ALMOST SHOT A MAN TONIGHT - LITERALLY

[MelK]

I was sitting in my study tonight when I heard something at my front door. I already knew that my family was in bed, so I retrieved my pistol before going to investigate. As I got closer to the foyer I could hear the doorknob jingling. The motion lights were on, so I was sure that someone was trying to get into the house.
I stopped at the doorway into our dining room where I had a clear view of the front door. I cocked my revolver, aimed at the door, and waited. Suddenly this swings open and this guy steps into the house. I hadn’t said anything at this point, and my heart was hammering away like a sewing machine.
I said, “Stop! What are you doing?” I didn’t yell it at him, mostly because I was too nervous to muster anything much louder than a normal tone. He looks around to see where my voice was coming from and when he saw me with a gun aimed at his face he freaked out.
He immediately dropped what looked like a gym bag and threw his hands into the air. He took his eyes off of me, ducked his head, and started bending at his knees to get into a kneeling position. I kept my aim trained on his head. He was saying, “SH*T SH*T DON’T SHOOT! OH GOD DON’T SHOOT, OH SH*T!…” So I said, “Do not move! What in the hell are you doing in my house?” At this point I was both angry and scared at the same time.
He said, “I’m here to stay with Patricia…..my Aunt Patricia…I’m from New York and I’m here for the week.” Of course, there is no Patricia here, and I told him as much. By this time, my wife had awakened and she alerted me to that fact by letting out a shrill yelp. I told her to get the phone and call the police. He continued to insist that he was here to stay with Patricia. Somewhere in there he also mentioned someone named Dan. Then it dawned on me. Dan and Patricia are my neighbors. I told Melanie to call them and ask if they were expecting company.
Dan and Patricia confirmed his story so I lowered my gun. They walked over and he finally stopped hyperventilating long enough for us to figure out what happened. Patricia had mailed him a house key in a letter a few weeks ago. At that time he wasn’t sure exactly when he’d be here, and they wanted to make sure he could get in if they were out of town (they just got back).
So he followed her directions, came to what he thought was her house, put the key in the lock, and turned the knob. Their key unlocks my door and vice versa. We have no idea how we ended up with two doorknobs with matching locks. I’m still trying to figure that one out.
Anyway, I just sat back down and I’m still somewhat shaken. He has no idea (or maybe he does) how close I came to blowing his head off when he walked in the door. His name is Kevin. He ended the night by saying, “Damn! I knew Alabama was going to be different, but I though that I’d at least get my bags unpacked before almost being killed.”
Whew. I’m still shaken. Just thought I’d share this bizarre event with you guys.

[tek]

I shot an elephant in my pajamas when I was on an African Safari.

How he got in my pajamas I'll never know /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Humble Pie]

Always shoot first, ask questions later. No exceptions.

[Lawrence Ng]

Dang.. that is scary stuff for both you and him.

[Ray Zee]

you did very well. next time make him immediately get face down and spead eagle. and tell him or you will shoot. it is his responsibility to be in the correct house. get the door closed behind him so no one else can come in during the ordeal.
also dont be too quick to let them in. better to tell them to stand back from the door or you will shoot. plan ahead for next time as it may be the real thing and he may not be submissive.

[cardcounter0]

See what happens when you hide passively in the dark waiting while someone breaks into your house like a big wuss?

You should have said something like "WHO THE HELL IS AT MY DOOR!" very loudly while the guy was still jiggling the door knob trying to get in.

A gun is your last mode of defense. You should have defenses in place, BEFORE your back is against the wall and you are forced to shoot someone.

1) Other people's keys work your doors?
2) Open your mouth. 99% of home invaders aren't going to come in if they know there is someone on the other side of the door aware of their them.
3) If they do come in, yell! holler! command!
4) If all the above fails, then plug an innocent vistor of your neighbor's right in the chest. Since you seem to be the nervous type, you might decide on a shotgun, you don't have to worry about your shaking hand ruining your aim. (Plus if it is a pump, the racking of a shell into the chamber has a real good effect, the sound alone might keep you from having to clean up major blood stains from the carpet.)

[dogmeat]

Interesting how several responders expected you to shoot first - even after reading your entire post. I probably would have shot as soon as he was in the house, and been upset for the rest of my life that I didn't wait long enough (as you did) to find out that he was an innocent man.

I suppose it's like poker. Sometimes you do what others think is wrong, but things work out for the best. Sleep well.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Michael Emery]

I cant believe everyone on here is so trigger happy. Why the hell didnt you just shout "who is it". What a wuss resorting to waiting in the corner quietly and trembling with a gun. Next time be a man and go see who's at the door.

Mike Emery

[SmileyEH]

yay guns!

-SmileyEH

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant believe everyone on here is so trigger happy. Why the hell didnt you just shout "who is it". What a wuss resorting to waiting in the corner quietly and trembling with a gun. Next time be a man and go see who's at the door.

Mike Emery

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree.

eastbay

[Sundevils21]

riiiiiiight. good idea.
So when you're opening the door(as a MAN would) what do you do the 90% of the time this isn't as innocent as it was? Probably get killed. But hey you were a MAN, lol.

If..."What a wuss resorting to waiting in the corner quietly and trembling with a gun."
has a better chance to keep me alive, I'll be a wuss and decide to live.
In the heat of battle very good job MelK.

[cardcounter0]

WOW! Where do you live? 90% of the time when you open your door it is an armed intruder?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Try to get a grip. Shooting someone is serious business.

[Punker]

Uh...get your locks changed.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
WOW! Where do you live? 90% of the time when you open your door it is an armed intruder?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Try to get a grip. Shooting someone is serious business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the OP wasn't talking about someone who KNOCKED on the door trying to sell girl scout cookies. He said it was at night when his family was in bed. The person was trying to open the door. I didn't say "come out shooting". I said that he handled the situation very well.
Still, maybe 90% is too high. Error on the side of caution when you and your family's lives may be at stake(not saying to come out shooting once again).
So you're saying if you were up late and your family was asleep, and that same situation happened. You wouldn't get your gun? Instead you would go answer the door and help them get in? WOW! I agree with how the OP and Ray Zee would handle the situation.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cant believe everyone on here is so trigger happy. Why the hell didnt you just shout "who is it". What a wuss resorting to waiting in the corner quietly and trembling with a gun. Next time be a man and go see who's at the door.

Mike Emery

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. I think you are frigging insane. This is a good example on why I think guns should be way way way harder to get. Please just sell the gun before you blow a lost pizza delivery boys head off or something.

[El Barto]

Hasn't the crime of shooting a New Yorker been reduced to a misdemeanor in the State of Alabama?

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't the crime of shooting a New Yorker been reduced to a misdemeanor in the State of Alabama?




[/ QUOTE ]

Only after you exceed your limit of two per year!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Losing all]

Someone mentioned getting your locks changed, duh. If this is a sub there's a good chance that key will open 5 or 6 doors on your block.

I think you handled the situation well. A lot of cowboys would have just wasted him after his first step into the house. the other extreme would have called 911 to come mop up their family, and maybe catch the guy.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
you did very well. next time make him immediately get face down and spead eagle. and tell him or you will shoot. it is his responsibility to be in the correct house. get the door closed behind him so no one else can come in during the ordeal.
also dont be too quick to let them in. better to tell them to stand back from the door or you will shoot. plan ahead for next time as it may be the real thing and he may not be submissive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes me think of Hold'Em. If you don't raise preflop or on the flop, you're letting all sorts of people in with weak draws.

If you wait til he's in the house looking at you, you've waited far too long. That doesn't mean shoot his face as soon as you see the white of his eyes--it means make your presence known before he gets through the door. If it was an armed intruder, you might be dead now. If you shout out, ask who's there, tell him not to enter, and get no response and the door bursts open, chances are whomever is standing there needs a bullet in the chest.

I'll also suggest some combat training and home defense courses. If you've got a gun at home, you want to be familiar and comfortable with using it, so that you're not sitting there at the table manually counting your outs on your fingers while the game timer is ticking down on you. Shooting someone is damn serious business.

[beernutz]

[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't the crime of shooting a New Yorker been reduced to a misdemeanor in the State of Alabama?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just paid the fine last time and kept it off my record.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
riiiiiiight. good idea.
So when you're opening the door(as a MAN would) what do you do the 90% of the time this isn't as innocent as it was? Probably get killed. But hey you were a MAN, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy Crap, are you kidding me! In minnesota im pretty sure the proper play is to open the door and offer him a beer and maybe a little bedtime snack. Who has armed intruders walking around all over, and who has a freakin gun in their house waiting to shoot these mythical armed intruders. WTF /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
riiiiiiight. good idea.
So when you're opening the door(as a MAN would) what do you do the 90% of the time this isn't as innocent as it was? Probably get killed. But hey you were a MAN, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy Crap, are you kidding me! In minnesota im pretty sure the proper play is to open the door and offer him a beer and maybe a little bedtime snack. Who has armed intruders walking around all over, and who has a freakin gun in their house waiting to shoot these mythical armed intruders. WTF /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my reaction throughout this thread. Glad i'm English.

'Who's there?' sure would have been my reaction and when i didn't hear a running away or it stopping i'd open the door to let my cat in.

[Sponger15SB]

Not everyone who breaks into peoples houses even when they have guns on them want to kill people, btw.

Having a gun just makes it more likely that you were gonna get shot. See but since you had one you shoulda just capped his ass for making a mistake like that and scaring you, i mean the nerve of him!

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't the crime of shooting a New Yorker been reduced to a misdemeanor in the State of Alabama?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its a credit. If you kill a yankee, you're able to get out of a DUI or another comparable crime.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]

Not everyone who breaks into peoples houses even when they have guns on them want to kill people, btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

A point most people fail to understand. Who gives a [censored] if someone steals your plasma screen TV - as long as no one gets hurt, its a lot better than stopping a robbery at the risk of someone [censored] dying.

-SmileyEH

[HDPM]

Not the best idea to post such a thing. Since you did I will say you made a lot of mistakes and are very lucky. You need some training and should seriously consider a high quality class that will discuss laws, actual shootings, and defense techniques along with training you how to use a pistol. You cocked a revolver in a defense situation which is crazy. Either it is double action and you made a grave and inexcusable error, or you have a cowboy gun and need to buy something else. You aimed it at an unknown target when you had no control over your heartbeat or voice. You are lucky. You are right that you almost shot someone. The situation could have easily gone bad and in addition to killing someone needlessly you would have given fodder to the anti-gunners because you shot someone needlessly and maybe carelessly based on your own mistakes.

I am not a pistol instructor. Don't take this post as legal advice or pistol training, neither of which can be given over the internet. Nor do I like to talk about real situations on a forum like this. But suffice it to say I had a similar incident once upon a time and handled it much differently. I even had a revolver handy, but the situation played out without the weapon ever being pointed or even displayed, and certainly not cocked and aimed at someone.


Don't mean to be rude, but I want to bluntly state that you aren't ready to point a gun at somebody. Go to a multi day training course and start studying. Please.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone who breaks into peoples houses even when they have guns on them want to kill people, btw.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm sure most don't want to kill you. Their gun is just for show. Many just want to tie you up rape your wife while you watch. I'd like to be on a level playing field, or more preferably, have a HUGE advantage over some scumbag breaking into my house.

[ QUOTE ]
Having a gun just makes it more likely that you were gonna get shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

False drivel spewed forth by anti-gun folks, sorry and no offense. False bumpersticker slogans like this are spread by "activists" all the time. Having a gun makes it more likely that you'll be able to defend yourself against potentially violent criminals insteadd of being helpless against them.

[Nemesis]

Where do you live in AL MelK? I live in Birmingham, maybe we can get together and play or something?

[USCSigma1097]

Mel,

Terrible story bro. If you are really shaken up, maybe talking to your pastor/priest will help ease your mind. Life, much like poker, is a game of decisions. You seem to have made a correct one here.

[Sundevils21]

I guess Mel, Ray, and I are crazy for wanting to protect our house/family against a(most likely) invader.
I think you did fine Mel(except for cocking the double action revolver).
The way he handled it is the best of both situations. If it's an invader he's prepared. If it's an innocent situation, then the cops figure out the details(in rare case he was able to figure out the details of the situation without the police).

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
riiiiiiight. good idea.
So when you're opening the door(as a MAN would) what do you do the 90% of the time this isn't as innocent as it was? Probably get killed. But hey you were a MAN, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy Crap, are you kidding me! In minnesota im pretty sure the proper play is to open the door and offer him a beer and maybe a little bedtime snack. Who has armed intruders walking around all over, and who has a freakin gun in their house waiting to shoot these mythical armed intruders. WTF /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

So what if it is an intruder? would you rather have a gun or not? What would you do?(help him in by opening the door then offer him some beer if he promises not to shoot you?)
(maybe if you throw in that bedtime snack...)

[Ray Zee]

just the other day someone came to the door of a person and threw gas on him and then lit it. the guy suffered lots of burns. if he had answered his door with a gun at his side he would have got gassed and the other guy wouldnt have gotten to flick his bic.
in this day and age or any, opening your door to total strangers is foolish. make them announce what they want and if it isnt what you want to hear send them away scared.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

False drivel spewed forth by anti-gun folks

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh riiiiiight.... and I suppose your "Many just want to tie you up rape your wife while you watch" is the cold hard truth?

[Wahoo91]

I am trying to decide what is scarier, the incident or the responding posts...

According to a county cop that lives in my neighborhood, unless you live in a very bad part of town you are only slightly less likely to be struck by lightning than broken into by an armed invader. Most home invasions are during the day by folks who are usually unarmed and will claim ignorance if caught (e.g. I am here to clean the home, you did not order that, oh I am so sorry!; or, I thought I heard a crying baby and wanted to make sure it was ok!).

In American suberbia there is no need for guns for home protection.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
In American suberbia there is no need for guns for home protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not specifically responding to your post but the anti-gun theme in general. I am a flaming liberal in shotgun-rack-in-the-truck Texas. I don't own a gun because I have never lived alone. My thoughts are if anyone other than you has a key to your house, you should not have a gun for safety. More likely that you'll kill someone coming home late than an intruder.

Also, I agree w/ the board that the original poster should have been vocal to stop the guy from coming inside in the first place.

However, if someone is home alone in his house and hears an intruder inside, I'm all for shooting the intruder. It's not the homeowner's responsibility to figure out if the person just wants to rob him or harm him.

If someone decides to burglarize houses for a living, he better be willing to put his life on the line for doing so.

And as a side antecdote, I have been broken into during the night. The dog scared the person away.

bwana



That being said,

[MMMMMM]

Sponger, why should the victim be required to take that chance?

If you are minding your own business in your own home, and someone breaks in, I don't believe you are more likely to get injured if you have a gun. And even if you were, it would be a chance I'd like to have some control over, rather than being at the complete mercy of an intruder.

Once in high school it was like 10:30 at night and I was home alone taking a shower on the second floor. Someone started banging on the back door and yelling a bit but I couldn't make out the words. There had been trouble in the neighborhood recently with teenage violence, and even though this was a pretty good neighborhood, the banging on the door was bizarre and unsettling. They sounded kind of rowdy or something. Then that someone outside the back door started climbing up the side of the house onto the eaves over the back door and started opening the window.

I slipped out of the shower quickly and turned out the lights and went to my room where I picked up my self-defense weapon: a handmade aboriginal spear, purchased many years ago at Lion Country Safari in Florida. It was a good 6 feet long with a big sharp metal head, and it was very, very real. It would have skewered a live bull like a brisket. I used to practice throwing it into a big oak tree in our backyard from about ten yards.

