# Family fights back when 3 gunmen storm their home **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203 "2013-02-23T22:07:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/121 "2013-03-02T02:50:13Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > One advantage of my modest proposal – knowing that the government was going to get their guns should deter some suicides. What’s your problem with suicide? Do you think their souls are condemned to hell or something? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/122 "2013-03-02T02:56:23Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > No deal because there’s no need. I’ll take you at your word as a Doper, regardless of my suspicions. I could mention how easy it is to fabricate a fax, but, deep down, I simply don’t care. Your experience is a single data point and, as such, is not particularly interesting. Sorry. ☹ A 30 page police report is something that wouldn’t be very easy to fabricate. I’ll just accept that you believe me, but no amount of data points would change your opinion anyway. No drugs involved at my house I can assure you. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/123 "2013-03-02T07:37:49Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I didn’t say anything about large amounts of money and large families. I do think that people who can’t afford to raise their children will be very good parents and their kids more likely to become criminals. Also I talked of birth control, not sterilization, so anyone who was on welfare for a time would only be on birth control for that time. And no they wouldn’t be forced to go on birth control, they would volunteer for it at the same time they volunteered to get on welfare. > Female birth control seems to work, but as technology applies to the men I would most certainly have them take it too if they were to get a check. Directing at towards the board of directors to those on corporate welfare sounds good to me too. I’m not to familiar with farm subsidies so won’t comment. I would accept your proposal with the caveat that even the poorest person has the right to at least one child (hell, even the Chinese will give you that much). I don’t think it will eliminate poverty, but I think it will reduce the number of children in poverty. I also think we should have pre-school and day care programs for the poor so they can go out and work. Its unreasonable to expect young mothers to be able to care for their children and earn a living at the same time. Either stop bitching about supporting these unwed mothers or provide child care. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/124 "2013-03-02T07:39:45Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > It’s not now politically possible, but I would like to see gun confiscation at the owner’s death. > > The idea of leaving your gun to someone in your will is problematic in an era of universal background checks. And not only would the ultimate recipient need a background check, so would the executor. > > The alternative is that guns get passed down generation after generation until passing into the hands of someone who definitely should not have it. Background checks could still be processed. If you don’t pass the background check, the executor would have to sell the firearm and give the heir the proceeds. > [@](#): > > One advantage of my modest proposal – knowing that the government was going to get their guns should deter some suicides. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/125 "2013-03-02T12:13:25Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > I imagine that criminals get guns from: > > 1. **Stolen from legit gun dealers** > 2. **Stolen from Government storehouses** > 3. **Stolen from private warehouses** > 4. **Stolen from private gun owners** > 5. Purchased from criminal gun dealers > 6. Smuggled from Mexico, where they were purchased from Americam operatives who lost track of them. > 7. **Stolen from other criminals.** I detect a theme. If only there was some way to eliminate the common denominator. When criminals start making their own guns, \*then \*we’re screwed. But until then, they’re getting them through the results of the efforts by the gun lobby to make guns easily accessible to everyone. Throwing more guns into the system and then being surprised when the criminals get them, too, is pretty stupid. Don’t get me wrong. I like guns. I’ve shot guns. I don’t currently have a weapon, but not because I’m afraid of them. However, I find the cries of “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” to be very disingenuous. No, if we outlaw guns, we make it harder for outlaws to \*get \*guns. The fewer guns there are, the harder they are to get. Seems like a simple concept to me.\* \*Like I said, though- when criminals can easily make their own guns, we’re all pretty much screwed. The coming technological advances in 3D printing means that anyone will be able to have pretty much any device they want. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/126 "2013-03-02T12:38:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I would accept your proposal with the caveat that even the poorest person has the right to at least one child (hell, even the Chinese will give you that much). I don’t think it will eliminate poverty, but I think it will reduce the number of children in poverty. I also think we should have pre-school and day care programs for the poor so they can go out and work. Its unreasonable to expect young mothers to be able to care for their children and earn a living at the same time. Either stop bitching about supporting these unwed mothers or provide child care. I guess that would be a start, but I think even the poorest person should get a job, and has no right at all to be raising a family they can’t afford to feed. Rather it’s a claim on my (and your) rights as we all have to work longer to pay for their kid. It’s not like our inner cities where violent crime is worst has a problem with too few people. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/127 "2013-03-02T12:41:22Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > I detect a theme. If only there was some way to eliminate the common denominator. Good idea. Let’s do something about the criminals. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/128 "2013-03-02T12:51:58Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > If someone breaks into your home, then defend yourself. I have said **repeatedly** that I support self defense. But you better be damn sure the person your shooting at is an invader. Do you disagree with that? Do you think its responsible to panic and fire off a gun into a dark room, at an unknown target? What about through a door? Do you think it might reduce accidental shootings if “responsible” gun owners verified what they were blasting away at before they pull the trigger? Or is the world just too scary? It might be a gang of thieves! Better get the AK and mow everything down! Woo hoo! _SAFTEY_ Of course we don’t want people shooting their child who came home unexpectedly and arrived in the middle of the night. You began your post with statistics about people actually breaking in and ended with “being afraid is not the same as being in danger” Once you’ve established that someone has broken in, either a home invasion such as the OP or a burglary, you can assume you and your family are in danger , even if a burgler is statistically more likely to flee. There’s no need to wait and find out if they are armed , with what, and how aggressive they are. first. So while I agree with your 1 and 2, I think the 3rd " you are at risk by their presence," is questionable. I think if you’ve established 1 and 2, then you might assume you’re at risk rather than find out the hard way. Personally I’m okay with gun ownership coming with a mandatory gun safety course. I’ve met a few gun owners who’s mental stability was questionable. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/129 "2013-03-02T13:00:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I would accept your proposal with the caveat that even the poorest person has the right to at least one child (hell, even the Chinese will give you that much). I don’t think it will eliminate poverty, but I think it will reduce the number of children in poverty. I also think we should have pre-school and day care programs for the poor so they can go out and work. Its unreasonable to expect young mothers to be able to care for their children and earn a living at the same time. Either stop bitching about supporting these unwed mothers or provide child care. There’s a new movie coming out about poverty in America. I saw the two ladies behind it interviewed in the Daily Show. They mentioned one person they met who got a job working at a food bank, helping other poor people, but then , because of income, was not elligible for food stamps and was thrust right back into the barely scraping by situation she was trying to get out of. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/130 "2013-03-02T13:02:00Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Good idea. Let’s do something about the criminals. Can we shoot them? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/131 "2013-03-02T13:38:12Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > You know the saying that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged? A cynic often started as a person who expected the best from nearly all people, but got burned too often. The flip-side argument is usually “a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested.” ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/132 "2013-03-02T14:09:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Personally I’m okay with gun ownership coming with a mandatory gun safety course. > I’ve met a few gun owners who’s mental stability was questionable. Are these two sentences supposed to be related? As for the first, in many states, there _is_ a mandatory class complete with examination at the end, at least if you want to take your gun out of the house. But since the people who run the class have an interest (monetary or ideological, I don’t have to decide) in the gun culture, it’s unlikely to weed out those who shouldn’t have a gun. Every month or two I google to see if there are any more scandalous 100 percent pass rate concealed carry classes advertising on the internet, and [I just found a new one](http://www.tac-safe.com/ladies-only-concealed-handgun-license-texas-chl/): > [@](#): > > It is conducted in a ladies-only format and is designed to be not only educational, but a fun-filled day! . . . Learning to kill people – can’t get more fun than that :smack: > [@](#): > > We can proudly boast that we have a 100% pass rate on the state Texas Concealed Handgun License (Texas CHL) proficiency test! In addition to the “shooting practical,” there is a written exam requiring a [70 percent pass rate.](http://www.txchia.org/getchl.htm) I can’t imagine any test being so easy that 100 percent of adults can legitimately get 70 percent plus on it. I Just found a web discussion [of this scandal:](http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21521) > [@](#): > > Heck I’m not even sure my test was graded.There were fifty questions on the test but it took the instructor every bit of 30 seconds to tell me I made a 100. . . . . > > I think if the antis found out how easy it was to get a gun, and how easy the marksman ship test and written tests are, I’m quite sure they would have a con-niption fit. This moderate anti thinks responsible gun owners should be more concerned about their ranks being joined by such certified sharp-shooters than by having to make do with a ten bullet magazine. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/133 "2013-03-02T18:34:50Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Did you answer my question? You want confiscation of some or all guns eventually? I am perfectly okay with people owning firearms. A vast majority of the firearms currently owned by Americans have none of the characteristics I described. Confiscation is not an answer, but putting the cost of maintaining a public contract promising that your AR15 (or any other weapon I described) is not going to end up shooting up a bunch of children in a suburban elementary school or urban elementary school should be on you. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/134 "2013-03-02T22:33:09Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > I am perfectly okay with people owning firearms. A vast majority of the firearms currently owned by Americans have none of the characteristics I described. Then what did you mean when you said “An assault weapons ban should only be the start.” > [@](#): > > Confiscation is not an answer, but putting the cost of maintaining a public contract promising that your AR15 (or any other weapon I described) is not going to end up shooting up a bunch of children in a suburban elementary school or urban elementary school should be on you. What does that mean? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/135 "2013-03-02T22:56:28Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > What is the real problem with gun violence in this country? Certainly you can’t think it’s AR15s? FWIW, think mostly the real problem with gun violence is poverty, and the illicit drug trade, and another assault weapon ban won’t fix either. Yes, because the UK, France, and Germany have no issues with poverty, high rates of unemployment among young ghetto dwellers, or criminal gangs, or an illegal drug trade. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/136 "2013-03-02T23:24:02Z")
Is it just me, or is there something inherently contradictory in believing that banning assault weapons is an infringement on people’s liberty while believing the federal government should require women on welfare to “be on birth control” isn’t? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/137 "2013-03-03T01:49:39Z")
No, it’s just you. 😉 What gets me is the NRA’s attitude of no compromise that is most likely to push moderates into the full banning and confiscation camp. As it is, [gun owners make up less than a third of Americans.](http://www.kentucky.com/2013/03/01/2531349/commentary-more-guns-but-fewer.html) If they give some they can protect the Second Amendment. All most of us are asking for is a little more responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/138 "2013-03-03T02:24:25Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Is it just me, or is there something inherently contradictory in believing that banning assault weapons is an infringement on people’s liberty while believing the federal government should require women on welfare to “be on birth control” isn’t? Not really, because welfare is voluntary. Everyone is free to work. And if you don’t want to work, you probably should not be raising a family for which you require others to feed. Does that really seem wrong to you? And would you mind answering my prior questions? I don’t want to make assumptions about your position. ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/139 "2013-03-03T02:24:36Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Is it just me, or is there something inherently contradictory in believing that banning assault weapons is an infringement on people’s liberty while believing the federal government should require women on welfare to “be on birth control” isn’t? One is in the Constitution and the other isn’t. I mean, I agree with you personally. But you can make a case. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203/140 "2013-03-03T02:29:26Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > No, it’s just you. 😉 > > What gets me is the NRA’s attitude of no compromise that is most likely to push moderates into the full banning and confiscation camp. As it is, [gun owners make up less than a third of Americans.](http://www.kentucky.com/2013/03/01/2531349/commentary-more-guns-but-fewer.html) If they give some they can protect the Second Amendment. All most of us are asking for is a little more responsibility. I think your citation is questionable. > **[Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993](https://news.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx)** > > Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993. Notice in particular the increase in guns owned by women and democrats. And for what it’s worth the recent gun grabber push is going to make this social liberal to vote republican for the first time in a long time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-fights-back-when-3-gunmen-storm-their-home/651203.md?page=8)