Concensus seems to be, hope it never happens, if it does oh well guess I’m screwed I couldn’t have actually defended myself with a gun anyhow. Maybe I can delay them long enough for other people to come with guns and rescue me.
It’s far more likely that my child would get hold of my gun and kill himself with it than my getting a chance to use it defending my family from some imaginary attacker.
So, yeah, I’m going to hope the home attack doesn’t happen, because I’m fucking goddamn well sure that I’m not going to buy a gun that my boy might kill himself (or someone else) with.
And, if that home attack DOES happen, I know exactly which motherfuckers to blame for making it so damn easy for that criminal to get his hands on a deadly weapon.
Try reading the thread again.
Guns have deflected bullets for hundreds of thousands of Americans? That’s new info. Now that I know that there is that high a chance that the bad guy will shoot in such a way as to be blocked by your gun, now I understand the purpose of them.
But, I will need a cite that guns are that effective at deflecting bullets, that this has happened hundreds of thousands of times, before I can commit to such.
The cool thing is, is that the gun doesn’t even need to be loaded to be effective at this form of defense.
No, the thread is if someone is burglarizing your home while you are there, what are you gonna do?
As I said, if they don’t have a gun, then they will be scared off just knowing that someone is home. If they do have a gun, then my having a gun is not going to be that much of a deterrent.
No, that would probably not be a good use of your time in such a situation. Good suggestion though, keep trying.
I suppose that you would refuse the demands of someone with a gun to your head, then you get to spend the last milliseconds of your life knowing that you fucked up.
No, he has it right.
It won’t, but that is precisely my point.
It’s like asking “what if your house is suddenly on fire (Hitler covered in glue somewhere in the background), do you save your child or your wife ?” (for the record, I would obviously go for my dog first). It’s mind fapping, because if you were really concerned about saving your loved ones from dying in a house fire you’d be much better served by investing in smoke detectors, and looking into building safety codes, and pondering what might cause a fire in your house and address that, and so on and so forth. All things that would be more useful than making up your mind about who to save if the fire happens RIGHT NOW.
Insisting on restricting the debate to “but what if Jason Voorhees is RIGHT BEHIND YOU as of this writing !!!” is pointless nonsense if what you’re really looking for is a reduction in the chances of you or your loved ones being harmed by a home invader. It’s great if you want to reach the conclusion that guns are awesome and needed, of course. (provided you also ignore every other scenario in which having a gun at home would produce a negative outcome. Accidents, suicide, but not just those. For example, what if your home is invaded AND your wife has silently hated your guts for a long time and seizes this choice opportunity of plausibly deniable gun murder ? Huh ? Have you thought of that ?!)
In other gun threads, I have asked gun toting advocates what they would do if they were presented with the situation of someone having had the drop on them, and having a gun to their head. They claim that they are too aware of their surroundings for that to ever happen.
So, to those who advocate that you must have a gun in order to protect your home, here’s the situation. You wake up, and there is someone standing over you and your bed, pointing what looks to be a gun directly at you or at someone you seem to love enough to share a bed with.
Do you follow their demands, or do you try to defend yourself? You may, for these purposes, have access to any gun, in any location of your house that you desire, so long as you do not claim to sleep with it pointed at the door to your bedroom.
For extra credit, consider the scenario when the home invader has a partner.
OTOH, I can’t make the sweeping changes you claim would solve the problem all by myself. Arguably, there is enough opposition to them among the general populace that they cannot be made at all, at least in my remaining lifetime. I can, and have, bought a gun, though, because I can do that and because home invasions and other violent crimes do happen.
There’s plenty of fapping going on in this thread and you’re contributing to it.
Actually no, but since responsible gun owners keep their guns locked up around kids, and teach those kids gun responsibility, the chance gets close to zero.
:rolleyes:
No one made that ridiculous assertion, and you know it.:rolleyes:
No, many crooks are NOT scared off just knowing someone is home. And I gave you cite showing a determined armed homeone has many times defeated armed attackers, even when the homeowner is outgunned and outnumbered.
Since that is exactly what the OP is- why are you posting then? That was the question posed by the Op.
You follow their orders. Unless somewhere you can get the drop on them. Like when you reach into the safe, throw out a bundle of cash, and while he is reaching for it, pull out the hidden gun and shoot him.
I have posted cites where a outgunned and outnumbered homeowner beat the home invaders. So it happens. But you know, the sound of your door being smashed in might awaken you.
But, as part of that opposition to any sort of reasonable gun control that would reduce the likelihood of criminals getting their hands on guns, you are actively preventing the problem from being solved.