Anyway I half-shut my bedroom door and stood here poised with the spear, ready to either tell the intruder to freeze if he entered my room, and also ready to skewer him if he made an aggressive move. He didn't know anyone was home and it was fairly dark. I figured even if he had a gun I would have the drop on him if he pushed open my bedroom door. He wouldn't be doing anything dangerous to me with a spear sticking through his chest and out his back if he was carrying a weapon and it came to that. The phone was near but I didn't want to lift it because he would hear any voice. I decided if I got him covered at close range with the spear I could probably call 9/11 with my other hand.

Well he started coming down the hall towards my room and it sounded a bit odd, he was muttering something saying but I wasn't sure what. Then he turned back towards my parents' room and next thing I heard him trying to use the phone.

It turned out it was one of my best friends, who had been out parking with a girl down by the Charles River and had gotten his parent's car stuck in the mud. He was also rather intoxicated, and was trying to use the phone to get someone to help him get his father's car unstuck from the mud so he wouldn't have to tell his father what had happened.

Anyway although the whole thing shook me up a bit and got my heart racing--but I was glad I had that spear. I wouldn't have skewered anyone prematurely but it was nice to know I had it just in case.

I always figured a gun would be about the same if there was an intruder in the house. Just wait in an area like around a corner where he can't see you and when he enters the area you have him covered. That should be it; you can either pin him to the wall with it and call the police or you can shoot if he makes a threatening move at you. Much better to have the option than to be totally defenseless.

And just why should you be defenseless just because most intruders won't kill you or tie you up and rape your wife? How would you like to play poker where your opponent has all options available to him, but you can only call or fold, you can never raise. You'd be at a significant disadvantage wouldn't you. Well if an intruder is armed and you aren't you are at an even worse disadvantage than that.

Maybe you wouldn't mind being at some intruder's mercy. Go figure.

[Blarg]

In one of the neighborhoods I grew up in, everyone's house was robbed at least once every year. There are tons of neighborhoods like that.

Our house was the only one that didn't. We had pet German shepherds wandering the yard.

I'm a gun-owner too, but big dogs are much better and safer when it comes to discouraging burglars, strangers, Jehovahs witnesses and other sickos.

[BottlesOf]

If I ever had plans of going to Alabama, I just canceled them.

[Neil Stevens]

A gun is easier to secure than a dog, though. Could your dogs escape your yard and get to neighbor kids?

[Paluka]

Sorry to hear this story, but I definitely think everyone here is triggerhappy. The idea that "why should the victim have to be careful" or whatever people are saying is insane. Think about it he other way around. Your drunk teenage son accidently walks into the neighbor's house one night. Your neighbor blows him away without even yelling/asking questions/whatever. Is that really the world you want to live in? You should exercise the same sort of caution and judgement you would want exercised on you. I have probably have someone accidently come into my apartment or house 4 or 5 times in my life. Nobody has tried to kill me yet.

[morello]

My reaction to this thread -- "Glad I'm not American".

[Daxonovitch]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has tried to kill me yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can hope, can't we..? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

I have probably have someone accidently come into my apartment or house 4 or 5 times in my life. Nobody has tried to kill me yet.

I deem your sample size:

INSUFFICIENT

GoT

[turnipmonster]

I think the responding posts are much scarier. I really can't believe people think this way. although the whole killing yankees stuff is simply hilarious, lemme tellya.

--turnipmonster

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
Not the best idea to post such a thing. Since you did I will say you made a lot of mistakes and are very lucky. You need some training and should seriously consider a high quality class that will discuss laws, actual shootings, and defense techniques along with training you how to use a pistol. You cocked a revolver in a defense situation which is crazy. Either it is double action and you made a grave and inexcusable error, or you have a cowboy gun and need to buy something else. You aimed it at an unknown target when you had no control over your heartbeat or voice. You are lucky. You are right that you almost shot someone. The situation could have easily gone bad and in addition to killing someone needlessly you would have given fodder to the anti-gunners because you shot someone needlessly and maybe carelessly based on your own mistakes.

I am not a pistol instructor. Don't take this post as legal advice or pistol training, neither of which can be given over the internet. Nor do I like to talk about real situations on a forum like this. But suffice it to say I had a similar incident once upon a time and handled it much differently. I even had a revolver handy, but the situation played out without the weapon ever being pointed or even displayed, and certainly not cocked and aimed at someone.


Don't mean to be rude, but I want to bluntly state that you aren't ready to point a gun at somebody. Go to a multi day training course and start studying. Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is total nonsense. You are faulting him for preparing to defend himself? I do agree that you should have made yourself known "before" he got the door open. But, I see nothing wrong with cocking your weapon and aiming at the door.
If after demanding to know who is trying to enter the house, you do not get an acceptable response, its go time. I am not saying, start shooting, just be ready.
Maybe home invasions have never happened in the eutophia you live in, but if someone enters my house that I don't know with out my permission and doesn't have an explanation in 1/1000th of a second after that, they are getting fired at.

It's the American way.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

but if someone enters my house that I don't know with out my permission and doesn't have an explanation in 1/1000th of a second after that, they are getting fired at.

It's the American way.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that you would have blown this guy away, had you been Melk?

God some people are [censored] insane. What if you were the "intruder" and you accidentally walked into what you thought was the right house, and then you find someone is pointing a gun at you, and then could end your life right then and there.

You wouldn't be able to say "the reason i have a key and am inside your house is because my aunt who lives next door gave me a key to her house and it must work for both locks" because you'd be too busy pissing your pants.

[Michael Davis]

The 90% number posted earlier, but this was way more likely to be an intruder than some guy walking into a random house accidentally. I mean, look at the story that goes into that. House invasions are indeed rare, but not as rare as the type of thing that actually occurred here.

-Michael

[BottlesOf]

I totally agree.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but if someone enters my house that I don't know with out my permission and doesn't have an explanation in 1/1000th of a second after that, they are getting fired at.

It's the American way.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that you would have blown this guy away, had you been Melk?

God some people are [censored] insane. What if you were the "intruder" and you accidentally walked into what you thought was the right house, and then you find someone is pointing a gun at you, and then could end your life right then and there.

You wouldn't be able to say "the reason i have a key and am inside your house is because my aunt who lives next door gave me a key to her house and it must work for both locks" because you'd be too busy pissing your pants.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am clearly not insane for claiming I would defend myself in my own home.
I point out if you reread my post, that if someone was suddenly forcing their way into my house that I would arm myself and then demand in a very loud and clear manner to know who the hell it is coming in. Much like a police officer would. It would become obvious very quickly if the situation was dangerous or a mistake. Much like the original post.
You are the fool if you would allow someone to suddenly burst in your locked front door in the middle of the night and wait around to see if they are just confused or are there to hog tie your ass.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
You wouldn't be able to say "the reason i have a key and am inside your house is because my aunt who lives next door gave me a key to her house and it must work for both locks" because you'd be too busy pissing your pants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about how shooting this guy would affect people.

Would you want to be Dan and Patricia, and have to explain to your brother in New York that his son got killed because you didn't give him perfect instructions to get him to the exact right house?

Would you want to be Mel, having to live with the knowledge that you snuffed out a kid's entire future?

Would Kevin's friends in New York ever forgive the "Nutcases" in Alabama who killed their friend?

A couple years ago, a Japanese tourist was killed in Louisiana when he appeared at the wrong doorstep. This is not as uncommon as some of you think it is. The Japanese were aghast when the killer got off easy.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[You are the fool if you would allow someone to suddenly burst in your locked front door in the middle of the night

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a dude with a gym bag who fumbled with a key and made tons of noise doing it. Nobody "burst" into anything.

[Lost Wages]

You keep a loaded gun and have a motion detecting light but don't lock your door?

Lost Wages

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep a loaded gun and have a motion detecting light but don't lock your door?

Lost Wages

[/ QUOTE ]

Good job with the reading comprehension.

[tolbiny]

The dogs don't have to be vicious, they are more there for show. All they have to be is big, and and loud when someone walks up the driveway, they will scare away anyone trying to break into your house.

[tolbiny]

"This is total nonsense. You are faulting him for preparing to defend himself? I do agree that you should have made yourself known "before" he got the door open. But, I see nothing wrong with cocking your weapon and aiming at the door."

HDPM advice was spot on- he said that there is an intelligent way to handle a gun in this situation, and he feels that the poster did not choose that way. There are methods that he could have used that would not have put himself in any more danger, but would have reduced the danger for someone accidentally entering his house. What HDPM said is that he should be better prepared for such a situation, not that he shouldn't defend his home.

[z32fanatic]

[ QUOTE ]
I already knew that my family was in bed, so I retrieved my pistol before going to investigate.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the scariest part to me. You didn't know what was going on so you got out your gun?! This whole story confirms my suspicions that guns aren't really necessary in daily life. Couldn't you have done the same thing with a baseball bat or something that would not kill a person? If you had sneezed during the incident you would be serving 25-Life right now. Doesn't that worry you? Have you considered getting rid of your gun since the incident? After reading this I would be embarrassed to be A) from Alabama, and B) a member of the NRA. The next time you are lost, I hope someone puts a gun to your head and cocks it. Then we'll see how you react.

[Nemesis]

You are way over reacting z32... He was protecting his family from what he thought was an intruder... he has every right to get his gun. Like many people had said making himself known would have been more prudent, but he was a little nervous... who can blame him.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about how shooting this guy would affect people.

Would you want to be Dan and Patricia, and have to explain to your brother in New York that his son got killed because you didn't give him perfect instructions to get him to the exact right house?

Would you want to be Mel, having to live with the knowledge that you snuffed out a kid's entire future?

Would Kevin's friends in New York ever forgive the "Nutcases" in Alabama who killed their friend?

[/ QUOTE ]

killing the intruder is an extreme case.
The other extreme is he is a sicko who wants to tie you up and tortue you and your family. Or, pour gasoline all over you and light you and your family on fire like RZ's story.
Both extreme circumstances.

[turnipmonster]

what if it's one of the guy's own kids who snuck out of the house or something? all it takes is one wrong reaction, and the guy has to live the rest of his life knowing he shot his kid.

I snuck out of the house plenty when I was a kid, lots of other kids do also. I think that's a hell of a lot more likely than somone trying to break in.

--turnipmonster

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't you have done the same thing with a baseball bat or something that would not kill a person?

[/ QUOTE ]

A. A baseball bat can kill a person
B. If the other person has a gun and you attack him, you're dead

[ QUOTE ]
After reading this I would be embarrassed to be A) from Alabama, and B) a member of the NRA.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious? does every anti-gun person feel this way about Alabama and ANYONE who is a member of the NRA? You should be embarrassed for making such a post about people from Alabama.

[ QUOTE ]
The next time you are lost, I hope someone puts a gun to your head and cocks it.

[/ QUOTE ]

very nice.

[Bob T.]

The dogs don't have to be vicious, they are more there for show. All they have to be is big, and and loud when someone walks up the driveway, they will scare away anyone trying to break into your house.

You are right. Dogs are very territorial.

I used to have two large dogs, and both of them were sweethearts. I was pretty certain, that if a burglar showed up, as long as he looked like someone who would pet and feed them, they would let them in, and show them where the dog food was kept.

A friend of mine had a package, that I needed the next day for something, so I told him that I would leave the back door unlocked, and he could leave it in the backroom. When I got home, the package was laying next to the backdoor. When I saw my friend, and asked him why, he said that the two dogs, looked like they were ready to kill him, if he opened the door, so he decided to just leave the package outside. I felt a lot better about the security of my house while I was away, after that.

[LinusKS]

You're way more likely to shoot some innocent kid, than the crazed home-invader gun-nuts spend their nights imagining.

Not saying you're a gun-nut. Just sayin.

[LinusKS]

Last night I heard three loud bangs from outside the front of the house. I could see the lights from a vehicle (but couldn't see very much, because it's a good fifty yards and lots of trees in between).

Scared the poor dog to death.


Another time some hunter in the woods behind my house threatened to shoot my dogs if he ever saw them there again.


It's high-time the government took the guns away from all the gun-nuts out there, IMO.


Btw, what do people get out of killing animals, anyway?

Is it the same feeling kids get out of torturing the neighborhood cats?

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
You are way over reacting z32... He was protecting his family from what he thought was an intruder... he has every right to get his gun. Like many people had said making himself known would have been more prudent, but he was a little nervous... who can blame him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's how I blame him, and I don't want to make it personal. The fact he was nervous is no excuse. Clearly, when you get in a situation that may require self defense, you are going to be nervous. Your heart is going to be beating 180 BPM, you will sweat, get tunnel vision, all kinds of stuff. Yeah, you are going to be nervous because all your physiological responses to life threatening danger are going to kick in. You bet it is scary and you will be nervous. And you still have to control yourself and your responses and physical movements. This is where the training and study I talked about comes in. This is why you practice a certain way, hold the weapon in certain positions etc... This is why you choose certain gear that works for you. This is why you don't cock a DA revolver. The original poster got caught in a potential situation whare just maybe he might be called upon to have an armed response. And when he was confronted with the situation he performed poorly and a lack of training and preparation - physical and mental - showed.

All of us could have more training. If you have weapons you need some practice and you need some skill. You need to think through decisions you might have to make ahead of time. You need to think about how to respond based on the law and your outlook and abilities. It is a personal thing and anybody who might use a weapon in self defense needs to do it themselves.

I am vehemently pro-gun politically. And I typically don't agree with laws forcing training on people. However, using a gun in self defense is a major decision. It is a decision that can cost you everything even if you survive. You could lose everything you have or go do hard time. So if you are going to put yourself in a spot where you will use a weapon in self defense, I think it is extremely important to have prepared for it to the degree that you can. I am not saying you have to attend every firearms school and shoot a million IDPA competitions or whatever. But until you have some idea how to handle a weapon in a very stressful situation and a working knowledge of the legal issues involved, it probably isn't a great idea to point guns at people. The original post highlighted several mistakes. I think that if the poster goes through some training and thinks about self defense issues while learning proper gun handling, particularly at well run school where legal issues are discussed, he might someday look back at the post and cringe.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to hear this story, but I definitely think everyone here is triggerhappy. The idea that "why should the victim have to be careful" or whatever people are saying is insane. Think about it he other way around. Your drunk teenage son accidently walks into the neighbor's house one night. Your neighbor blows him away without even yelling/asking questions/whatever. Is that really the world you want to live in? You should exercise the same sort of caution and judgement you would want exercised on you. I have probably have someone accidently come into my apartment or house 4 or 5 times in my life. Nobody has tried to kill me yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. But in the movies, vicious pathological thugs are always breaking into peoples' homes and doing all sorts of terrible things to them.

Don't you watch the movies?

[Ray Zee]

yea certainly he shouldnt have cocked the revolver. but the person was in his house. did i say in his house. plus he didnt shoot the guy, he just was prepared to do so if the guy reacted in such a way as to threaten his safety. this isnt about shooting your kid that comes home late, its strictly defending your home against a person illegally coming inside, not knowing whether his intentions are to kill or hurt you, just rob you, or is just a mistake. i would find out while he was still outside. and have a gun ready there as well. having a gun ready is prudent and not dangerous. what is dangerous is finding yourself alone with a criminal who has seen you and may not have an easy retreat. or does not intend to retreat.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I already knew that my family was in bed, so I retrieved my pistol before going to investigate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the scariest part to me. You didn't know what was going on so you got out your gun?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think it's smart to wait to see if it's an armed burgular and THEN run back to the bedroom to get the gun?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I am vehemently pro-gun politically. And I typically don't agree with laws forcing training on people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity, why don't you favor laws forcing training on people? Better training will minimize accidents.

