What?
If the burgler is already inside, isnt the deadbolt kind of meaningless at that point?
And once the guy is inside, to be honest I dont want him “TRAPPED” inside either.
Less than 900 posts to go. Yeah!
The advice that I had been given was that any deadbolt that was within reach of a window should be a double-key deadbolt, so that someone could not just break the window, reach in and unlock the door, and enter the home.
It had nothing to do with trapping a burglar inside.
Fair do’s. It doesn’t quite fulfill the relevance factor, but it does explain your request for a cite.
Here’s a hypothetical. Say the govt. were giving away $5,000 Home Security Improvement grants; would that money be better spent on a high tech, early-warning alarm system, or a gun?
Which one do you think should get the better insurance deal?
That much money could buy both. A typical gun suitable for home defense use is pretty inexpensive. A pump shotgun or a handgun would run somewhere between 300 and 500 dollars for something utilitarian. Less than that if you buy something used.
[quote=“billfish678, post:121, topic:484368”]
What?
If the burgler is already inside, isnt the deadbolt kind of meaningless at that point?QUOTE]
Not exactly, while I don’t want him to be able to get into the house in the first place, once he’s in, if he can’t open any doors its gonna limit what he can carry out. Not so easy to load the 40 inch plasma into the pickup outside if you can’t go through the door right? Also, somebody carrying stuff out of a house in broad daylight doesn’t really arouse much suspicion to passers by, but somebody trying to do the same through a window is sure gonna raise eyebrows.
So, as someone who should be a little familiar with the standard methods of breaking and entering, how much do you think it would cost to get the ‘average home’ secure enough to keep out all but the professional burglar?
How much do you think it would cost for the firearm training to make you feel safe in any circumstance as long as you had your gun?
Start withthis oneif it dosn’t make your head explode since it “can’t happen”.
[quote=“bengangmo, post:125, topic:484368”]
Fair enough.
But if you are worried about YOUR safety, better make darn sure that door can be opened easily in case of a fire. And, of course while you ARE home, I’d still want it to be darn easy for the thief to get out easily, because in that case I STILL dont want him “trapped” inside.
Why the heck do people think one extreme case makes any point at all?
Life is all about probabilities and likelyhoods, not the one in gazillion.
One guy got struck by lightening so many times he eventually commited suicide. So what?
I see where you are going with this. It’s the same place you went last time. Just like last time, there is no reason for you to be going there. No one in this thread, or that one, has ever advocated a gun as the sum total of personal security.
I think you will find, in fact, that the people who have guns are the ones who have multiple layers of security.
The moral of the story of course being that the .22 simply doesn’t have enough stopping power. 
Here is anotherone in a gazillion example. Funny how often they turn up.
Yeah. Funny that you could find a couple incidents that occured over a year apart in two different places in a nation of some 303,824,640 people. That is hardly compelling evidence that these things occur frequently enough to be considered anything other than anomalous.
I hope you gave his corpse a good kicking afterwards,I would have,he was just asking for it the bastard.
Some people just rush through life, begging to be killed.
Yeah, but it could have been 303,824,641. Yes, it is silly to base one’s decisions on unlikey events. Like what if someone broke into my house while I was there, and then didn’t leave when they saw I was home, and they happened to be armed, and when I called 911 they couldn’t make it fast enough, and the intruders decided to kill me rather than just take my stuff. Yeah, that kinda “what if” reasoning would be stupid.
What, exactly, was your point in linking to those stories? What epiphany should I have had from reading them? Please articulate that point clearly, and then maybe there can be some fruitful discussion of the incidents.
So
you’ve given two anti shoot em incidents.
other folks here have posted two pro shoot em incidents.
Looks about even to me.
There is no such training, I doubt anyone will feel safe holding a gun while nuclear armageddon starts outside…
However, the training that made me confident in the use of a gun was free and provided by my high school. No, no, no, I didn’t go to an inner city school 
my school had a rifle team. Before anyone touched a rifle or pistol at the beginning of the year we had to undergo safety lectures on handling, clearing, and firing the guns. One of the first rules was “don’t aim at anything you don’t intend to shoot.” Whenever anyone had a rifle they HAD to be conscious of where everyone was and where the barrel was pointed. There was zero tolerance, if you slipped once in that you were off the team.
A gun and training.
Then, people could carry it with them, and have security in and out of the house.
And have over 2,000 leftover.
Of course, I don’t want my money (read: Taxes) being spent in such a way.
Neither.