]

37. Hint: Google "thought was intruder killed" (without the quotes).

This may well change the minds of many on this issue.

[lame54]

56. Nice catch

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. Unless this sort of thing is common and frequent in my neighborhood, it's just not worth it.

I'm not going to bring in a gun into my house out of some vague, unsubstantiated fear of some freakish home invasion.

Now, if the houses in my neighborhood were getting burglarized on a nearly daily occurrence, perhaps--perhaps--I'd think about getting some sort of armed protection for that limited purpose.

But that's just not happening where I live, and I'm not going to live in that sort of constant fear of something that as horrific as it sounds, is extremely unlikely to happen.

Right now, I have a 34 inch aluminum baseball bat within arms reach of my bed. God forbid if someone does attempt to break in to my home in the middle of the night, that's comfort enough for me.

[Docreed2003]

78. Our house is the same...

I grew up around weapons and was trained to use them in the military, but my wife, despite the fact that she grew up in the home of a police officer, doesn't want weapons in the house. I'm ok with that. We live in a safe neighborhood, we have a good alarm system, and I've got a great aluminum baseball bat....I've also got a WWII relic katana sword that 70 yrs on is sharp as a scalpel in my office. We choose not to live in fear and I think we're happier for it.

[DanTex]

43. Some people who value youtube videos over scientific evidence.

That's a problem with many policy debates, not just guns.

[NaturalHigh]

44. Indeed. That's why I keep a loaded 12 gauge handy.

If someone keeps coming after hearing the distinctive "click-click" then that's on them.

[Major Nikon]

47. Guns don't make anyone safer

Guns always make you less safe.

To only consider a very narrow set of circumstances and then pretend that makes the rule is not only wrong, but not just a little bit gun nutty. I suppose this kind of nonsense might fly in certain circles where folks worship at the altar of head ogre Wayne Lapierre, but the bullshit call is just not that hard to make.

[tabasco]

48. If you can't defend your home with a shotgun or a bolt-action rifle,

a semi-auto or a pistol is not going to help.

I support a ban of handguns and semi-autos.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

69. I think when someone breaks in with a semi-auto...

I'd rather take my chances with something that can at least keep up with them instead of having to worry about recocking a gun while they shove 20 rounds my way. You do what you want, I'll do what I want.

[tabasco]

111. I pity people who live in fear.

They are cowards.

I was in the infantry, two combat tours, and will take a pump shotgun in close quarters every time

[TampaAnimusVortex]

120. I pity people who can't think.

Oh no, someone called me a coward. How ever I ever live with it!? Name calling... Yawn.

Are you going to start the "Your momma's so fat" routines now?

[Straw Man]

84. Interesting.

If you can't defend your home with a shotgun or a bolt-action rifle,

a semi-auto or a pistol is not going to help.

I wonder why cops carry them, then.

[tabasco]

112. Because they have a place in law enforcement

but not for every jackass coward who lives in fear of a home invasion. LOL.

[Straw Man]

116. Ah, the magic cops ...

... with rights and abilities beyond those of mere mortals.

I don't buy it. Sorry.

[TeddyR]

126. So non-cowards

Get guns at home? And shotguns are ok?

[AZ Progressive]

49. I'm actually for significant gun control, but I believe in the right to defend oneself

and one's family. Many of you here posting I bet believe in the extreme form of gun control which is to keep guns out of the hands of as many people as possible.

[KG]

50. I lulz'd

[lame54]

55. Guns get stolen from homes by criminals - A LOT

[sanatanadharma]

57. Everybody dies, it is a given--- Killing is a choice, it is a karmic decision

...I will not arm myself and thus begin the series of karmic choices leading to strong preferences, generating habitual behaviors that lead to ethical-moral failures like killing.

I will not kill.

Morality trumps self-interest, and that includes the confused self-interests of personal choice and belief.

You do-not get to kill for God, for biblical beliefs, for saving the babies, for rambo fun, for vigilante justice...

GUNS MAKE KILLING TOO DAMN EASY Disarm your fears, paranoid fantasies, prejudices, ignorant seeings, immoral preferences....

[EX500rider]

64. ".....that lead to ethical-moral failures like killing."

So during a hypothetical home invasion someone kills you wife, then goes to turn the gun on your children... and you think it would be a "moral failure" to kill them first? I'd say the decision to let those you love be slaughtered so you can keep your hands clean a very big moral failure. YMMV

[rusty quoin]

80. I'm old school, and I prefer that world. There wasn't a concern about getting shot because you

we're not gun ready. What fucking kind of world do we want in America, one in which we control guns and live normal lives, or one in which every time we leave our car with our children, we better be packing because someone is out to get us.

They use to call it the Wild West. It was solved, but you want it back.

[mwrguy]

81. Get an alarm or a dog

Guns have no place in civilized society.

[Kilgore]

101. Not always a solution.

I live in a large rural county with no police departments in any town, and only law enforcement is a sheriff's department of five.

Our sheriff is very open about the fact that at any given time it may take up to 45 minutes for a deputy to arrive depending on location.

The sherrif is also very open regarding his opinion on being able to defend yourself. His recommendation is a home shotgun, and freely giving concealed carry permits to any resident who meets the legal requirements.

Granted we have very little crime but we did have a local home broken into about two years ago while the family was asleep. The bad guy was held at bay for thirty minutes until a deputy arrived.

My point is your solution of an alarm and a dog not at solution for many of us rural dwellers.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

119. I could have almost written your post.

We have almost no crime here. Sheriff takes about 30 to 45 mins to get here. Our sheriff also recommends defending yourself/property. We farm and our house is a long way from other houses or a public road. A local farmer held some villains at gun point in his machine shop until the deputies arrived - half an hour later.