[HDPM]

We don't have laws requiring you to get training to exercise basic human and constitutional rights. There are not laws requiring training before you vote, read, write, go to church, have sex, refuse a police search, etc.... I think people would be advised to have knowledge about these matters before exercising their rights, but there must be no government requirement to undergo government approved training before doing so. I think many other constitutionally protected activities cause problems, i.e. going to church or having kids, but we should never require education before doing these things. Although education drastically affects how people go about exercising those rights. IOW, many things done wrong cause harm, but we still have a right to do them according to our ability level. Owning a gun is an absolute human right and a constitutional right. It must not be limited by laws requiring training, although I think getting it is a very good idea. The day a class is required, the government can and will slowly shrink the pool of people allowed to exercise their basic rights.

[jedi]

Okay, that's a fine reply, but what if the states themselves mandated the training? Is that encroaching on the constitution?

[Sponger15SB]

You forgot to add getting a drivers license. I mean, if you oppose gun control on those premises' then you must be in favor of letting stuff like this happen (http://www.maconch.com/articles/2004/10/07/news/news1.txt)

Also I'd just like to add the last time I voted, read, wrote, went to church, or had sex nobody died.

[Neil Stevens]

I don't think it's the business of people to go looking for loopholes through the Constitution in order to take away rights. The 9th amendment would seem to prohibit it, anyway.

[fnurt]

In general, the rights in the Bill of Rights apply with equal force to the federal and state goverments, even though the text of the amendments only speaks to "Congress." Mind you, I don't think any court has ever declared gun safety classes unconstitutional.

No constitutional right is an absolute. Each and every one of them is subject to some type of reasonable regulation in the name of public safety, like how you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Should a violent ex-felon be allowed to own a gun? How about a mentally incompetent person? Certainly everyone agrees that the line should be drawn somewhere.

I'm not advocating mandatory gun safety courses, I'm just commenting on the constitutionality of it all. I don't think you can compare it to rights like freedom of religion, anyway, since it's hard to imagine a course on "responsible churchgoing."

[HDPM]

Lots of people have died based on how voting goes. Lots of people have sex and bear children when they ought not and people can die or suffer because of it. Ever see the results? How many people have died based on crazy religious beliefs? You are kidding yourself if you don't think all kinds of misery is caused by legal, but irresponsibly done, activity. So I think it is better to exercise your First Amendment rights by reading quality materials than going to a church where you drink cyanide and try to catch the next comet. But I sure don't want the government to issue reading licenses. The results of such regulation are found throughout history.

[Sponger15SB]

Ok. so..... what is your point?

[HDPM]

Well, I think I could come up with a pretty good curriculum for a responsible churchgoing class. /images/graemlins/smile.gif It would be unconstitutional to make people go to it tho.

There is a big difference between limiting rights based on prior conduct or prohibiting certain conduct and licensing. You can prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowd, just as you can prohibit murder with a firearm. You can also punish the behavior. But it is wrong to make people get a license before speaking in public. Felons can have their rights taken away. It is another thing entirely to make people get permission from the government to exercise a right that was designed to protect them from that very government. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with deer hunting. It is the same thing as making people get a license before they can assert a privacy interest in their homes or effects for 4th Amendment purposes.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
in this day and age or any, opening your door to total strangers is foolish. make them announce what they want and if it isnt what you want to hear send them away scared.




[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Ray.

I live in a neighborhood with its share of Mexican gangbangers, and often have my door knocked on. I come to the door and say, "Who is it?" while looking through the peephole.

Sometimes, people hear me walk up to the door, and then duck out of the way of the peephole or step aside so I can't see them.

I tell them, "Look, buddy, if you think I'm going to open up the door to some stranger trying to hide from me so I can't see who he is, forget it." Sometimes they don't move for a while, hoping I'll change my mind and open the door out of curiosity. I won't. Other times they just wander away grimacing.

The way I look at it, there's no significant positive outcome from being careless or trusting of strangers. In a country of hundreds of millions of people, it's absurd not to think there are some of them who would be happy to rob you, hurt you, kill you, or all three. If you live in most of the neighborhoods I've grown up in, you know for a fact there are plenty of those guys not far away.

It's extremely hard for people to visualize or empathize with things they have no experience with, and regarding violence it is often almost possible. Violence plays and has played no part in the lives of many tens of millions of Americans. I'm always surprised when I meet yet one more person who says he never got in a fight in his life, but they're out there. And like everyone else, they tend to take their own experience as indicative of the norm.

Unfortunately, in the real world we're subject to surprise, to terrible luck, and to other people, not just the best of them. Life and loved ones are too precious to trust to chance and the whim and mercy of criminals.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

Also I'd just like to add the last time I voted, read,
wrote, went to church, or had sex nobody died.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but that's because no one was threatening you at the time.

The original poster clearly felt threatened by an unknown. There might have been an armed burglar/rapist/murderer at the other end of the door. He didn't know. If that were the case, and he didn't have his gun, it's a catastrophe. If it's not the case and he does have his gun, then what happened, happened. I seriously can't understand people who think defending one's home is wrong.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's the business of people to go looking for loopholes through the Constitution in order to take away rights. The 9th amendment would seem to prohibit it, anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

One, I'm not looking for any loopholes. Two, I'm defintely not trying to take away rights. I'm trying to find the balance between safety/training and gun ownership here.

The only other way I can see this working is if we heavily taxed firearm purchases, then gave out rebates to people who took a safety course.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
A gun is easier to secure than a dog, though. Could your dogs escape your yard and get to neighbor kids?


[/ QUOTE ]

Our dogs were German Shepherds, not pit bulls. They were pets, though ordinarily defensive like all dogs. Most dogs are not at all violent, and much depends on genetics and the way they are raised. If you're getting a pit bull that has been bred for psychotic violence it's one thing; having a well-bred dog of another type that is raised properly, as a family pet and well-acquainted with children and people, it's entirely different.

I doubt many people have ever had dogs with access to a yard that haven't gotten out of it and roamed around sometimes. It virtually never comes to anything, but it is something to be careful of. If your fence needs mending, fix it. Don't lean things against walls that makes it easy for your dog to climb on to get a boost over a wall. Elementary precautions for thinking people.

A gun is easier to secure as you say, but if you have a family, not that easy to get to in a hurry. I'm a gun owner myself and grew up shooting guns with my family and friends. I enjoy them and have yet to meet a single friend, even the most slogan-crazed or fearful, who hasn't actually wound up having a great time when I took them to a firing range for a few hours. The scales fell from their eyes. But for all their virtues, guns doesn't advertise the way dogs do. A dog barking or growling when you step into a yard is absolutely terrifying to most people, long before the decision to bring out a gun comes up. A dog is an extremely effective deterrent.

Plus, not many people want to steal a growling dog out of your yard. But if people know you own a gun, there are definitely those who will have a renewed and more vigorous interest in robbing your home, just to get the gun.

The best combination is a very visible dog and nobody knowing you have a gun to steal.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
This was a dude with a gym bag who fumbled with a key and made tons of noise doing it. Nobody "burst" into anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Addicts don't care, and they are all over the place. Dangerous drunks and punk kids acting out aren't always the silent type. Even criminals are not necessarily always sly and professional -- that's why so many of them go to jail time after time, never learning their lessons. Serial killers extremely often start out by stealing women's underwear, nothing more, as part of testing their boundaries and feeding their neuroses.

A gym bag proves nothing, fumbling proves nothing. There is absolutely no way to tell if a guy is a crook or dangerous by his appearance, and whether he's smooth as silk or a total bumbler doesn't give any definitive information either.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The dogs don't have to be vicious, they are more there for show. All they have to be is big, and and loud when someone walks up the driveway, they will scare away anyone trying to break into your house.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

There are guys who would walk through fire to get into your house, and guys who will walk right up to someone with a gun and try to get it away from him, and be successful, too. Some guys in prison actually practice that kind of thing. An athletic, skilled, or just hyped up person can cover 10 feet extremely quickly, before your senses can both perceive and you can then react, and getting your weapon taken away from you is a very real possibility. Happens to cops all the time, and they handle crooks for a living.

But a lot of people who would jump a guy with a gun wouldn't come anywhere near a big growling dog. No way, no how.

Dogs are visceral in their impact on people. Just their aggressive barking can reduce some people to tears and make others literally wet their pants. The fear they can generate can have almost a superstitious impact on many people, as if the dogs were outright monsters.

As a deterrent, they really can't be beat. And they don't need to be pitbulls or whatever inbred crazed dog is in vogue; they just have to be big and loud. Almost without exception, a criminal would prefer to rob, kill, or rape someone else, or just go home, than try to fight his way through dogs and then confront an alerted owner. Even a crazed psychotic junkie knows better than that.

[fnurt]

I understand you think it is exactly the same as making someone get a license to have a private home, but it isn't. You think your right is absolute, and so does the guy who wants to hold a protest without getting a permit to use the public streets. The fact is that the courts allow reasonable regulations of these constitutional rights.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading this I would be embarrassed to be A) from Alabama, and B) a member of the NRA

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it seems clear that would be your opinion before ever reading this post.

[ QUOTE ]
This whole story confirms my suspicions that guns aren't really necessary in daily life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daily life? You're correct there. But if this guy really had his house invaded "daily," then you wouldn't be.

[ QUOTE ]
If you had sneezed during the incident you would be serving 25-Life right now

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

[ QUOTE ]
The next time you are lost, I hope someone puts a gun to your head and cocks it. Then we'll see how you react.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be vindictive, without empathy, and very volatile. I can't imagine who I would trust less with a gun in his hand, or with any responsibility in any kind of crisis or difficult situation.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I snuck out of the house plenty when I was a kid, lots of other kids do also. I think that's a hell of a lot more likely than somone trying to break in.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did too. Too many times to count. My dad never shot me once.

Too late now, Dad, I moved out! Just kidding. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[HDPM]

I understand the courts allow regulations on various rights in various ways. Sometimes they are reasonable ones. And sometimes reasonable ones are constitutional. The courts are not infallible. See Plessy. For difinitive answers which will always be totally correct, please get me appointed to the Supreme Court. I'd be cool with a lifetime appointment. You might not be able to say my opinions were the law, but it would be beyond question that they would be what the law ought to be.:D

Not that people would call me Old Eight-One or anything. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Moyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Last night I heard three loud bangs from outside the front of the house. I could see the lights from a vehicle (but couldn't see very much, because it's a good fifty yards and lots of trees in between).

Scared the poor dog to death.


Another time some hunter in the woods behind my house threatened to shoot my dogs if he ever saw them there again.


It's high-time the government took the guns away from all the gun-nuts out there, IMO.


Btw, what do people get out of killing animals, anyway?

Is it the same feeling kids get out of torturing the neighborhood cats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Yeah. Great argument there. You want our governemnt to ban guns and hunting because you're worried about your "poor dog".

It sounds to me like your dogs were trespassing on someone else's property and could've been shot on sight(legally). The hunter was probably doing you a favor by giving you fair warning.

[Blarg]

Careful. It's legal to shoot animals on your property in many places, but laws change, and places are different. It's actually illegal to do so in some places now, and the trend is picking up speed.

And you can get in trouble for anything from discharging a firearm within city limits to cruelty to animals, which is actually a FELONY in some places, with years of jail time possible.

Gotta be very, very careful about things like this. Laws vary radically from place to place.

[carlo]

Get rid of the gun /images/graemlins/frown.gif

regards,
carlo

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last night I heard three loud bangs from outside the front of the house. I could see the lights from a vehicle (but couldn't see very much, because it's a good fifty yards and lots of trees in between).

Scared the poor dog to death.


Another time some hunter in the woods behind my house threatened to shoot my dogs if he ever saw them there again.


It's high-time the government took the guns away from all the gun-nuts out there, IMO.


Btw, what do people get out of killing animals, anyway?

Is it the same feeling kids get out of torturing the neighborhood cats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Yeah. Great argument there. You want our governemnt to ban guns and hunting because you're worried about your "poor dog".

It sounds to me like your dogs were trespassing on someone else's property and could've been shot on sight(legally). The hunter was probably doing you a favor by giving you fair warning.

[/ QUOTE ]

You tortured cats as a kid, didn't you?

[J_V]

Agreed. Triggerhappy is not the word. The actions of this poster long-ago crossed idiocy.

[David]

Here in Texas, you can legally shoot a New Yorker while he is still outside, of course then you will have to pay the penalty of buying a new front door. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif I say fvc it, I probably need a new front door anyway, shoot 'em through the door. Of course we always use shotguns loaded with buckshot in Texas. If you are using some pea shootin .38 you may have to wait for the door to open. Either way, guys gotta be shot, if not for B&E then for stupidity. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/end humor/]

[Moyer]

[ QUOTE ]
You tortured cats as a kid, didn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hit one with my car once. I was going around 75 though, so I don't think that counts.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't have laws requiring you to get training to exercise basic human and constitutional rights. There are not laws requiring training before you vote, read, write, go to church, have sex, refuse a police search, etc.... I think people would be advised to have knowledge about these matters before exercising their rights, but there must be no government requirement to undergo government approved training before doing so. I think many other constitutionally protected activities cause problems, i.e. going to church or having kids, but we should never require education before doing these things. Although education drastically affects how people go about exercising those rights. IOW, many things done wrong cause harm, but we still have a right to do them according to our ability level. Owning a gun is an absolute human right and a constitutional right. It must not be limited by laws requiring training, although I think getting it is a very good idea. The day a class is required, the government can and will slowly shrink the pool of people allowed to exercise their basic rights.




[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like a damn Libertarian! Always trying to inject common sense into your arguements!

http://www.lp.org/issues/

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[nothumb]

Having read through this thread, let me say that my opinion about your actions is most clearly stated by HDPM. I don't agree with all his subsequent posts but I think his thoughts on this matter are for the most part spot on.

Personally, I would never have a handgun for self-defense purposes. Perhaps I am untrained and swayed by all the accidental handgun deaths in this country, but there are just too many haphazard casualties stemming from handgun use and ownership for me to ever have one. If I ever find myself in a situation where I feel I need a firearm to protect myself, I will buy a shotgun. However, I do not foresee doing this in the near future.

I have had my house broken into and I have been stabbed and beaten by an unwanted intruder. It did not motivate me to buy a gun.

I really like guns, though. I have always had air rifles and pellet guns and the like. I am a damn good shot and like the feel of a gun in my hand, perhaps a little too much. I understand the fascination with guns our country has and it worries me in a visceral way. Many responsible gun owners make a clear and compelling case for gun rights, but situations like that of the OP muddy the issue severely. It is not just criminals or idiots that are involved in firearm deaths. It is ordinary, well-meaning people who are reacting in a way that society apparently holds to be, for the most part, rational. It only takes a little bad luck or a nervous twitch for a repsonsible gun owner to become a killer, however accidental it may be.

However, the numbers hold true. Your handgun is 43 times more likely to be involved in the shooting, accidental or otherwise, of your own family than it is to be used in the prevention of a crime. Since you're a decent and responsible person, and since your recent experience will probably have an impact on you, it is far more likely that your gun will not be used to kill anyone. But upwards of 40,000 people a year die by the gun in this country - something on the order of 3 or 4 every hour. Rationalize that all you want, point out how it is limited to certain demographics and regions, but that is too damn many people.