So, we should not allow irresponsible gun owners to have guns? How do we determine this? Is it only something that can be determined after the kid gets ahold of the improperly secured gun and harms himself or others?
So, please tell us the sort of “reasonable gun control that would reduce the likelihood of criminals getting their hands on guns” you are talking about. Since I have supported several gun control ideas.
Many states have laws that require such.
Maybe we shoudl only allow responsible parents to have kids, so that they will give them proper nutrition, healthcare, education and vaccinations.
When you say that the gun is used as defense, I expect you to mean that it actually provides defense.
If you mean it provides a form of offensive capability to attempt to preemptively remove the threat before it can injure or kill you, you should say that, rather than to imply that it actually will in some way, actually defend you.
Not if they have a gun, no.
And those anecdotes comprise what percentage of successful attempts at fighting off armed invaders? Are those odds that you would like to take?
Do you then do as Scumpup recommends in spending the rest of your life trying to convince yourself that you did the right thing?
You mean, while he is watching you, you will try to distract him long enough to pull out your gun, make sure it is loaded and has no active safety, turn to bring your gun to bear, and pull the trigger, and hope that you can do that in the amount of time that it takes for him to pull the trigger?
I also see that you had no interest in picking up the E.C. question as to what to do in the crazy event that the home invader has a friend.
And I can also point to anecdotes of armed homeowners who were killed in their homes. Going one for one could be tedious, so I’ll just ask your opinion on which you think is more common?
Lots of things happen. It is a matter of whether or not it is likely to happen.
If someone is smashing in your door, then you have pissed off the wrong people. The more likely scenario is someone coming in through a window, or finding a way to jimmy your door open. The whole point is to be quiet and stealthy.
If you are relying on criminals smashing your door in to alert you to their presence, then you are not going to be able to react to the overwhelming vast majority of home invasions.
As if we’ve not discussed this before?
Simple one, make it mandatory that guns only be legally transferred to those who have passed a background check.
In the hodgepodge of laws that cover this, I see that the majority have no laws requiring anything of the sort, and most that do have fairly vague requirements, like “a child is likely to have access”, and a number of them that do, there is no penalty for a child getting access to a gun, so long as no death or serious injury result.
I see maybe 4 states that actually have strong protections in requiring you to keep your guns locked up in the event that you have a likelihood of children having access, and only one state that requires you to lock up your gun all the time it is not in use.
Nah, that wouldn’t work, what you are advocating for is controlling the reproductive rights of the population, acting as a gatekeeper as to who may reproduce and who may not. That would require an extremely draconian govt, and I would not recommend it.
However, asking people who have gone and had kids to be responsible, while maybe not as effective as your proposed forced sterilization policy, is much more reasonable and should result in fairly close outcomes.
Well considering the facts are that you are at least 30 times as likely to experience a home invasion as you are to have a kid injured or killed by any gun , anywhere, and about 45 times as likely to experience a home invasion than to have your kid injured by a gun in your home your claim is undeniably false.
Not to mention that for a gun in your home you have control over all contributing factors, for a home invasion you do not.
So you can drop those chances to a great many decimal places below 1 percent , beyond the great many they already stand at.
If you feel it’s not worth the risk, that’s just your feelings.
Because explaining how and expounding on why the OP is blatantly (to me) manipulative bullshit has some token worth in my opinion ?
Yes and no. Yes, because as I’ve already said, “home invasions while you’re inside the home and shouting that you are there doesn’t suffice” are really fucking rare, so you probably shouldn’t worry about that as much as you should worry about tiger attacks. Because tigers seem to be able to hold grudges, so all bets are off. Have **you **ever offended a tiger ? Think back.
No because IF you really did worry deathly about ghastly home invasions, then pressuring your congresscritters and demonstrating and lobbying for more gun control and doing every other thing I’ve mentioned would be more generally efficient than buying a gun.
But you rightly do not worry about it, because mostly it doesn’t happen (especially among people of this mostly middle-class, mostly bourgeois forum).
C to the motherfucking eye tee ee ?
Cited oh, about 8 times in this thread already.
6k kids treated for gun injuries ages 0-19
1200 killed
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/2018StateAdvocacyReport.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjbnuaDqvjgAhXvdd8KHbuJBIMQFjACegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0028lOEZgPOe-8qSZ-ARLD
1.3 million home invasions.
So actually i messed up, and misremembered.
Make that roughly 200 times as many home invasions as kids killed or injured with a gun anywhere for any reason and that would include criminal teens