Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Feenix]

"Better to shoot first."

Oh dear god, that's terrifying.

 

[Joshua_B]

"Better to shoot first."

Oh dear god, that's terrifying.

It's supposed to be. If more thieves and psychos were scared of getting shot on sight, less would break in.

 

[Feenix]

No, not in that sense. You sound extremely paranoid. I wonder how many innocent people would get shot if you thought your life was in danger, whether or not it actually is.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Add to that accidental deaths due to misfiring a gun, you are safer without one.

Considering I've known people (not well, admittedly) who have been killed in home invasions... I gotta say I will take my chances on that one.

But then I do think this is a personal rights matter. If I want to keep a bayonet or a gun in my house for personal protection, that's my right.

Now if I **** up, and someone uses it against me in my home, well, that's on me.

 

[Joshua_B]

No, not in that sense. You sound extremely paranoid. I wonder how many innocent people would get shot if you thought your life was in danger, whether or not it actually is.

I'm not talking about people who drop things off and such, but total strangers trying to break down the door or get in through a window. If they pull that crap, I'll do whatever it takes to stop them.

 

[The Question]

Considering I've known people (not well, admittedly) who have been killed in home invasions... I gotta say I will take my chances on that one.

But then I do think this is a personal rights matter. If I want to keep a bayonet or a gun in my house for personal protection, that's my right.

Now if I **** up, and someone uses it against me in my home, well, that's on me.

It has less to do with a home invader using your gun on you during a robbery and more to do with the fact that, statistically speaking, a home invasion is much less likely to end in violence if the home owner doesn't brandish a weapon on the criminal. The vast majority of home invaders are looking to steal things, not kill people, and the vast majority of both thieves and private gun owners don't have the training or the experience necessary to handle an armed stand off correctly.

I'm not talking about people who drop things off and such, but total strangers trying to break down the door or get in through a window. If they pull that crap, I'll do whatever it takes to stop them.

A policy which drastically increases the likelihood of killing an innocent person due to a misunderstanding.

 

[SV Fan]

It has less to do with a home invader using your gun on you during a robbery and more to do with the fact that, statistically speaking, a home invasion is much less likely to end in violence if the home owner doesn't brandish a weapon on the criminal. The vast majority of home invaders are looking to steal things, not kill people, and the vast majority of both thieves and private gun owners don't have the training or the experience necessary to handle an armed stand off correctly.

That was my point, basically no gun increases your chances to not end up dead in a home invasion(but at the same time increases your chances of getting robbed and raped)

 

[Thundercrack85]

It has less to do with a home invader using your gun on you during a robbery and more to do with the fact that, statistically speaking, a home invasion is much less likely to end in violence if the home owner doesn't brandish a weapon on the criminal. The vast majority of home invaders are looking to steal things, not kill people, and the vast majority of both thieves and private gun owners don't have the training or the experience necessary to handle an armed stand off correctly.

Defending one's property (possessions included) is a pretty fundamental human right.

If you wish to be at the mercy of people who invade your domicile, that's your right.

 

[SV Fan]

Defending one's property (possessions included) is a pretty fundamental human right.

If you wish to be at the mercy of people who invade your domicile, that's your right.

I guess some people value their life over property but you are right it's peoples right to choose which is more important

 

[The Question]

Defending one's property (possessions included) is a pretty fundamental human right.

If you wish to be at the mercy of people who invade your domicile, that's your right.

I wasn't saying it wasn't a right.

I was saying that, statistically speaking, the method you're proposing isn't very effective and in fact puts people at a greater risk of being hurt or killed.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, there are a lot of idiots out there. Though I suppose **** does happen.

Still, if someone breaks into my house who is armed, I would like more options than calling the police, and running away (duty to retreat).

 

[The Question]

Well, there are a lot of idiots out there. Though I suppose **** does happen.

It's not about smart or stupid. It's about most people, thieves and homeowners alike, not having the training or experience necessary to know how to deal with a situation like that properly. It's about how, regardless of the intelligence of the parties involved, meeting a threat of violence with another threat of violence increases the chance of violence occurring, it does not decrease it.

Still, if someone breaks into my house who is armed, I would like more options than calling the police, and running away (duty to retreat).

Perhaps. But the fact is that ninety nine times out of a hundred, those are the vastly safer options than brandishing a weapon yourself. And that was the only point I was trying to make here today.

 

[wiegeabo]

Seems like the solution is to get training.

Improve the ability to protect oneself while reducing accidents.

 

[SV Fan]

Seems like the solution is to get training.

Improve the ability to protect oneself while reducing accidents.

No it's to play the odds and decide what is more important, life or property.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No it's to play the odds and decide what is more important, life or property.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

People in my family have had firearms forever, and several home invasions, no one (at least in the family) has ever been shot.

 

[The Question]

Seems like the solution is to get training.

Improve the ability to protect oneself while reducing accidents.

But even with training, simply brandishing a weapon during a home invasion is, in most cases, more dangerous than not doing that.

Of course, it's a case by case thing. Some situations might warrant it, others not, and it's hard to tell until you're in that situation. Alls I'm saying is that statistically it's not a good idea to pull a gun on a home invader. I can't speak for individual situations, of course.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Still, I'd rather have the option than not.

Better to have a weapon and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

[The Question]

Still, I'd rather have the option than not.

Better to have a weapon and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Again, the statistics really don't support that. You're talking about odds here, and odds are someone with a gun is more likely to get shot than someone without a gun. Having a gun and not needing it is a much more likely situation that would result in a person getting shot.

 

[Joshua_B]

A policy which drastically increases the likelihood of killing an innocent person due to a misunderstanding.

Someone trying to break down my door or smash my window isn't innocent. The best defense is a strong offense.

 

[Thundercrack85]

**** statistics?

 

[wiegeabo]

Again, the statistics really don't support that. You're talking about odds here, and odds are someone with a gun is more likely to get shot than someone without a gun. Having a gun and not needing it is a much more likely situation that would result in a person getting shot.

How about we break those statistics down between people with firearms who are trained, and people with them who aren't, that are broken into?

Because, until we can, we can't know if it was having the firearms that increased the danger, or if it was untrained people with firearms that increased it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well I do certainly believe the one about suicide. But that's just common sense. It's a pretty damn effective way to kill yourself.

But other people getting shot isn't really going to dissuade me.

Maybe if the guns had minds of their own...

 

[The Question]

Someone trying to break down my door or smash my window isn't innocent.

What if there's a fire in your building and you don't know it, and that person is a firefighter? What if it's a police officer who's bursting in because they thought they heard someone screaming? What if someone is at your front door and trips or your latch is weak and they burst in by accident? What if you have a teenage son or daughter and they invite a friend over late at night who you don't recognize in the dark?

The best defense is a strong offense.

That is demonstratively untrue.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full#ref-30

 

[wiegeabo]

What if there's a fire in your building and you don't know it, and that person is a firefighter?

Lights and sirens

What if it's a police officer who's bursting in because they thought they heard someone screaming?

Seriously?! while you're sleeping?

What if someone is at your front door and trips or your latch is weak and they burst in by accident?

Grasping at straws. The odds of successfully defending yourself greatly outweigh the odds of that happening.

What if you have a teenage son or daughter and they invite a friend over late at night who you don't recognize in the dark?

The teenager knows you have the gun, don't they?



How about this? What if someone breaks into your house to kill you and rape your wife?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, we're not all as trigger happy as Josh thankfully.