Again, the gun group has a ton of arguments against these numbers, some of which I'm sure we will hear shortly. On the surface many of them sound good, make sense. But to me this issue reveals a fundamental aspect of American society, a paranoia and distrust that for whatever reason are and have been a major element of our lives for as long as anyone can remember. It didn't happen after 9/11, or during the Cold War - it goes further back than that. For whatever reason, we have a rate of gun fatalities that more closely resembles an unstable third-world kleptocracy than an industrialized nation. Why are people comfortable with this?

I don't think gun owners are paranoid, or crazy, or anything like that. For the most part they're not. They're part of a mostly mainstream American culture (that has its fringe elements to be sure) and I have no beef with them. But I think the power of the gun lobby and the way this debate has been set up ignores the basic fact that Americans are getting shot full of holes at a rate that we simply should not accept.

NT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the numbers hold true. Your handgun is 43 times more likely to be involved in the shooting, accidental or otherwise, of your own family than it is to be used in the prevention of a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this and seriously question your source. For one thing, many (probably most) incidents where guns prevented a crime are never reported in the newspapers, and in many of those incidents of prevention nobody even got shot; but when a family member gets shot accidentally or otherwise, it almost always does get reported.

Unless your source has some GOOD way of ascertaining how many crimes are prevented by guns, it can't very well quote a "43 times more likely" figure. And comparing news reports is NOT a valid method because as mentioned above, most incidents where guns prevent a crime go unreported. It just usually isn't that big news compared to someone getting shot and killed. Also sometimes the would-be assailant runs way. This is not even counting the deterrent effect the known or suspected presence of a gun may have.

I recall recently seeing the figure that guns prevent 400,000 crimes a year. No source, don't remember where, and it might be wrong. But if even close to true it would put the lie to your source of "43 times as likely".

By the way, I respect your decision to not own a gun even after a home invader stabbed and beat you. But if you had owned a gun when that incident occurred, do you think you could have avoioded being beaten and stabbed by virtue of having the gun? Heck you could have been killed by that stabbing and beating; you may just be lucky that your attacker stopped short of that, or that his knife missed some vital areas.

[EliteNinja]

I'm Canadian, the closest things to guns we have here are 2x4s with a nail protruding from one end.

[GWB]

The Result of Inadequate Weaponry. (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nycstab1012,0,7753986.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines)

[nothumb]

Hi M,

Good points all. Most likely the figure I was using only takes into account incidents where the gun was actually fired, and any sensible person realizes that guns deter crimes without being fired in some instances.

400,000 a year, that I don't know. Seems very hard to ascertain given your points about the lack of reporting.

My point was not so much that guns don't deter crime in some instances (they do) as that their use in this field is overrated in regards to the number of accidental deaths and crimes of passion they are used in. However, as I was pointing out to the OP, if you are a responsible person who keeps his gun locked up and doesn't kill his wife in a fit of rage, the odds are much better that it won't be used for either. That statistic is misleading if taken in the wrong light, obviously, and I've heard it tossed around irresponsibly.

NT

[Myrtle]

...............

Max is 120 lbs. of male German Shepard. Whenever anyone gets close to the front door, he barks with an spl level that will vibrate your gonads.......

Those who know us are not concerned because they "know the drill".......Those who don't are properly intimidated.

Any stranger who hears & sees Max has got to be out of their freakin mind to come any closer......

If they do, they will not like the response from Max and then me as his backup.

I don't believe he will need much backup from me & god help any stranger who even comes close to the front door when I'm not home and either my wife or daughter are...

Funny thing about good shepards.....they seem to "know" when to ratchet up their defense.

ps: I HATE handguns for exactly the reason of your story line.....way too easy to make a mistake.....a simple pull on the trigger and you've gone down a road that you can't go back. On the other hand, my 12 gauge pump does make a very scary noise when you jack a shell into the magazine.......never had to do that, hope I never have to either.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, the rights in the Bill of Rights apply with equal force to the federal and state goverments

[/ QUOTE ]

The second amendment is one that has NEVER been held to be applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment --- as of right now, the states can do what they want with gun control.

[elwoodblues]

The difference is driving isn't a Constitutional right. In fact it isn't even a right at all.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
you did very well. next time make him immediately get face down and spead eagle. and tell him or you will shoot. it is his responsibility to be in the correct house. get the door closed behind him so no one else can come in during the ordeal.
also dont be too quick to let them in. better to tell them to stand back from the door or you will shoot. plan ahead for next time as it may be the real thing and he may not be submissive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow the difference is amazing.

Regards Mack

[junkmail3]

[ QUOTE ]
In one of the neighborhoods I grew up in, everyone's house was robbed at least once every year.

...

Our house was the only one that didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like we know who the culprits were then.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess Mel, Ray, and I are crazy for wanting to protect our house/family against a(most likely) invader.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not crazy, dangerously paranoid.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess Mel, Ray, and I are crazy for wanting to protect our house/family against a(most likely) invader.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Not crazy, dangerously paranoid.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you're from England, where home invasion crimes have been rising rapidly, and are far more common than in the USA.

Ever wonder if the laws in England which make it so hard (or impossible) to legally defend one's self might be the reason home invasions and muggings have become epidemic over there? I have read that you are more likely to get mugged in London or in Toronto than in New York City. Heck Nicky G. got mugged three times in England. And you think people who care to take reasonable precautions that would allow one to defend one's self and family are "paranoid". IMO that is absolutely amazing.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

However, the numbers hold true. Your handgun is 43 times more likely to be involved in the shooting, accidental or otherwise, of your own family than it is to be used in the prevention of a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this number includes suicide by gun then. It also includes intentional shootings of family members. I don't see how this number is relevant at all. Show us the "accidental" numbers and it'll have more weight. Anyone who knows how to handle a gun won't allow it to discharge accidentally and kill someone. If someone doesn't, well then that's their fault.

I've heard some people say that if the original poster sneezed, he'd have killed the poor boy and gotten a jail sentence. How do you figure that? Where do you think he keeps his trigger finger before shooting?

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess Mel, Ray, and I are crazy for wanting to protect our house/family against a(most likely) invader.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not crazy, dangerously paranoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay I can live with paranoid. I'd rather be paranoid and have a much better chance to defend my home/family from a number of sickos out there. I guess you could create a "paranoia/chance of being violated" ratio.
Of course, this paranoia only kicks in when a strange or scary situation arises. The rest of the time we are not much more paranoid than you are.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever wonder if the laws in England which make it so hard (or impossible) to legally defend one's self might be the reason home invasions and muggings have become epidemic over there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, an epidemic. I can barely leave my computer without being mugged, the house invasions are so frequent that I just try to sleep through them now.

It's exactly this kind of language which scares people into doing something extreme with their guns.

[ QUOTE ]
I have read that you are more likely to get mugged in London or in Toronto than in New York City.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read that although the crime rate in London is higher than New York, there is more violent crime in the latter. I know which I prefer. I can't remember where I read this and it's possibly not true but it seems plausible.

[ QUOTE ]
And you think people who care to take reasonable precautions that would allow one to defend one's self and family are "paranoid". IMO that is absolutely amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster does not think people who want to take "reasonable" precuations, like a double lock and burglar alarm, are paranoid. It's a completely different culture in this country, guns are just not considered reasonable except by a tiny minority. They do not play a part of the mainstream political spectrum, even the right wing parties don't even hint at legalising them. Seriously, almost no one in the UK is going to agree with you on this, the only thing that is "amazing" is how different our cultures are in this way, given their similarity in others.

[Philuva]

Yes. B/c NYC needs more teen girls with handguns to prevent this type of thing from happening.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

However, the numbers hold true. Your handgun is 43 times more likely to be involved in the shooting, accidental or otherwise, of your own family than it is to be used in the prevention of a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this number includes suicide by gun then. It also includes intentional shootings of family members. I don't see how this number is relevant at all. Show us the "accidental" numbers and it'll have more weight. Anyone who knows how to handle a gun won't allow it to discharge accidentally and kill someone. If someone doesn't, well then that's their fault.

I've heard some people say that if the original poster sneezed, he'd have killed the poor boy and gotten a jail sentence. How do you figure that? Where do you think he keeps his trigger finger before shooting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believed he cocked the gun, in which case a sneeze could set it off. I also think there can be no doubt that having a gun in the house increases your and your familys risk of getting hurt. Finally I find Nothumbs comments about paranoia in this country to be true. Being a European living in the US it allways amazes me how worried Americans seems to be about getting hurt by other people. The assumption seems to be that strangers are out to harm you until the opposite is proven. It's puzzling to me since Americans are otherwise very friendly and hospitable, when you meet them in a social setting.

"American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control) "

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"

"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Arthur Kellermann, MD, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998)"

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I guess Mel, Ray, and I are crazy for wanting to protect our house/family against a(most likely) invader.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Not crazy, dangerously paranoid.

[/ QUOTE ]


And you're from England, where home invasion crimes have been rising rapidly, and are far more common than in the USA.

Ever wonder if the laws in England which make it so hard (or impossible) to legally defend one's self might be the reason home invasions and muggings have become epidemic over there? I have read that you are more likely to get mugged in London or in Toronto than in New York City. Heck Nicky G. got mugged three times in England. And you think people who care to take reasonable precautions that would allow one to defend one's self and family are "paranoid". IMO that is absolutely amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way. It's seems ridicoluos to argue that gun ownership prevents violent crime when the industialized nation (US) with the most privately owned guns also have one of the highest crime rates among these nations.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"

"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Arthur Kellermann, MD, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998)"

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're going to die from a gun suicide, there's nothing you can do about it, and that number just serves to bolster anti-gun advocates. That number is really meaningless. Likewise, the "22 times more likely to kill a family member" number should be adjusted for this. Suicides will happen whether or not there is a gun involved.

Statistics can be made up to prove anything. 78% of scientists know that.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess Mel, Ray, and I are crazy for wanting to protect our house/family against a(most likely) invader.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Not crazy, dangerously paranoid.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




And you're from England, where home invasion crimes have been rising rapidly, and are far more common than in the USA.

Ever wonder if the laws in England which make it so hard (or impossible) to legally defend one's self might be the reason home invasions and muggings have become epidemic over there? I have read that you are more likely to get mugged in London or in Toronto than in New York City. Heck Nicky G. got mugged three times in England. And you think people who care to take reasonable precautions that would allow one to defend one's self and family are "paranoid". IMO that is absolutely amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed however how many of these 'home invasion crimes' are perpetrated by people carrying firearms, I suggest it is almost certainly less than 0.1%. Also I am allowed to protect my home by reasonable force, which could include shooting someone in some circumstances, I agree some people have fallen foul of the law when reacting in panic situations, but those are much rarer than you think. I can hit an intruder with a heavy blunt instrument if my intention is not to kill him and the force used is deemed reasonable. I don't think I could live with myself if I shot someone even if he was trying to rob me, I support your right to defend your home and family by whatever means you feel is necessary, why glory in killing though.

Regards Mack

PS Saying dangerously paranoid was overkill, apologies.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed however how many of these 'home invasion crimes' are perpetrated by people carrying firearms, I suggest it is almost certainly less than 0.1%. Also I am allowed to protect my home by reasonable force, which could include shooting someone in some circumstances, I agree some people have fallen foul of the law when reacting in panic situations, but those are much rarer than you think. I can hit an intruder with a heavy blunt instrument if my intention is not to kill him and the force used is deemed reasonable. I don't think I could live with myself if I shot someone even if he was trying to rob me, I support your right to defend your home and family by whatever means you feel is necessary, why glory in killing though.

Regards Mack


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd still feel safer having a gun and using it at a distance, rather than being forced to go close combat with a heavy blunt instrument.

By the way, what do you think "reasonable force" is when defending your home against an intruder?

[toots]

Fascinating.

I'm a gun owner. I own what most would call an "assault rifle," although I like to think of it as a semi-automatic high powered plinker with a pistol grip. I keep the gun unloaded, disassembled, with the bolt/firing pin assembly well away from the gun itself. I do not want the stupid thing to ever be used outside of a shooting range.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood, and the chances of me being involved in a violent crime are so small that the only thing I could achieve by owning a gun for "protection" would be proving myself to be clinically paranoid.

Yeah, I'm fairly likely to have my home broken into and robbed at some point in time. In fact, I've had that happen. But, I do not fear being killed, raped, or maimed in my own home, simply because I take a greater risk driving to/from work every day. And I'd much rather deal with a post-robbery insurance claim than have to live with myself after shooting anyone, even a scumbag.

If I lived in a "rough" neighborhood, I might be more inclined to have a "protection" piece. I can see arming when there's a real tangible danger.

I know quite a few people who own "protection" guns, and a significant subset of them also have concealed carry permits (and do so). The crazy thing is that none of them are ever in any area where they'd be in any significant risk (that is, greater than the risk of driving there) that would warrant their use.

By contrast, most of the people I've known who live in neighborhoods where I might want to own a good-housekeeping Mossberg are also the same people who are least likely to be the type to own a firearm.

And here, I'm fascinated with the apparent correlation: that the people who are in the least day-to-day danger fear it the most, at least to hear all the worries of being tied up and forced to watch their families being raped.

Personally, I don't want to see RTBA "outlawed" without repealing the 2nd any more than I'd like to see the right to free speech outlawed without repealing the 1st. Both are just trying to do an end-run around what we thought were written into our bill of rights.

But I do question people who, in the face of virtually no danger, spend so much of their lives in fear. Seems to me that addressing the fear is a heck of a lot more constructive than trying to outlaw the symptoms.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"

"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Arthur Kellermann, MD, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998)"

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're going to die from a gun suicide, there's nothing you can do about it, and that number just serves to bolster anti-gun advocates. That number is really meaningless. Likewise, the "22 times more likely to kill a family member" number should be adjusted for this. Suicides will happen whether or not there is a gun involved.

Statistics can be made up to prove anything. 78% of scientists know that.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. So let's say that if we remove all suicides, killings by convicted fellons etc. and find out that a gun in the house is only 3 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder; it's still -LE (Life Expectancy) to own a gun. To say that statistics and probability doesn't matter will reduce poker to a break even event and put most insurance companies out of buisness.

[mackthefork]

Reasonable force has no legal definition, every situation is different and the merits of the case are evaluated based on previous cases etc. e.g. Tony Martin an old farmer in a rural area was constantly burgled by young travellers, one night he shot one of them a young 16 year old boy, I believe he was imprisoned for life which was then reduced to 5 years for man slaughter, because the kid was trying to get out the window when he fired. Lots of other examples but that one sticks to mind, as most people over here thought it was an incorrect judgement.

Regards Mack

[LinusKS]

Good post.

[ QUOTE ]

But I do question people who, in the face of virtually no danger, spend so much of their lives in fear. Seems to me that addressing the fear is a heck of a lot more constructive than trying to outlaw the symptoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way. It's seems ridicoluos to argue that gun ownership prevents violent crime when the industialized nation (US) with the most privately owned guns also have one of the highest crime rates among these nations.

[/ QUOTE ]


It now appears that the UK and Australia have surpassed the US in violent crime rates, according to a new study by Leiden University in Holland. Here is the the first article I pulled of the top of Google:

Britain, Australia top U.S.
in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

* The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

* Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

* "After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

* England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

* The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.

Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way. It's seems ridicoluos to argue that gun ownership prevents violent crime when the industialized nation (US) with the most privately owned guns also have one of the highest crime rates among these nations.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's also ridiculous to compare the rate of crimes where guns are used in a country where guns are legal to those figures in a country where nobody has a gun because guns are outright illegal or exceedingly difficult to get. It's no great accomplishment to have no shootings when you have no guns, and pretty ridiculous as a point of pride or a way to say the people in your country are any less likely to use guns. If they had the guns, they'd use them and abuse them just like everyone else.