Just today I was upstairs dressing and our dog downstairs started barking. I was alone on the entire place, except for critters. I thought she had seen a deer through the window, but she kept it up, so I looked outside and saw a pick-up I'd never seen before parked by the back door.

None of the doors were locked.

Was I scared? No way. I slipped 5 bullets into my gun and continued dressing. The dog never changed her tune so I knew no one had come through any of the unlocked doors downstairs. If she had changed her bark I was ready in case they came up the stairs.

Having a gun makes me unafraid.

The pick-up left and I unloaded my gun and that was that. Turns out it was the fertilizer/fuel company bring us some Christmas gifts.

[Kilgore]

121. We love living in what is essentially the middle of nowhere

And we know that we do without what a lot of folks take for granted like quick response by law enforcement, fire and medical. A shotgun, well stocked first aid kit, and a fire hose connection on the irrigation pump are the essentials of life.

Everyone in our family, including the kids, have first aid training, and are pretty good with dispensing the buckshot. If I could only get them to consistently bring in the firewood!!

[kcr]

136. So, have to keep them an option for rural people who have little crime

Meanwhile the millions of gun deaths will just have to go on everywhere else. That's the price of freedom for rural people!

[Kilgore]

137. So your argument is basically "rural lives don't matter" ??

Did you really mean to say that?

Enforcing gun laws in "populated" areas makes more sense to me.

[beevul]

138. "Millions" of gun deaths?

10 thousand firearm homicides annually, along with 20 thousand gun suicides, is hardly 'millions'.

[wickerwoman]

82. This:

You're 2.7 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member with that gun than you are to kill a home invader.

[Straw Man]

85. Really?

You're 2.7 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member with that gun than you are to kill a home invader.

I'm not suicidal, and I live alone. I guess I'm good-to-go, huh?

Google "Jim Jefferies" and "misogynist" sometime. It might make you think twice about your choice of spokesman. That and the fact that the "factual" part of his shtick is patently false.

[pnwmom]

89. But most guns in homes are far more likely to kill or injure a family member

than to ever be used to stop a home invader.

[edhopper]

123. So true

and the gun fans refused to admit it. A gun in the home makes it more likely to be injured by a gun, it is that simple. And that likelihood is greater than stopping a home invasion.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. So are you encouraging people to not store guns safely in the home?

No trigger locks, no gun safes, no storing of ammunition in a separate location, etc.

[Eleanors38]

99. My weapons are locked up, now. When home, loaded and ready.

[Humanist_Activist]

103. So you are a reckless gun owner. n/t

[Eleanors38]

107. No.nt

[Humanist_Activist]

109. So you do store your guns safely when not in use? n/t

[Eleanors38]

110. As per #99.

[kcr]

135. So, you're constantly getting broken into? Wow. I'd move n/t

[Eleanors38]

139. Nope. And my Truman-era house has not burned, despite insurance.

[leftyladyfrommo]

141. Ready for what? Are you expecting an invasion

By the Russians.

It's more likely to be he police breaking into the wrong house and it's best not to shoot them.

Home invasions where I live are so rare I can't remember there ever being one and I have lived here 30 years. I live in poorer neighborhood and there isn't anything for anyone to take. One guy did get shot by a husband that came home early. Got him 17 times.

Now there are parts of KC where people really do need protection from all sorts of crime and I think a lot of those people do have shotguns. And I probably would have one, too. It's the druggers and the gangbangers that make the east side so dangerous.

[Eleanors38]

142. "Ready:". For use. I don't require a resume or portfolio for B&E punks...

i.e., it doesn't matter if they are Russian or not if they are breaking into my place.

Crime rates have dropped in my neighborhood, following a national trend, so I'm not too worried; less since I am armed. I should be more worried about fire in my Truman-era house, but I have an escape plan and a house insurance policy -- "Ready," too, if I need it.

[Eleanors38]

100. Refreshing to see a reasonable post. Hopefully, many more to follow in GD.

[Downtown Hound]

114. Your basic shotgun or hunting rifle will do just fine for 99.999% of all home invasion type

scenarios. No need to own military grade hardware.

[pintobean]

124. One less bad guy in N. St. Louis County today.

Burglar killed by north St. Louis County homeowner; police search for 2nd suspect

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) - A burglar was shot and killed by homeowner near the intersection of Rocket and Space in north St. Louis County.

The homeowner tells police that he heard a loud banging at his door at around 10:30am Monday morning. He looked out his window to see two men who he did not recognize standing on his front porch. That is when the homeowner went to grab his gun.

The two men went to the back of the home and broke in through the back door. They were inside the home when an exchange of gunfire rang out. The homeowner shot and killed one of the would be burglars. The other suspect fled the scene.

The deceased burglar has been identified by his family as 19-year-old Tramel Day. Police have his gun. They have also taken the homeowner's gun in for evidence.

http://fox2now.com/2015/12/14/burglar-killed-by-north-st-louis-county-homeowner-police-search-for-2nd-suspect/

[Ed Suspicious]

128. Why is this in GD? I thought there was a dedicated toile... errr... home for this stuff.

[kcr]

133. Yep, such cherry picking is definitely effective to convince people

Of course they aren't going to show all the videos of all the times guns in the home had a different outcome that vastly outweigh them. Imagine how horrifying those videos would be?

[LanternWaste]

140. They are also useful for killing sentient creatures, regardless of place, time or context.

They are also useful for killing sentient creatures, regardless of place, time or context.