• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

Dr. Keith said:
Isn't that the research that the NRA won't allow the CDC to conduct?
Click to expand...

Yes.

It's easy to see, in the available numbers, that chasing-off-dangerous-home-invaders is NOT common. Why is that? Because 60% of homes are not armed.

Imagine a world where "defend your home with a gun" is 100% effective. Imagine there are 10,000 attempts to mount deadly armed home invasions. Well, 3,300 of those would get foiled---those would wind up in the NRA's anecdotal-evidence file---but 6,600 would be hitting unarmed homes and result in harm to the occupants. And "harm to the occupants", unlike NRA-newsletter brandishing-incidents, does get recorded and counted reliably.

See? If you look at the number of actual deaths in home-invasion-robbery incidents, the number of murderous-invasion-averted-NRA-anecdotes is *no greater than* 1/2 of this number.

OK, the National Violent Death Reporting System can give us those numbers for 16 states. Let's look at 2009 data:

Population of reporting states 81,587,293 (about 1/4 of the US population)

2,579 total gun homicides.
137 total homicides by strangers (!)
49 of which occurred in homes (not necessarily the victim's!)

Multiply by 4 to get approximately nationwide numbers.

There were only ~200 successful in-a-house murders-by-strangers in 2009. Total. A tiny number. Let's be generous and say those were all home-invasion robbery-murder attempts.

There cannot have been---if gun-self-defense were foolproof, in a country where 2/3rds of homes are unarmed---more than 300 home-invasion-murder attempts in 2009.

Therefore, there are fewer than than ~100 true robbery-murder-averted anecdotes in 2009.

There's your "guns save lives". Legal-gun-owner-home-defense saved fewer---probably far fewer---than 100 lives in 2009.

Heck, there were ~350 accidental gun deaths in that time. There were ~50 accidental gun deaths of children under 14.

That's why I've said this before and why I will keep saying it. Keeping a gun at home to protect you from home invaders is utterly, horrifyingly wrong. Dangerous home invasions are preposterously rare, as non-gun-owners have proven by not dying in home invasions.
 
Last edited:
Sabretooth said:
We're at an impasse. I don't agree with you and vice versa.


I really do apologize. I wasn't trying to be rude. I wasn't dismissing your answers, but my response to all would have been identical. Just saved a lot of repeating myself.

Bottom line is that I think your plan of waiting for the intruder to shoot first is a perfect way of ending up dead. To me, self preservation should always rule. If that intruder doesn't want to die, simply don't break into my house and then refuse to leave when I ask/demand them to do so.
Click to expand...

You may just be arguing past each other. One side has been making suggestions they will shoot too early to have made a proper assessment of what is going on, whilst you are suggesting the other side will wait until it is too late. The obvious answer is in the middle and the best way to achieve that is training.
 
Nessie said:
You may just be arguing past each other. One side has been making suggestions they will shoot too early to have made a proper assessment of what is going on, whilst you are suggesting the other side will wait until it is too late. The obvious answer is in the middle and the best way to achieve that is training.
Click to expand...

True. But even those with training make bad decisions.
 
Nihilianth said:
Ya know, you only really make yourself look like an idiot when you fail to quote the very next sentence, while making a comment that has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

Now go back and read the rest of that paragraph that I wrote, <SNIP>.
Edited by Locknar: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

The following sentences changes nothing of the ridiculous nature of your comment on martial arts. And your opinion on my level of intelligence, sir, is of no concern of mine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lowpro said:
You can't just kill a person because of your imagination, that's not right or ethical or responsible. You can incapacitate the intruder or you can hide yourself and your family. Do something that doesn't get people killed. That should go both ways but just because I broke into your house doesn't mean you get to kill me either. You don't have to tolerate me and my presence in your house, but you just don't have any ethical right to let your imagination and "what if's" justify killing. You're going to have to deal with it.



I gave you a laundry list of the many things you could do that doesn't involve killing. Pick some and stop pretending that killing is the only solution.



How is he getting more rights than you? Again you are trying to promote the kill or be killed argument but that's a paradox here. What you're actually promoting in this scenario is "kill because I'm afraid." I understand the sentiment but it's not ethical and that's self defense. That's a preemptive strike.



Again you only demonstrate that killing is your go to defense. Not incapacitation or securing yourself or just leaving your damned home. You assume an intent that you cannot know only infer and you'd meet that intent by killing first instead of avoiding conflict.



Killing because of your imagination doesn't justify actually killing someone. I thought my life was in danger is the go-to line but you actually have to demonstrate that it WAS IN DANGER. The "thought" part of "I thought my life was in danger" is the part that makes no sense. Either you are in danger or you aren't and you should leverage your options based on that.



Then you may be a responsible gun owner but you're as irresponsible a citizen as the guy who broke into your house, if not worse. You killed someone, he didn't. Again the fact that you think that your warning/pulling the trigger is FINE and safe and justified...you're insane. And you're the one who says I live in a fantasy world and you're the guy who is planned out how to kill.