I'm sure there are a lot more camel accidents in Arabia too than there are in America, but my guess is not that Americans are a lot more rational, skilled, and enlightened about camels, but that the disparity in camels has one hell of a lot to do with it.

And in Rwanda, they were killing 10,000 people an hour with sticks and machetes, quicker than even the Nazis ever got with it. If people want to commit violence, which they most certainly do all around the globe and always have, they're more than happy to use any weapon they can find. Eliminating guns doesn't eliminate violence; to even attempt that you'd need something like the Ludovic technique from Clockwork Orange, because you'd have to somehow tear out the core of human nature and leave only a husk behind.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd still feel safer having a gun and using it at a distance, rather than being forced to go close combat with a heavy blunt instrument.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with relying on weapons other than a gun for self-protection is that by that theory, a strong young male has vastly more of an effective right to self-defense than a weaker one, than virtually any woman, than an old man or than an old woman, and than the disabled. A young male who is a good fighter, has the advantage of surprise, and is hopped up on drugs has by far the most rights of all.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great article.

The sad thing about the above quoted materials is that ideology preempts logic in so many people that they wouldn't realize that those increases in crime weren't predictable and even inevitable.

It would be swell if human nature were something other than what it is...but it's not.

[toots]

Well, you raise an interesting point, and perhaps people differ on the answer.

Would you rather:

A) Live in a society where guns are illegal and the homicide rate is very low
B) Live in a society where guns are legal and the homicide rate is 10 times higher

... where there isn't a huge day-to-day difference in other liberties? I mean, maybe like the difference between the UK and the US.

Seems like there are tradeoffs involved. I mean, in the UK, you're less able to protect yourself, because you can't have guns as easily. Then again, you're much less likely to get killed - at least if we're to believe the homicide/100,000 statistics (and so far, I have no reason to disbelieve them). From that end, seems like it's self-fulfilling: Lower homicide rates reduce the need for defensive weaponry, whereas higher homicide rates increase the need.

On the other hand, I've been told that other crime rates, such as property crimes, are higher in the UK than the US. (I don't know the numbers, but people keep telling me that.) Is shooting, meaning crippling or killing, a reasonable response to theft? (Having been burgled in the past, I can say that my immediate reaction was that killing wasn't enough, but in the light of day, I tend to cool off a bit.)

And, I know full well that there will be lots of civil libertarians coming out of the woodwork to point out how the UK is a lot more big-brotheresque than the US, although it does seem like we've been making great strides in catching up to them in this area lately.

[TylerD]

The fact that this is perceived by so many posters as a reasonable course of action is much scarier than the story itself, IMO. Why not just say "Who's there" ffs?

[toots]

Well, that'd be far too reasonable.

Because everyone's quaking in fear that some predators are going to break in, tie people up, and force them to watch family members being raped.

Must happen all the time, 'specially south of the Mason Dixon line.

Seriously, this could well become a life- or attitude-changing experience for the guy who posted the base topic. I'd be interested to hear back from him in a few months to see if he's changed his mind on anything, one way t'other after he's had a chance to air his shorts out for a while.

[toots]

And while I'm babbling...

Once upon a time, I lived in a seedy neighborhood in a college town. A friend came over; we called Domino's for some pizza. Less than a half-hour later, the pizza guy comes a-rap-rap-rappin' at the door. Rather loudly.

My friend's immediate reaction was to tear open the zip-cord on her special holster/fanny pack, as if to pull her piece. I stopped her, with some explitive filled comment like "Jesus, it's just the pizza guy."

Ever since then, I've kid her mercilessly about pulling her .45 on the pizza boy. She didn't really have her gun out, but she was definitely going for it. She thinks I'm unfair in my teasing, since the gun was never technically fully out of the fanny pack.

This incident has always fascinated and frightened me. I mean, if she didn't have the gun, I'm sure she would have acted in some other frightened fashion. It just seemed like having the gun raised the consequences a bit.

I consider myself to be a wildly jumpy/fearful person, and I've been on my share of the wrong end of physical violence, yet this level of hypervigilance still escapes me. What frightens me is how much of it I see in this country.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever since then, I've kid her mercilessly about pulling her .45 on the pizza boy

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope your teasing doesn't make her neglect her safety in the future for the sake of not "looking foolish". She and you may regret her inattention to her safety at some point.

[Wayfare]

One of those kickass ones that shocks the perp through clothes?

I think it's just too big of a risk to shoot someone by mistake to have a gun around your house. I mean, this guy was a fumbling idiot, but you probably gave him the scare of his life. If you had shot him, wouldn't it have also caused you a lot of mental distress? It might have ruined your mental health.

No one says it's not your right to have a gun lying around, but is it worth it?

FWIW, I am fortunate enough to work in a place where there are dozens of guns around (a court house) but no one really has to worry about getting shot.

[Cosimo]

The estimates for the number of crimes prevented each year by ownership or brandishing of a gun (i.e. cases in which no gun was ever fired) go up to 2.5 million a year. 500,000 is a conservative estimate. (Gary Kleck, FSU)

2/3rds of those killed from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals. (Source: FBI) The bit about "guns are 22x more likely to kill a family member" includes murders and suicides. Accidental deaths are much, much rarer. Most quotes of studies that mention children killed by guns don't mention that "children" means up to 19 or 24 years of age.

When one studies all countries, there is no signifigant correlation between gun ownership and murder by gun.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
When one studies all countries, there is no signifigant correlation between gun ownership and murder by gun.

[/ QUOTE ] http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/miller-table.jpg
Source: Miller, T. and Cohen, M. "Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with some Canadian Comparisons. " Accid Anal Prev 1997; 29 (3): 329-41.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
When one studies all countries, there is no signifigant correlation between gun ownership and murder by gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could believe that. I do believe, however, that there is a negative correlation between murder by gun and degrees of lattitude, with a lesser correlate for population density.

Then again, the above graph's spike for NWT would seem to refute my hypothesis.

[toots]

And, by the way,

I don't necessarily buy the argument that guns cause the death. They certainly make killing easier, but for any of these murders to happen, there has to be some desire to own such a violent tool in the first place.

Seems to me that the best gun control is to convince everyone they don't want the dang things. As long as the demand is there, there'll be a supply. For that matter, the demand probably represents willingness to be violent.

It ain't the stupid guns. It's the stupid people.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Lower homicide rates reduce the need for defensive weaponry, whereas higher homicide rates increase the need.



[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your rationality about the argument, since these arguments usually come down to people flinging slogans at one another, often with little to no thinking on either side.

However, I think your logic in the above remark is fundamentally flawed.

Defensive weapons do not serve merely to protect from homicide. They protect from rape, robbery, assault, and kidnapping. And these crimes themselves very often do not happen quarantined from one another. The chance of rape and assault go up dramatically when someone has total control over another combined with opportunity. Home invasion robberies are often highly violent for no real reason, as are rapes. Elderly are often brutally beaten for reasons that have nothing to do with the successful commission of the original crimes undertaken.

The prevention of all crimes is very important, the suffering involved in crime is never trivial nor to be made light of, and even minor crimes regularly escalate when criminals have the freedom and opportunity to escalate them.

I don't agree at all that, say, robbery is in any way benign -- in fact it can be devastating both psychologically and financially, with long term consequences, even if no force was involved.

Turning your argument on its head, I would say that, as the article above notes, a decrease in gun ownership assures criminals they will have virtually free entry to any home and the freedom to commit whatever crimes they would enjoy committing while there. This freedom will naturally and inevitably be taken advantage of.

In this situation, I would feel MORE need for self-protection, not less.

A great many murders take place in terrible neighborhoods. Robbery occurs much more broadly, and so does rape. I have far more concern about being robbed or a family member being raped than about them being shot in drive-by killings, as a result of gang violence or in drug deals gone awry, or while working at a 7-11, because nobody in my family lives or works in areas where that is likely to happen. However, rape and robbery can occur anywhere, and I have known many people who have been robbed and a few who have been raped(and I'm sure quite a few more who had no interest in telling me they had been raped, too). And...both rape and robbery are stepping stones that can easily provide the opportunity and the motivation for murder.

I would feel less secure if my family couldn't defend itself except with primitive tools like sticks and knives, not more. You shouldn't have to be a young black belt to live and preserve your property, and even a black belt means absolutely nothing against a gun.

I would not feel more secure about my family's safety if they were placed completely at the mercy of whoever in the whole country of hundreds of millions of people decided they wanted illegal entry to their homes. I would rather think of my mother and sister, and my elderly father, as adequately and realistically able to defend themselves. My mom isn't going to win any fistfights, nor is my sister and my father's a little to old for that now. They deserve their lives and their peace, and frankly, if a criminal gets shot in the process of preserving same, that's a small price to pay.

Being unable to adequately defend yourself regardless of age or physical infirmity is a tragic outcome of laws trying to live people's lives for them and protect them from themselves. The increased crime rates quoted above that occur when people have no real way to defend themelves are very real needless human tragedies, well worthy of respect and not being swept under the rug.

I think it's horrifying that people think it's okay that other people give up their lives so as to prove a point.

And I find that the idea of doing so very often comes from uniquely unsympathetic people -- from people who live in secure, solidly middle class and upper class neighborhoods and who have little to worry about. Their likelihood of having to endure crime is vanishingly small. Taking away the rights of people unlike themselves is something they're entirely okay with, because they don't understand there are other worlds than their own and that other people in those worlds have exactly the same right to security that people in higher income brackets take for granted.

The last thing I want people to be asked to do is accept the crimes committed upon them as if they had no right to live any differently. People in higher income brackets probably don't need guns; they're the last people in the world who should have any say at all in what it is other people need, or to say other people's needs don't matter.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever since then, I've kid her mercilessly about pulling her .45 on the pizza boy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I hope your teasing doesn't make her neglect her safety in the future for the sake of not "looking foolish". She and you may regret her inattention to her safety at some point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't think you handled that well at all, and show a real lack of empathy with the very real concerns of others.

Have you talked at length to any women friends who have been raped? It's not funny and it's not trivial. And it's a crime that is often committed with battery, and can easily turn deadly, in the age of AIDs, without any battery even being committed.

Just like you blow off the idea of other crime, sorry, but these things are REAL. It's not something that just happens south of the Mason-Dixon line for safe middle class people to joke about. You've got to understand that just because something hasn't happened to you personally, that doesn't mean it won't and that it doesn't happen to others, or is trivial in any way. Doing so shows quite a lack of empathy.

Perhaps you might be surprised how many of your female friends have been raped. Certainly, laughing off women's fear and desire to defend themselves, and needling them endlessly so they feel bad and humiliated about it, tends to suggest that you are not the type of person who would be talked to about things like this. Maybe you don't see some things because you just don't want to see them. Your needling your friend might just be your trying to brush away your own fears as ridiculous, not hers. Me me me me me.

Crime is a figment of the imagination to some, an idea to be ridiculed. People are not.

These issues are real, for a lot of people. More than you may know.

[Neil Stevens]

That's a red herring. What's the TOTAL violent crime rate, adjusted for demography (tiny rural regions vs the US with its massive urban immigration population from poor countries is unfair for reasons irrelvant to this discussion)? That's what counts.

[rigoletto]

This is a solid control group study who indicates that having a gun in the household increases the risk of homocide in the family (regardless of neighborhood etc.).

Detailed analysis of the Kellerman study (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm)

[Blarg]

And it's completely assinine to compare gunshot death rates when comparing countries like England that essentially have no real private ownership of guns with countries that do.

It's like my camel argument in a post above. Americans don't have fewer camel accidents than people in the Middle East because they have so much more knowledge about and responsibility with camels. They just don't have any camels!

What else could the figures possibly show?

[Blarg]

So what?

All other factors being equal, how could there NOT be more homicides when it becomes a little easier? Studies like these provide nothing of value. They don't negate in the slightest the benefits of guns because they don't address them.

Drinking increases the risk of homicide in families, yet very few want to ban drinking, and very few even want to cut back on it much. Having a machete or a knife in the house increases the risk of violence or death, and so does having a baseball bat, and so does having a gun. Each of these implements can still serve a valuable purpose.

One could design a perfectly sterile environment in which people had access to fewer and fewer rights and opportunities, and their lifespan went through the roof. But who wants to live in a glass box or a totalitarian state? There comes a point at which added risk is well worth the reward. The capitalistic system is built on that premise.

Additionally, the premise that the risk is spread equally and can be profitably dealt with in the same way is a terrible one.

The world is full of dangerous and unstable people. The fact that one of them shoots his wife or her husband does not make it more likely that I will shoot mine.

Each person is an individual, not a sample size. We all have the opportunity not only to screw up, but to be responsible adults.

The supposition of much legislation and societal efforts to live our lives for us and "protect us from ourselves" is that adults cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.

This is a false and patronizing outlook. It's certainly anti-democratic in every way.

I would rather be judged innocent until proven guilty than have benevolent overlords decide I'm guilty and protect me from myself. Frankly, the people so intent on sticking their noses into everyone's business and protecting us "for our own good" are vastly more frightening than anything they're trying to protect us from.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever since then, I've kid her mercilessly about pulling her .45 on the pizza boy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I hope your teasing doesn't make her neglect her safety in the future for the sake of not "looking foolish". She and you may regret her inattention to her safety at some point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't think you handled that well at all, and show a real lack of empathy with the very real concerns of others.

Have you talked at length to any women friends who have been raped? It's not funny and it's not trivial. And it's a crime that is often committed with battery, and can easily turn deadly, in the age of AIDs, without any battery even being committed.

Just like you blow off the idea of other crime, sorry, but these things are REAL. It's not something that just happens south of the Mason-Dixon line for safe middle class people to joke about. You've got to understand that just because something hasn't happened to you personally, that doesn't mean it won't and that it doesn't happen to others, or is trivial in any way. Doing so shows quite a lack of empathy.

Perhaps you might be surprised how many of your female friends have been raped. Certainly, laughing off women's fear and desire to defend themselves, and needling them endlessly so they feel bad and humiliated about it, tends to suggest that you are not the type of person who would be talked to about things like this. Maybe you don't see some things because you just don't want to see them. Your needling your friend might just be your trying to brush away your own fears as ridiculous, not hers. Me me me me me.

Crime is a figment of the imagination to some, an idea to be ridiculed. People are not.

These issues are real, for a lot of people. More than you
may know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that's just ludicrous.

First off, if my friend had been raped, or had some other horrid experience, then I'd understand her fear. But, she grew up in an upper-class neighborhood, and has never personally suffered from any crime. She has no basis for her fear.

Even worse yet, pulling a piece just because a pizza guy knocks on the door, when you're expecting the pizza guy to knock on the door goes beyond reckless to downright dangerous. This is a huge mistake on its way to happening.

This was not a traumatized person reacting understandably to some real scary event. This is a coddled person who has never had anything real to fear, jumping at her own shadow.

I should encourage her to pull her gun every time the pizza guy knocks? That's just insane.

I have known people who've been honestly traumatized, and I'd be damned if I'd ever try to convince them not to carry. I understand that need. But, I know this woman well enough to know she ain't one of them.

And that gets me back to my central point: Someone who's been there, I understand the fear. But, I see the biggest demand for guns and needless arming against exceedingly unlikely events coming from the very people who've suffered the least such violence and who have the least cause to expect it.

In fact, it is those who have been victimized who often understand what it's really like who learn to take more reasonable and effective measures, rather than have a be afraid-or-kill reaction. For instance, they learn the swagger, instead of pulling a gun whenever the pizza boy knocks.

If anyone seriously thinks that pulling a gun on the pizza boy is something that shouldn't be discouraged... well, let me know where you live, so I won't move there.

And yeah, I have lived, a young single woman, in a bad neighborhood, where there was an unapprehended rapist on the loose. I know that fear up close and personal, even though (thank god), I didn't suffer any actual violence. I know these things happen, but you know what? It does not, could never, does not possibly, even in any stretch of the imagination, warrant pulling a gun on a pizza guy who you're expecting.

Grow up.

[rigoletto]

You either didn't read the article or you didn't comprehend any of it. All of your arguments is refuted in that article, so read it again.

[ QUOTE ]
All other factors being equal, how could there NOT be more homicides when it becomes a little easier? Studies like these provide nothing of value. They don't negate in the slightest the benefits of guns because they don't address them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a protective benefit to owning a gun, then the control group of not gun-owners should show a higher risk of getting murdered not a lower one!

[ QUOTE ]
Drinking increases the risk of homicide in families, yet very few want to ban drinking, and very few even want to cut back on it much. Having a machete or a knife in the house increases the risk of violence or death, and so does having a baseball bat, and so does having a gun. Each of these implements can still serve a valuable purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the study indicates that the guns doen't serve their purpose (protection)!

[ QUOTE ]
One could design a perfectly sterile environment in which people had access to fewer and fewer rights and opportunities, and their lifespan went through the roof. But who wants to live in a glass box or a totalitarian state? There comes a point at which added risk is well worth the reward. The capitalistic system is built on that premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again: the study implies that there is no reward in owning a gun when it comes to protection!

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the premise that the risk is spread equally and can be profitably dealt with in the same way is a terrible one.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article. The results where the same for at least 7 subgroups and it was conducted in various locations with varoius demographic chararctaristics!

[ QUOTE ]
The world is full of dangerous and unstable people. The fact that one of them shoots his wife or her husband does not make it more likely that I will shoot mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted: you could probably find subsets of people where the risk of homocide is not increased. On the other hand there are probably some of the poor guys who did shoot their wife who thought the exact same as you.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a false and patronizing outlook. It's certainly anti-democratic in every way.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is antidemocratic about science??? You could argue that you believe you get something from owning a gun that's worth the risk, fine. You could also argue the merits of the sience (as you inadequately have). But to just put on the blinders and claim that the search for facts on an issue is antidemocratic seems to be the resort of fools.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
And yeah, I have lived, a young single woman, in a bad neighborhood, where there was an unapprehended rapist on the loose. I know that fear up close and personal, even though (thank god), I didn't suffer any actual violence. I know these things happen, but you know what? It does not, could never, does not possibly, even in any stretch of the imagination, warrant pulling a gun on a pizza guy who you're expecting.

Grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can tell that a noise outside is or isn't a pizza delivery boy?

I'm not saying your friend's behavior was flawless. But yours was naive and unsympathetic.

Humiliating people because of their fear is an incredibly poor way to address it. You certainly didn't find a good way to address it. And again I think your response was more about your own fears than hers, and selfish.

Grow up yourself and learn some empathy.

And believe it or not, neither you nor your friend are the measure of all things. I deem your sample size way insufficient.

You have some growing up of your own to do.

Hopefully it will be done in the safest circumstances possible, and you'll never have to. I would hope also that others not in ideal circumstances similarly have that right.

[Elephant's Eye]

nice try troll.

[toots]

Like I said, let me know where you live, where pulling guns on an expected pizza guy is acceptable behavior. I'll steer clear.

Maybe I'll grow up, but you won't. You'll be too busy killing each other.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I thought he handled the situation very well. But I'm not as smart and brave as cardcounter0......

When I stranger enters your house unannounced, the fear factor heart must be 100 on a scale of 10....

Time to get your locks change...

[Cosimo]

I will retract my "no statistical correlation," which comes from sources which attempt to adjust for other factors, which is suspect. I haven't seen a recent study that took the named nations into account. Comparing the US with Canadian provinces, Australia, and pre-ban England, however, is very suspect. "Look, here's a country with high crime and high ownership, and another with low crime and low ownership. The two must be causally related!"

I was referring to handgun murder rate, not death by gunshot (which includes suicides). US HH% with gun ownership was around 29% in 91 as reported by the CIA, so I don't know what the difference between that study and this Miller/Cohen study. US handgun murder rate in 91 was around 5.28 per 100k, whereas it was 1.42 in Switzerland (14%) and 0.47 in Canada (5%). Switzerland, Norway, and Israel have high gun ownership and low homicide rates. Russia, Brazil, and Mexico have low ownership but extremely high homicide rates.

Since 1991, gun ownership, gun murders, and violent crime rates have changes signifigantly. England's violent crime rate has increased along with gun control.

Although correlation can be seen in a subset of countries, others defy categorization. Owning guns does not necessarily mean handgun deaths.

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a solid control group study who indicates that having a gun in the household increases the risk of homocide in the family (regardless of neighborhood etc.).

Detailed analysis of the Kellerman study (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

The study indicates that the two are associated, not that there's a causal relationship. The link posted says this:

[ QUOTE ]
[The study] does not prove that guns cause a higher murder rate in the home

[/ QUOTE ]

[hmohnphd]

Sorry, replied to wrong post.

[hmohnphd]

I hate how some people in this thread talk like the guy in the OP's post just knocked on the door late at night....Jesus Christ, the guy had already ENTERED HIS HOUSE through a LOCKED door late at night! I'd say a majority of the time that's not someone you're going to invite in for tea and scrumpets.

Obviously, as others (such as HDPM) have pointed out, the situation was not handled perfectly here, but some people here act like someone coming into their LOCKED house is an everyday occurance. I have never once had this happen to me, and if it did, I would not assume it was just someone mistakenly entering my house...

(Some people mentioned that it could be a son/daughter of the OP coming in late at night. Now THIS is actually a valid possibility, but I believe the OP never mentioned whether or not he even had any kids of this age.)

[tolbiny]

Blarg-
There really are concerns with the way the OP and the girl with the .45 handled their respective situations. I am distressed by the number of peopole who think that both of these situations involved a perfectly acceptable response. A calm response, with respect for the weapon in your hand should not endanger your saftey. As HDPM pointed out the OP could have dont several things to reduce the risk of injuring an innocent victim, and pulling out a .45 at the sound of a knock should also not be accepted as responsible behavior either. Both people have a right to defend themselves, but they should not be applauded for doing so poorly when there are a great number of resouces that would enable them to do so in a safer manner.

[MelK]

I haven't read all the replies yet. I am working on it.

The Chief of Police in my town is not a big fan of me. He thinks guns in the hands of citizens is just an increased risk of death and injury to his officers. His views seem inconsistent with most of my neighbors. From a legal perspective, the case is closed, my gun is completely legal.

The story of this incident has spread throughout the neighborhood to a very mixed reaction. Dan and Patricia are well known movers and shakers in our little town, and it seems to be more about them and their "victimized" nephew. Like here in this thread, opinions are mixed. Some people look at me strange, others are very supportive. I don't think anybody will be sneaking around my property without announcing themselves anytime soon.

I appreciate the advice from those who suggest better ways to handle this type of situation in the future, but it should be clear that most people (like me) are not going to have a perfectly thought out game plan. If I ever run into someone with a gun, I am not going to assume they are acting calmly with a good plan of action.

I don't have any regrets, I think I did the best I could in the circumstances with what knowledge I had. Although next time (if there is one) I will be better prepared. My wife is now the calmest of all, blissfully happy that all is and will be well. My home life has never been better.

I have new (and hopefully unique) locks on my door.

If I think of anything else to say, I will post more later.

[Derek in NYC]

As somebody else said, you need training. A few thoughts:

1. gunfighting tactics say you should maximize distance, minimize exposure. this means you should not have gone to answer the door as some suggested, but instead gotten to some hard cover that can stop incoming rounds, and minimized your exposure to the threat. by doing so, you retain the tactical advantage.

2. get a light and learn how to use it. low light shootings are incredibly common, and very difficult to deal with as you will lose your front sight, and have a hard time determining whether the target is shoot or no-shoot. im not talking about a mag light either. get yourself a good surefire 6P light, which is a 65 lumen high output handheld designed for police use.

3. learn how to shoot. the fact that you had to cock your revolver suggests to me you are not proficient with handguns. you need to learn how to shoot your revolver in double action mode, or you need to get yourself a semi-automatic.

4. verbalize. while some have incorrectly advised going to the door, they also said you should have verbalized. this part is true. believe it or not, you need to practice speaking when under stress--it is not natural to speak when you are focussed. among pilots, a phenomenon occurs during emergencies called "task saturation", which is where there is too much to do in too short of a decision loop, so you just freeze up. the way to avoid task saturation it to keep tasks very simple and linear. so your sentences should also be simple. "Stop. I have a gun. The police are coming." you also need to practice holding people at gunpoint.

5. get training. this is the most important thing. training will teach you about the use-of-force continuum, which defines when you can use deadly force. many people here do not understand it. this will keep you out of court, jail, etc. equally important, you will learn how to make multiple hits, quickly, under pressure, while employing a shoot/no-shoot decision making process. the best school for this is gunsite, which i have attended multiple times. www.gunsite.com. (http://www.gunsite.com.) many other excellent schools exist, however. seek them out.

overall, things turned out fine because you walked away with no extra holes, and so did your neighbor's nephew. do not count on being so lucky again.

[HDPM]

Just to be clear, when I said I had a similar situation, I meant really similar I had somebody come into my locked apartment at night. ANd it may or may not have been a truly innocent entry. I was scared and nervous. And handled it much differently. I stand by my statements that he needs training. Thanks to the Gunsite grad below for his comments as well. Might have to try to get to one of their classes someday myself.

[hmohnphd]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, when I said I had a similar situation, I meant really similar I had somebody come into my locked apartment at night. ANd it may or may not have been a truly innocent entry. I was scared and nervous. And handled it much differently. I stand by my statements that he needs training. Thanks to the Gunsite grad below for his comments as well. Might have to try to get to one of their classes someday myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I hadn't even read your post mentioning that you had had a similar experience. I had read your post about how the OP could have handled the situation better, and I agree. In my post, I was trying to refer more to the people in the thread who responded with stuff like "OMG U CRAZY REDNECK GUN FREAK! YOU CAN'T JUST PULL OUT UR GUN WHENEVER SOMEONE COMES TO THE DOOR! IT'S PROLLY JUST THE PIZZA GUY! HERE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, WHEN SOMEONES AT THE DOOR, WE DONT PULL OUT A GUN, WE ASK HIM IN FOR A DRINK!"

[CarlSpackler]

To everyone on this thread who thinks more gun control will lower the murder rate based on all of these correlation statistics, you are very wrong. At the beginning of any ‘Introduction to Statistics’ class, you learn that correlation does not equal causation. This is a very basic concept.

I’m surprised no one has brought up the following stronger statistical correlation between the murder rate and ice cream sales. This is no joke, I don’t have the exact statistics in front of me, but there is a direct correlation between the murder rate and ice cream sales. When ice cream sales increase, the murder rate in the USA also increases. The inverse relationship is also true. When ice cream sales decrease, the national murder rate decreases.

According to the logic which gun control activists are using on this thread, this means that the USA should ban ice cream to lower the murder rate. This is obviously quite ridiculous. The reason murder rate goes up when ice cream sales increase is quite simple, and neither has a direct impact on the other.

The bottom line is, in the history of humankind, guns have killed exactly zero humans. This is an irrefutable fact. If you want to lower the murder rate, you have to find the biggest, fixable true cause of the problem.

[nef]

I am glad you brought some science into the debate. I am a gun owner and support 2nd amendment rights.

Strangely enough I have a book on loan from the library that discusses this very study from NEJM in 1993.
"Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control" Kleck, Gary and Kates, Don B.

It points out several statistical flaws in the study, I will just list a few:
The study does not show any instances where the gun kept in the household was used in the crime.
There could be correlation between at-risk lifestyles and gun ownership, rather than a correlation between gun ownership and to homicide risk.

"Moreover, an unstated, unsubstantiated tacit assumption is made by the studies consistent use of the word "victim" and by the abstract's introductory statement that the article's subject is "violent crime in the home." This assumption is that the deceased was the victim of the crime. In fact, the deceased may have actually have been the attacker. The cases in which the "offender" is listed as
"police officer" (emphasis added) seem likely to fall under this misleading classification, as does even the categorization of police as "offender." p. 76

Gun ownership, the supposed risk factor being emphasized, was far from the most strongly associated with homicide.

There is actually a long discussion (maybe 10 pages). I think now I will have to get the study and read it myself.

[nef]

I think you got some good replies, with just a few people obviously making light of a serious situation.

Everyone seems to have ignored the most likely event occurring if you had fired, you would have missed! The average gunfight occurs at close range like under 15 feet with something like only 10% of shots fired actually hitting. Then you would probably be charged with aggravated discharge of a firearm or something like that.

In most states you do not have the right to use deadly force without having reason to believe you (or your family) will receive great bodily harm or be killed. You usually cannot defend your property with deadly force.

I believe that US citizens have the right to own a gun and the right to defend thesmelves with it. I also think there should be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. The Brady bill that includes a background check for firearms purchases is one of them. The assault weapons ban that recently sunset, which banned weapons for silly cosmetic reasons unrelated to their actual use in crime or lethality is an example of a waste of legislature. Something else I think is important is educating people on the laws regarding self defense with firearms. I also think their should be some sort of gun owner license where you are required to pass gun safety tests and test on the laws concerning guns in your state. I think it would help people stay out of trouble and would also provide revenue to law enforcement agencies, (of course you would be charged to register).

I own several guns, but do not keep any loaded guns in the house. I think my area is pretty low risk. However, I should (and do) have the right to my own defense, even against a very remote possibility of a threat.

[rigoletto]

You are right: corrolation in it self doesn't prove causality an argument widely used by fx. the tobacco companies when i comes to smoking and cancer. It is however legitimate to analyse your results and come up with the most plausible explanation.

The corrolation between ice cream sales and murder are linked by a third factor: heat. The theory is that people are more stressed during a heat wave and tempers run high. Sounds plausible to me.

When it comes to the NEJM study (see one of my earlier posts) it showed a strong corrolation between gun ownership and gun homocide through a multivariate anaysis that ruled out bias from 30 other variables (criminal background, alcohol etc.), so a third factor is not likely to be involved.

Another thing I usually pay attention to when it comes to evaluating statistics (I used to work in the field) is common sense. The simplest explanation is often the right one.

[rigoletto]

Hi Nef

I'm glad that somebody is willing to discuss facts rather than spewing political catch phrases.

[ QUOTE ]
The study does not show any instances where the gun kept in the household was used in the crime.


[/ QUOTE ]

The article a posted a link to earlier deals with this:

"True, the study doesn't say, but the study's findings make it logically impossible for a significant number of these guns to have been brought in from the outside. The study found that keeping a gun in the house raised the chances of gun homicide only, not any other kind of homicide. It also found that it raised the chances of being killed by a family member or intimate acquaintance, not a stranger or non-intimate acquaintance."

Besides; if the gun in the household didn't matter, why doesn't the control group showthe same rate of gun homocide?

[ QUOTE ]
There could be correlation between at-risk lifestyles and gun ownership, rather than a correlation between gun ownership and to homicide risk.


[/ QUOTE ]

The study included a control group of the same geographical make up. It also included a multivariate analysis to remove bias from factors like alcohol, criminal background, history of domestic violence etc.

[ QUOTE ]
"Moreover, an unstated, unsubstantiated tacit assumption is made by the studies consistent use of the word "victim" and by the abstract's introductory statement that the article's subject is "violent crime in the home." This assumption is that the deceased was the victim of the crime. In fact, the deceased may have actually have been the attacker. The cases in which the "offender" is listed as
"police officer" (emphasis added) seem likely to fall under this misleading classification, as does even the categorization of police as "offender." p. 76

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the moral basis of the homocide changes the conclusion one bit: the risk of homocide is 2.7 times higher in a household with a gun. Only 1% of the 'offenders' where police officers by the way.

I'm still looking for someone to show me figures that support the protective qualities of having a gun in the house.

Link to article about the study (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm)

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
There really are concerns with the way the OP and the girl with the .45 handled their respective situations. I am distressed by the number of peopole who think that both of these situations involved a perfectly acceptable response. A calm response, with respect for the weapon in your hand should not endanger your saftey. As HDPM pointed out the OP could have dont several things to reduce the risk of injuring an innocent victim, and pulling out a .45 at the sound of a knock should also not be accepted as responsible behavior either. Both people have a right to defend themselves, but they should not be applauded for doing so poorly when there are a great number of resouces that would enable them to do so in a safer manner.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that neither one of them was praiseworthy. I didn't praise either of them. But I think I can understand the fear of both, and don't ridicule either one or hold myself above them, or design at my leisure in my living room, sipping a cola with my feet up, exactly what perfect response they should have given and imply that of course I would flawlessly pull off that very strategy if I had been there at the time.

I think it's important for people not in trying circumstances themselves to be too judgmental regarding those who are. That ultimately is little more than self-worship. Neither person we've been referring to is a trained professional experienced in the business of facing violence, and even those professionals screw up all the time -- like crazy.

I've rarely met a person who wasn't perfect in principle, at least to hear them tell it. But fear does things to people, and inexperience with fear and danger multiplies it dramatically; it doesn't mean people are stupid or evil if they act in a less than ideal fashion when under great and unexpected stress.

Personally, I do think people should be required to do some qualifying and training on firearms. I've been on firing ranges many times, where there are signs all over the place warning you about how to handle your gun, and seen guys sloppily waving their loaded guns around. I just enjoy shooting targets a lot; I don't want to be the target of some idiot. People could really use firearms training badly. A gun is a HUGE responsibility. Honestly, I'm not surprised some people shoot their kids or whatever -- a great many people are flat out stupid.

I'm also the guy who advocates a dog as a first choice instead of a gun. Most people's dogs are smarter and more effective than they are in dangerous situations, and your dog isn't going to kill your own family member. It's also a very loud and visible deterrent, whereas waving your gun around is just being a nut, maybe being dangerous, and you can get arrested for it. A dog is much safer and nicer and easier for everyone concerned.

[Blarg]

You've clearly made up your mind about the matter. You're simply a flack for that crappy study, and your interest in contrary ideas is a sham.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
You've clearly made up your mind about the matter. You're simply a flack for that crappy study, and your interest in contrary ideas is a sham.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, so far I'm the only one who has introduced some facts to back up my arguments! Why don't you just do the same?

[MMMMMM]

The problem of correlation not equalling causation is more significant than it may appear at first glance.

Example: people who live in more dangerous neighborhoods may be more likely to keep a gun in the house simply because they live in a more dangerous neighborhood. So if they have increased gun deaths you don't know if that is because they own a gun or because they live in a bad neighborhood, or both, or possibly for other reasons. You don't even know if they are among those who make the neighborhood "bad".

Obviously a lot of drug dealers or gang types are going to keep a gun in the home, more often than Joe Average Law-Abiding Citizen would keep one. It is not hard to imagine that such types would be more likely to be involved in a gun death (even between familty members) than the average sort of citizen.

There are myriad other factors that may be involved as well; therefore it is important to be very cautious when presuming that correlation probably shows causation, because it often doesn't.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem of correlation not equalling causation is more significant than it may appear at first glance.

Example: people who live in more dangerous neighborhoods may be more likely to keep a gun in the house simply because they live in a more dangerous neighborhood. So if they have increased gun deaths you don't know if that is because they own a gun or because they live in a bad neighborhood, or both, or possibly for other reasons. You don't even know if they are among those who make the neighborhood "bad".

Obviously a lot of drug dealers or gang types are going to keep a gun in the home, more often than Joe Average Law-Abiding Citizen would keep one. It is not hard to imagine that such types would be more likely to be involved in a gun death (even between familty members) than the average sort of citizen.

There are myriad other factors that may be involved as well; therefore it is important to be very cautious when presuming that correlation probably shows causation, because it often doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you just read my post before answering. The NEJM study had a control group with the same demographic distribution, including types of neighborhood and it weeded out criminal background as well. I covered all this before. Details read the article I posted a link to.

If you really want to point to faults in this study, then do the homework and find out what you are talking about first. It seems that most posters in this thread just doesn't want to deal with the facts if they go against their politics.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good example on why I think guns should be way way way harder to get.

[/ QUOTE ]

there would be a lot less crime, violent or otherwise, if everyone of age were REQUIRED to show proof of firearm ownership.

cheers!

[MMMMMM]

Those examples do not show that the correlation must equal causation.

That study and link you posted are incredibly complex and involved. Really you could probably write a book analyzing it along with the rebuttals or attacks from other groups upon it.

Have you actually studied the rebuttals by the NRA or maybe by John Lott, or just read what the pro-Kellerman side had to say about those questions? If not then perhaps you are somewhat guilty of what you are accusing others of in this thread.

Just looking on Google now I see that Kellerman has been accused of numerous severe errors and even unethical practices in this study. Here is an excerpt:

"The flaws in Kellerman's study can be summarized as:

*No peer review

*No release of data has ever been made

*Sampling and bias errors:

65% of subjects in subgroups are black

Does not consider positive aspects of gun ownership by asking if the weapon was used to frighten off an intruder, or if the homicides were even justified (i.e. justifiable homicides by homeowner or police). Kellerman merely asked, "In this household where a homicide was committed, was there a gun, any gun in the house?" Kellerman intentionally limited his study group to cases where people were murdered in their own homes....
...52.7% of Kellerman's had a family member with an arrest record, 31.3% had a history of drug abuse, 31.8% had a family member hurt in a family fight. Given the above is this representative of a "typical" American household?...

....in 1996, Congress eventually stopped funding the Kellerman junk science through the CDC..."

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:CI_P8lvn0d8J:www.firearmsandliberty .com/papers-shade/StatisticalMisgivingsandLies.PDF++kellerman+study+ flaws&hl=en

[LinusKS]

You seem like a reasonable guy to me.

I'd suggest you're just overly impressed by the rhetoric of the gun-nut faction of society, and their obsession with "stranger-danger," and Hollywood's treatment of the subject.

If you look at the issue realistically, the danger of pedestrian risks, like getting run over by a car - outweighs the "maniac breaking into your home" fantasy of the gun lobby by many orders of magnitude.

I don't really care about guns. But if you fall prey to the gun-nuts' view of the world, you'll be poorer for it.

And you'll be more of a danger to the people around you.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read all the replies yet. I am working on it.

The Chief of Police in my town is not a big fan of me. He thinks guns in the hands of citizens is just an increased risk of death and injury to his officers. His views seem inconsistent with most of my neighbors. From a legal perspective, the case is closed, my gun is completely legal.

The story of this incident has spread throughout the neighborhood to a very mixed reaction. Dan and Patricia are well known movers and shakers in our little town, and it seems to be more about them and their "victimized" nephew. Like here in this thread, opinions are mixed. Some people look at me strange, others are very supportive. I don't think anybody will be sneaking around my property without announcing themselves anytime soon.

I appreciate the advice from those who suggest better ways to handle this type of situation in the future, but it should be clear that most people (like me) are not going to have a perfectly thought out game plan. If I ever run into someone with a gun, I am not going to assume they are acting calmly with a good plan of action.

I don't have any regrets, I think I did the best I could in the circumstances with what knowledge I had. Although next time (if there is one) I will be better prepared. My wife is now the calmest of all, blissfully happy that all is and will be well. My home life has never been better.

I have new (and hopefully unique) locks on my door.

If I think of anything else to say, I will post more later.

[/ QUOTE ]

[rigoletto]

First of all: The Kellerman study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine (not some political website); a peer reviewed Journal which lends a lot of credability to the study.

Secondly: the study is often accused of concluding things that it actually never concludes on. Here is the abstract of the conclusion form NEJM:

"Conclusions: The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

[ QUOTE ]
Those examples do not show that the correlation must equal causation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post on this above.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually studied the rebuttals by the NRA or maybe by John Lott, or just read what the pro-Kellerman side had to say about those questions? If not then perhaps you are somewhat guilty of what you are accusing others of in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I did read several articles critizising the study before I posted. But I also found the critisism either rebuttled or irrelevant. I did fx. read the paper you refer to and found it very biased. Fx. it uses the fact that Kellerman rejected 12.6% of the homes first included to imply that he fiddled with the material when it was in fact done to make sure that gun-owners and control groups matched. A very common thing in this kind of study. It mentions the racial make up and arrest record, but fails to mention that these factors where taken into consideration in the analysis.

I don't think the Kellerman study offers final proof of causality. I also think there it's a problem to make an extrapolation from this study to the general public, particularly because the selection is through homocide in the home and thus might represent homocide victims, but not the public at large. But it does however give some strong indications worth noting. It's in particular hard to come up with any protective qualities from owning a gun when, the control group faires so much better than the gun-owners.

[Derek in NYC]

Your pejorative reference to the "gun nut faction of society" is unconvincing. In fact, according to the US Department of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/viocrm.pdf , 5% of all households had a member of the household victimized by violence in 1992. (With violence defined as rape, robbery, assault, but EXCLUDING homicide.) Furthemore, the report states that "Americans have a greater chance of being a violent crime victim than of being injured in a motor vehicle accident."

I am unsure why you seem to believe that violence cannot find you. It happens. Random violence occurs. Other types of violence such as relationship violence occur. Firearms ownership (and training) is not the purview of a few, lone wacko rednecks in the red states.

In any event, your false analogy to pedestrian risks cuts both ways. There is a risk of being hit by a car when you cross the street; hence, we are all taught from a young age to look both ways before walking. There is a risk to fires in the home; hence we have smoke detectors. There is a risk to stranger violence; hence we are prepared to defend ourselves.

The "authorities" (read: police) will not "take care" of your problems. In most urban areas, 911 response times are between 10 and 20 minutes. When you are a victim of violence, that is a very long time to wait for help to arrive.

Take some responsibility for your own safety, because nobody is going to do it for you.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem like a reasonable guy to me.

I'd suggest you're just overly impressed by the rhetoric of the gun-nut faction of society, and their obsession with "stranger-danger," and Hollywood's treatment of the subject.

If you look at the issue realistically, the danger of pedestrian risks, like getting run over by a car - outweighs the "maniac breaking into your home" fantasy of the gun lobby by many orders of magnitude.

I don't really care about guns. But if you fall prey to the gun-nuts' view of the world, you'll be poorer for it.

And you'll be more of a danger to the people around you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can justify these comments to the original poster. He has NOT subscribed to the view of "gun-nuts" around this country. In fact, I don't think he made any political type references at all.

Look at the facts. His family was asleep and he heard someone breaking into his home. Would you rather have a gun or not? It's really that simple. He got his gun out and prepared to defend his family. Luckly, he didn't have to do it but what if he did? He'd be in a world of hurt without that gun.

The fact was that he was threatened by an unknown element. The fact that it was some idiot who couldn't follow his aunt's directions doesn't make it any less threatening at the time. Don't be so results oriented.

[LinusKS]

I was walking down the street the other day. I saw a guy walking toward me, and I went for my gun. It turned out he was just a guy walking toward me. But what if he'd been a rabid sociopath?

I'd have been in a world of hurt without my gun.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I was walking down the street the other day. I saw a guy walking toward me, and I went for my gun. It turned out he was just a guy walking toward me. But what if he'd been a rabid sociopath?

I'd have been in a world of hurt without my gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

These 2 situations aren't even close to each other.

[LinusKS]

According to the US Dept. of Justice Criminal Victimization in the US, 2002 (the latest available), http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0202.pdf, there were 4.9 million "Crimes of Violence" (table 26) in 2002.

That's a rate (based on 295 million Americans) of a little less than 2/100.

Out of that number, 2.5 million were "Simple" assaults, "Without injury". Another 845,000 were simple assualts, with "minor" injury. 3.3 million were cases where violence was "threatened" or "attempted," but not completed.

On the other hand, 42,000 Americans die every year from car accidents. Homicide (this is from memory, so correct me if I'm wrong), kills somewhere around 12,000 people a year. (It's not on the 10 leading causes of death, so it's somewhere below Septicemia, which kills 32,000.)

However, most violent crimes are committed by people that you know, not by strangers.

Going back to the DOJ report, Table 27 shows only 56.6% of acts of "completed violence" were committed by people the victim knew.

66.6% of rapes involved people the victim knew.

58% of "Assaults Aggravated With Injury" were committed by people the victim knew.

The simple fact is you're more at danger from your friends and family, than from Mr. Stranger-Danger, and the reason you never see statistics on how often a gun protects in innocent householder from the evil home invader is because it virtually never happens.

Compare that, on the other hand, to the number of times friends and family members wind up using their guns on each other, which happens all the time.

That why I avoid gun-owners.

Especially the fanatic gun-nut type.





[ QUOTE ]
Your pejorative reference to the "gun nut faction of society" is unconvincing. In fact, according to the US Department of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/viocrm.pdf , 5% of all households had a member of the household victimized by violence in 1992. (With violence defined as rape, robbery, assault, but EXCLUDING homicide.) Furthemore, the report states that "Americans have a greater chance of being a violent crime victim than of being injured in a motor vehicle accident."

I am unsure why you seem to believe that violence cannot find you. It happens. Random violence occurs. Other types of violence such as relationship violence occur. Firearms ownership (and training) is not the purview of a few, lone wacko rednecks in the red states.

In any event, your false analogy to pedestrian risks cuts both ways. There is a risk of being hit by a car when you cross the street; hence, we are all taught from a young age to look both ways before walking. There is a risk to fires in the home; hence we have smoke detectors. There is a risk to stranger violence; hence we are prepared to defend ourselves.

The "authorities" (read: police) will not "take care" of your problems. In most urban areas, 911 response times are between 10 and 20 minutes. When you are a victim of violence, that is a very long time to wait for help to arrive.

Take some responsibility for your own safety, because nobody is going to do it for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
These 2 situations aren't even close to each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. But what if he had been a rabid sociopath, intent on raping me in front of my wife.

Boy, I'd have been in a world of hurt then, huh.

Good thing I had my trusty gun.

[jedi]

When I'm walking along the street, I don't assume that anyone is out to harm me.

When I witness someone breaking into my house, the assumption is exactly the opposite.

[hmohnphd]

You are dumb.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
When I'm walking along the street, I don't assume that anyone is out to harm me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're not a lost cause, then.

[mosta]

It's good you didn't know what you were doing and tried to aim at his head. It made you much less likely to hit him.

[MMMMMM]

1. JAMA may be peer-reviewed but there apparently was no peer review of Kellerman's study. That in itself is suspect in my opinion.

2. "No release of data was ever made." WTF???? How can the study be considered even remotely credible if this is true?

3. Congress yanked Kellerman's funding in 1996.

Doesn't that sound to you like maybe there might be something WRONG with the study and with Kellerman's approach? That maybe Kellerman started out with an agenda and bent the rules to his own ends?