You have no right to that kind of force to actually make that call to kill. Like I said it's cowboy logic. We don't treat bad will as immediate "kill him" but you're fine with that. Not only do you assume the person's up to no good you jump right to him/her being so damned dangerous that they must die and that you have to pull that trigger. Not only do you ignore any other means of nonlethal ways to handle it I don't even think you're considering it. You're sick in the head but a lot of people think like you do.



Dude listen to how insane you are. YOU ARE MAKING THE DEATH THREAT based on fear. What if that person you're threatening to kill then thinks EXACTLY what you're thinking "Kill him before he kills me". Just because he broke into your house doesn't mean you can just do that to a person. It's hard to meet in middle on this but you're practically making killing easy. You're not trying to prevent death here or murder, you're killing because you don't see the future and that scares you.



Nothing you've said above is reasonable to kill anyone. If you think this was the only line I was right about then you need your head examined. Self defense only makes sense when you are actually defending yourself from harm, not preemptively striking and putting yourself in harm's way just to kill.
Click to expand...

Just a minor question: Do you know what they call a police officer who acts as you wish/think people should? "Officer down!!!"
 
Lowpro said:
In what way?! I'm the one who brought up the STORE scenario and said that it should be adopted into the home scenario too because you would, as a homeowner, STILL be able to defend yourself against murder and rape if that's what is demonstrably going to occur with lethal force and you can use nonlethal force JUST for trespassing all the way up the ladder (something stores I don't even think are allowed to due to liability issues).

How in the hell have I ignored anything or twisted anyone's response here? You haven't demonstrated why the home is different (Hell no one's ever addressed that question and I've asked several times) so maybe your response is that people live in their homes and that's where most murders and rapes occur (far be it from me to point out that's also where most people spend their daily lives on average but I'll let you play with the statistic).

YOU are the one who deliberately ignores the fact that I am saying there should be proper leverage to self defense (something we already DO for public self defense so it's not a foreign concept) and that nonlethal options to handle trespassing should be preferred leverage. If you are being attacked and can infer actual physical harm rather than "Someone's here. I can feel pain, he may make me feel pain. Die intruder die!" that crap because you're not defending yourself in fear of your life in any tangible way. I know the laws not agreeing with me so I think the law should be changed and we should reinforce nonlethal methods and intent to neutralize without outright killing. If we want that for criminals then we should also want it for law abiding citizens too.
Click to expand...

This has gotten past ridiculous and you are arguing past everyone else.

People live in homes. Criminals know people live in homes. A criminal breaking into a store is more consistent with stealing things than doing harm to people. A criminal breaking (not simply trespassing which you conflate still) into a home is consistent with a whole host of other crimes in addition to theft. A criminal who doesn't leave when confronted is even MORE consistent with one there to do violence or at the least willing to do violence.

Someone breaking into your house, not leaving when confronted, is being attacked. Your less lethal idea is nice and all, but not practical in an entire host of cases including a criminal not leaving when confronted with a gun.

Keep saying trespassing though in order to twist it into your own narrative. Demonize away.
 
ben m said:
Yes.

It's easy to see, in the available numbers, that chasing-off-dangerous-home-invaders is NOT common. Why is that? Because 60% of homes are not armed.

Imagine a world where "defend your home with a gun" is 100% effective. Imagine there are 10,000 attempts to mount deadly armed home invasions. Well, 3,300 of those would get foiled---those would wind up in the NRA's anecdotal-evidence file---but 6,600 would be hitting unarmed homes and result in harm to the occupants. And "harm to the occupants", unlike NRA-newsletter brandishing-incidents, does get recorded and counted reliably.

See? If you look at the number of actual deaths in home-invasion-robbery incidents, the number of murderous-invasion-averted-NRA-anecdotes is *no greater than* 1/2 of this number.

OK, the National Violent Death Reporting System can give us those numbers for 16 states. Let's look at 2009 data:

Population of reporting states 81,587,293 (about 1/4 of the US population)

2,579 total gun homicides.
137 total homicides by strangers (!)
49 of which occurred in homes (not necessarily the victim's!)

Multiply by 4 to get approximately nationwide numbers.

There were only ~200 successful in-a-house murders-by-strangers in 2009. Total. A tiny number. Let's be generous and say those were all home-invasion robbery-murder attempts.

There cannot have been---if gun-self-defense were foolproof, in a country where 2/3rds of homes are unarmed---more than 300 home-invasion-murder attempts in 2009.

Therefore, there are fewer than than ~100 true robbery-murder-averted anecdotes in 2009.

There's your "guns save lives". Legal-gun-owner-home-defense saved fewer---probably far fewer---than 100 lives in 2009.

Heck, there were ~350 accidental gun deaths in that time. There were ~50 accidental gun deaths of children under 14.