I've simply never heard of a widely cited study of which "no release of data was ever made." Have you?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I'm walking along the street, I don't assume that anyone is out to harm me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're not a lost cause, then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then I'm glad you agree with me that your comparing the 2 situations was ridiculous.

[rigoletto]

1) of course it was peer reviewed by NEJM, it's a strict policy of theirs. The only place i see this allegation is in the highly biased article you refer to.

2) I've have only seen this allegation in the article you refered to and it doesn't state anything about who asked for data or what the response was.

3) Funding can be discontinued for many reasons. The extremely biased article you keep refering to implies that funding was yanked because of inpropriety, but there are absolutely no documentation for that.

That same article is filled with language that implies all sorts of things without documentation and also put forward qritique that is absolutely unfounded and has been rebuttled numerous times.

You are telling me that Kellermans study is biased and then back it up with information from very partisan sources. It is so easy to discredite someone, just say often enough that they are lying and people will believe you. But if Kellermans study is so wrong why haven't anybody come up with a study to prove it? It should be easy for NRA to design an unbiased study when they are so good at pointing out the flaws in other peoples research.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone who breaks into peoples houses even when they have guns on them want to kill people, btw.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm sure most don't want to kill you. Their gun is just for show. Many just want to tie you up rape your wife while you watch. I'd like to be on a level playing field, or more preferably, have a HUGE advantage over some scumbag breaking into my house.

[ QUOTE ]
Having a gun just makes it more likely that you were gonna get shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

False drivel spewed forth by anti-gun folks, sorry and no offense. False bumpersticker slogans like this are spread by "activists" all the time. Having a gun makes it more likely that you'll be able to defend yourself against potentially violent criminals insteadd of being helpless against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

50% of people murdered by guns in the US are murdered with their own weapon. An illustrative case: a woman watched a shadowy figure approach her bed in the dark. She shot him dead. It was her husband returning from the john. I am glad I live in England.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

False drivel spewed forth by anti-gun folks

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh riiiiiight.... and I suppose your "Many just want to tie you up rape your wife while you watch" is the cold hard truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

This "outcome" needs to be avoided at all costs and it does occur so taking any precaution no matter how outlandish it may seem is worth it.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
My reaction to this thread -- "Glad I'm not American".

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My reaction to this thread -- "Glad I'm not American".

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite, I'm glad I'm an American where I can defend myself, I guess I would just be DEAD if I lived in a country that didn't allow me to defend myself.

[MMMMMM]

rig, I just pulled that one off google to raise some questions. They are very serious questions IMO but I am not motivated to research this at great length. I would suggest that maybe you check a few more sources before presuming that everything is kosher with this study.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

False drivel spewed forth by anti-gun folks

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh riiiiiight.... and I suppose your "Many just want to tie you up rape your wife while you watch" is the cold hard truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

This "outcome" needs to be avoided at all costs and it does occur so taking any precaution no matter how outlandish it may seem is worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might try just hiding under your bed.

Bad things can happen, so no matter how outlandish it may seem, it is worth it.

You'll be especially safe if you keep your assault rifle under there with you.

[bdypdx]

When you got to the door, you shoulda said, "Who's there?".

Certainly, the "intruder" would have stopped right there. But the poor guy got a gun pointed at him. He didn't deserve that.

Jeez! What would your life be like now had you shot your neighbor's nephew? I can understand your fear in the middle of the night, but man, why does a gun have to be the first option? Language is a far better tool and doesn't kill anyone.

-bdy

[greedy4chips]

I would have responded in the same manner as you!

Just one question how did you and your neighbors, Dan and Patricia, ever figure out that your keys open each other's house? Were these spec homes or at least built by the same builder within days or weeks of each other? Who chooses the exact same door knob as their neighbors, with thousands of choices out there?

If I was Dan or Patricia I would get my locks changed...

What are the odds of this happening?

Luckily for Kevin it turned out as just a draw. lol

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you just read my post before answering.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, rig, apologies for going off half-cocked on your post (if you'll pardon the pun).

[cardcounter0]

Re-read my post. hiding in the dark waiting to shoot an unknown person isn't a good way to handle anything.

Yelling, "DON'T COME IN!" and "GET AWAY FROM MY DOOR" don't really require large amounts of courage.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you just read my post before answering.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, rig, apologies for going off half-cocked on your post (if you'll pardon the pun).

[/ QUOTE ]

He he. No problem you are at least adressing the issue.

[Jim Kuhn]

I think you handled this almost perfectly! How would you sleep at night if you yelled something like 'who is it? I have a gun' and the person ran off. Your whole family would have trouble sleeping for years.

You now know the situation and your family can sleep well knowing an intruder is not trying to break into your home. Your neighbors, their friend and the builder were the irresponible parties.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you live in AL MelK? I live in Birmingham, maybe we can get together and play or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knock first.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
But a lot of people who would jump a guy with a gun wouldn't come anywhere near a big growling dog. No way, no how.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dogs are a good deterrent, but guns don't dig up the flowerbeds.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My reaction to this thread -- "Glad I'm not American".

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite, I'm glad I'm an American where I can defend myself, I guess I would just be DEAD if I lived in a country that didn't allow me to defend myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US is five times bigger than the UK in terms of population but has sixteen times as many murders.

Everyone has the right to self-defence under UK law. This can even be fatal force but it is a last resort. Moreover, we have few criminals using guns because the UK is not a country fixated with guns.

Moreover, I am glad you are an American, too.

[jakethebake]

I wish someone would take this thread out and shoot it...

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

False drivel spewed forth by anti-gun folks

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh riiiiiight.... and I suppose your "Many just want to tie you up rape your wife while you watch" is the cold hard truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

This "outcome" needs to be avoided at all costs and it does occur so taking any precaution no matter how outlandish it may seem is worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might try just hiding under your bed.

Bad things can happen, so no matter how outlandish it may seem, it is worth it.

You'll be especially safe if you keep your assault rifle under there with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only weapon I won I keep in my boxer shorts.

I was just pointing out that the downside is so big that you have to take precautions in a situation that demands it.

Since when did hiding under one's bed become an adequate response to a would-be burglar?

[MelK]

Fatal shooting deemed justified
Intruder shot in Toluca home

By Greg Stanmar


TOLUCA -- No charges will be filed in connection with the death of a Lacon man who burst into a home in the middle of the night and was shot by the homeowner.
Douglas Sullivan, 37, was shot once in the chest with a 9-mm handgun and died almost instantly, authorities said.

Marshall County State's Attorney Paul Bauer said homeowner Brad Burns was justified in shooting Sullivan with his registered handgun.

Bauer said there was no clear reason why Sullivan would have targeted the family, but initial reports said he had been drinking at a party near the Burnses' home.

Burns, his wife and 2-year-old son were in the house when Sullivan pounded on the door about 2 a.m. and then threw a child's slide through a kitchen window. Then "all hell broke loose," Bauer said.

Burns loaded his gun and found Sullivan in the main bedroom, Bauer said.

The commotion was loud enough to wake "all the neighbors" in this middle-class neighborhood of ranch-style homes across the street from Fieldcrest West Elementary School, Bauer said. Toluca is about 20 miles north of Minonk.

Bauer and Toluca Police Chief Mark Johnson said Sullivan did not know Burns.

"It's the kind of thing (the Burnses) are never going to forget," Johnson said.

The family is staying with relatives as deputies, prosecutors and investigators continue to look into the shooting.

At the time of his death, Bauer said, Sullivan faced pending charges of drunken driving and domestic battery.


Fatal shooting deemed justified (http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/102704/new_20041027030.shtml)

[MaxPower]

The New England Journal of Medicine is probably the most respected medical journal in the world and its research articles are all peer reviewed.

Although I haven't read the article in question, however I am more inclined to believe the NEJM article than firearmsandliberty.com

However, although I believe that Kellerman's findings are valid, I'm not sure that they have much bearing on 2nd amendment rights.

There are plenty of things that we have the right to do that are not good for us. If a NEJM article was published that found that freedom of speech caused homicides should we repeal the 1st Amendment. Of course not.

The reason no one can come up with evidence to show that having a gun protects you is that there is none. There is anecdotal evidence, but that is meaningless.

People in the US do have ridiculous attitudes towards guns, but I do believe that the 2nd Amendment is necessary.

I personally hate guns, I have never owned one and I hope I never will.

[MelK]

Homeowner kills man, wounds another (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2875604)

A northeast Harris County man who believed his home was about to be burglarized, shot two men standing on his porch Friday, according to the Harris County Sheriff's office.

Tyrone Bell, 20, was killed when he was shot at the house in the 1700 block of Chisholm about 2 p.m.

The homeowner, 23, told investigators he heard a noise on his front porch and saw two men. He took a shotgun and confronted them, shooting several times, according to B.E. WIlliams with the Harris County Sheriffs Department.

Bell was struck in the chest and groin. He died in surgery at Ben Taub hospital, according to Williams.

Damian Edwards, 17, fled and was found hiding in the woods with gunshot wounds to his hands. Investigators said he is expected to recover.

The man said his house had been burglarized four times.

Harris County Sheriff's Department homicide detectives are investigating the incident.

[Don_Key]

Best reply in the thread!

[CORed]

In general, I am a strong believer in science and basing decisions on facts. However, in this case, I don't care. I believe that the right of a free citezen to self defense is so important that it is worth an increased rate of sucide or homicide. Personally, I don't own a firearm. However, I would like that option to be open if I should ever feel the need to own one. Advocates of the nanny state would certainly say that saving even one life is worth giving up this freedom. I say "bullshit" freedom often reduces safety. No doubt we would have a lower crime rate if the police were allowed to indefinitely detain anybody they thought mighe be a criminal, without having to go through all the hassle of proving to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person actually comitted a crime. Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to live in a country like that, and I don't want to live in a country where I don't have the right to effective self defense.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
A. A baseball bat can kill a person
B. If the other person has a gun and you attack him, you're dead

[/ QUOTE ]
If the other person is bigger or stronger or quicker than you he may take the baseball bat away from you and injure or kill you with it. This can happen with a gun, too, but since a gun doesn't actually have to make contact with a person to wound or kill, you have a much better chance of keeping the other person from taking it away from you.

[CORed]

If you are a vegetarian, this doesn't apply, but do you think you are morally superior to hunters because you get your meat from the grocery store after somebody else kills the animal for you?

Hunting is something people did to survive for millions of years. Some of us no longer feel the need to satisfy this primal instinct. Some of us do. Personally, I'm satified with fishing, and I usually release, but occasionally kill and eat the fish I catch. If you've never experienced it, I doubt you will ever understand the pleasure of taking you own food. Somehow, picking berries, though quite pleasant, isn't the same.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
To say that statistics and probability doesn't matter will reduce poker to a break even event and put most insurance companies out of buisness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't disagree if you say this is a good argument for not owning a gun. I don't choose to own a gun at least in part because I don't want the risk of killing someone by accident or an error in judgement. However, I don't accept this as an argument for banning guns. It should also be noted that training and intelligent gun storage and handling reduce the risks substantially. One of the problems is that a lot of people who own guns store and handle them ridiculously carelessly, and fail to educate their children about gun safety. Then, when a child, often one more than old enough to know better, finds the gun in Dad's sock drawer, he ends up shooting his best friend becuase he doesn't know it's a bad idea to play with it.

I do not, however, accept that any of the above is sufficient reason to ban firearm ownership.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
your dog isn't going to kill your own family member.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love dogs, and I agree that they are probably a more effective, lower risk way of defending your home than guns, but it is not unheard of for family members to be killed by there own dogs, especially for large dogs to kill small children. I guess noting is without risk.

Also, I once had my house burglarized with a large dog inside. She was a Lab-German Shephard mix, but her personality was much more Lab than German Shephard. They probably gave her something to eat so she decided they were her friends.

[MelK]

Time to let people kill burglars in their homes, says Met chief (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/04/nmet04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/12/04/ixportal.html)

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever since then, I've kid her mercilessly about pulling her .45 on the pizza boy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I hope your teasing doesn't make her neglect her safety in the future for the sake of not "looking foolish". She and you may regret her inattention to her safety at some point.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't think you handled that well at all, and show a real lack of empathy with the very real concerns of others.

Have you talked at length to any women friends who have been raped? It's not funny and it's not trivial. And it's a crime that is often committed with battery, and can easily turn deadly, in the age of AIDs, without any battery even being committed.

Just like you blow off the idea of other crime, sorry, but these things are REAL. It's not something that just happens south of the Mason-Dixon line for safe middle class people to joke about. You've got to understand that just because something hasn't happened to you personally, that doesn't mean it won't and that it doesn't happen to others, or is trivial in any way. Doing so shows quite a lack of empathy.

Perhaps you might be surprised how many of your female friends have been raped. Certainly, laughing off women's fear and desire to defend themselves, and needling them endlessly so they feel bad and humiliated about it, tends to suggest that you are not the type of person who would be talked to about things like this. Maybe you don't see some things because you just don't want to see them. Your needling your friend might just be your trying to brush away your own fears as ridiculous, not hers. Me me me me me.

Crime is a figment of the imagination to some, an idea to be ridiculed. People are not.

These issues are real, for a lot of people. More than you may know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post Blarg. I had a friend in highschool that was a really really goody two shoe. Her entire family was one of those super nice families. Her mom was so nice some kids would actually make rude jokes about her mom. Anyway she was abducted by a man that had HIV, and he took her virginity.

[rusty JEDI]

[ QUOTE ]
just the other day someone came to the door of a person and threw gas on him and then lit it. the guy suffered lots of burns. if he had answered his door with a gun at his side he would have got gassed and the other guy wouldnt have gotten to flick his bic.
in this day and age or any, opening your door to total strangers is foolish. make them announce what they want and if it isnt what you want to hear send them away scared.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why would anyone live in such a messed up country like this.

In Canada we dont answer our doors with a gun.

rJ

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Dogs are visceral in their impact on people. Just their aggressive barking can reduce some people to tears and make others literally wet their pants. The fear they can generate can have almost a superstitious impact on many people, as if the dogs were outright monsters.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is true for sure.

one time i was paving a driveway and we were all just relaxing waiting for the hot top to show up.

the house next door had this pitbull on a really thick chain out in the yard. being the young genius i am, i thought it would be funny to take our leaf blower and blow it in the dogs face a little bit from far enough away. so me and this other guy go over, still a safe distance away, definitely out of chain reach, and i start blowing this dog in the face with the leaf blower, flapping his gums around and everything, haha... my buddy was standing next to me and just happened to be holding a shovel from work.

anyway, after not too much of that air in his face, the dog just snapped, and just went ballistic on the end of the chain. the look on the dogs face said it all, he was irate. teeth coming out and ferocious barking, the whole 9 yards. anyway me and my friend just bolted immediately hahaha. i just thought it was funny, us running away terrified me with the leaf blower and him with the shovel, when we were clearly out of reach of the dog.

[MMMMMM]

hey Daryn,

Yeah, that sounds pretty funny.

A friend of mine used to run 5 miles a day, and his route went right past a house that had a large, apparently vicious, barking dog on a chain in the yard. Every time he approached the house, the barking would start, then crescendo as he passed, then die down.

One day he was approaching the house and heard no barking. So he visually scanned for the dog as he passed the house, wondering if maybe the owners had finally gotten rid of the cur. The animal was nowhere to be seen. Next thing he knew, the dog had clamped its teeth onto his butt cheek. Fortunately he was wearing canvas shorts and was moving at a good clip so the damage somehow ended up being not too severe at all.

Damn I wish I could have been there; I would have died laughing.

[jakethebake]

This is the stupidest thread ever. LET IT DIE!!!