That's why I've said this before and why I will keep saying it. Keeping a gun at home to protect you from home invaders is utterly, horrifyingly wrong. Dangerous home invasions are preposterously rare, as non-gun-owners have proven by not dying in home invasions.
Click to expand...
cross posted onto this thread, thanks.
 
Belz... said:
The following sentences changes nothing of the ridiculous nature of your comment on martial arts. And your opinion on my level of intelligence, sir, is of no concern of mine.
Click to expand...

You apparently have no ability to read for comprehension, as nothing what I have said pertains to your following comments in any way whatsoever.
 
Lowpro said:
Dude first off you're pretty much sounding like a killer-in-waiting here. A burglar's right to life isn't forfeit just because he's burglarizing that's dumb. You may not like him but you also may not like a lot of people; you don't shoot them because you think they're scum. You can shoot them to defend yourself and all the Castle Doctrine does is say that you don't need to leverage force and you can kill him or her for what may not be anything worth killing him for. If he stole your TV you absolutely shouldn't kill him. Just like if he stole a TV from Best Buy the store owner can't count off and then shoot him.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between not liking someone and being put in a position by them where your life and limb may be in jeopardy. Chasms of difference in fact. As far as the killer thing? Get a grip. My point is that I am deadly serious. I know my shotgun is not a toy, and I would not have it in the house if I was not willing to use it to kill someone in defense of my life.

Lowpro said:
However on the subject of weapons I've made it patently clear that at that point go for it. I do think it's silly for you to dismiss a criminal's logic and assume his thought process for him or her though, in fact it's hilarious how you caricaturize them. "He doesn't care about anything else, that's why he's a burglar." That's a dumb idea for you subscribe to. You and burglars are probably almost completely identical you know and that's not a semantics game. They are putting themselves in danger by breaking into your home to steal your stuff; their nerves are probably as wired as yours are and you're ready to kill them. Self preservation occurs for both individuals and while you're fine dismissing the criminal's feelings that doesn't mean reality bends to your dismissal either.
Click to expand...

It's not a dumb idea at all. Criminals are stupid and lazy, or they'd be something else. And it should be obvious they have no regard for anything except what makes them happier in small doses a little at a time. Even if it means stealing someone's peace of mind and possessions that they actually did work for.

If one breaks into my house and I'm there without a way to leave, you better believe I am going to stack the decks in my favor as much as possible. He gets a tiny window to leave and nothing more.
 
Nessie said:
Can you evidence that? Does no force including getting away, hiding or talking your way out of a situation?
Click to expand...

All good practices, in fact I'd put them all on the list of best practices, before resorting to force in most cases. Most, not all, and force certainly comes in immediately after failure of any of them that involve closing of space.
 
Sabretooth said:
We're at an impasse. I don't agree with you and vice versa.


I really do apologize. I wasn't trying to be rude. I wasn't dismissing your answers, but my response to all would have been identical. Just saved a lot of repeating myself.

Bottom line is that I think your plan of waiting for the intruder to shoot first is a perfect way of ending up dead. To me, self preservation should always rule. If that intruder doesn't want to die, simply don't break into my house and then refuse to leave when I ask/demand them to do so.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the apology. Yea I do think we're at an impasse on this one but I'm glad we discussed it. Waiting on them to shoot first would be a good way to end up dead but I'm not waiting on them to shoot first I'm going to use nonlethal methods well before I even feel really threatened. It's if they shoot first or brandish a gun/edged weapon that unless he's about to eat a steak that knife is probably meant to do something to me...maybe make me into a steak, I don't know. But anyways yea right about there shoot him, either kill or cripple. If I owned a tazer I'd probably fire it off first chance I got and I wouldn't give a warning. I'd let the police sort that out (I don't know if I would stay or run because you get one shot with those things =\). But all I got is this pepper spray.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
Your gun makes any given robber more likely, not less likely, to shoot you. The stats in the paper shows this very clearly.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're claiming that someone who posses a weapon, has a higher chance of being shot by a burglar? How is that data reliably collected? Can you cite this paper? I'd like to see that.
 
The Don said:
Under some circumstances this has happened in the UK. Specifically where the keys were visible and accessible.

I have a hard time understanding why someone needs unsecured weapons in their house when the house is empty.
Click to expand...

Interesting. In the UK, if someone breaks into your home, and steals your unhidden car keys, they're not responsible? Wow. Are you sure of this? Or are you talking about if you leave the keys in the vehicle?

I have a couple antique firearms that I have in shadowboxes for display. They're fully operational (if you could find ammo for them) and could be fired if ammo was added.

But I also have a handgun kept in a small safe by my bed that could be taken or broken in to, with enough time and effort.
 
Belz... said:
You added some new stuff, but why did you remove some of the stuff I put in ? You shouldn't chamber a round in there.
Click to expand...

I removed "round in the chamber" to reflect reality. If you're carrying a concealed weapon (legally of course, and properly holstered) you should carry it ready to fire. If you have to take the time to rack the slide, you're adding more time to your reaction time, which could prove to be fatal, or at minimum, make it very painful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom