• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Firearms and home invasion/defence, split from Rants

In 2020, there were 38,680 deaths from automobile/traffic accidents
That sounds about right. And then the average number of home invasions per year was 1,030,000 between 1994 and 2010. As I said both effected a small percentage of the population. But both are something that we should try to prevent happening to us.
Technically if your house is invaded, and you have a firearm... you haven't prevented the house from being invaded.
That is true. But like having taken the Coved vaccine does not prevent me being infected, repelling home invaders prevents a more serious outcome.
Having a personal firearm *may* detour home invaders/burglars, but it can also result in your firearm being stolen or used against you or you accidentally shooting someone you did not intend to shoot. Are you prepared to take gun safety classes! Commit to safely storing any firearms in your home? Keep in mind, that means unloaded.

It’s simpler and probably more effective and possibly cheaper to have a good security system. Or dog.
 
This has become routine in Seattle. Decriminalizing drugs and a lenient justice system has eliminated fear in crinals.

My apartment biding is a routine target. A few months ago our maintenance guy was assaulted in the building. I interupted somebody trying to steal a computer from out community room. Som,ebody broke a door lock with tools and locked himself in a riomm that had a computer. When the door was opened he said he belonged in the building.

In Seattle people arrested for stealing from a store was released with no bail and went back to tye same store. Repeat felons have been released withour bail and end up killing.

A local treported looked at homeless camps u and down the coast. As a generalization he siad 30% ofitis crime related, pele use camps as a shield. 30% are really homeless. 30% have drug and mental issues.

Your guy may have mental or drug issues, or just sees your place as an easy target. It seems that people in the area know the layout of pur buildings and how to get in. They wait until the garage doors are almost closed when somebody drives out and duck in. Thy use the intercom at the door and say they forget their key or they know somebody and ask to be let in. Sometimes people do. They will run up when somebody opes the door and will go in if nobody says anything.

Somebody repeatedly targeting one business is common around here. It is bad enough that an area in downtown Seattle has lost businesses. A section on 3rd ave looks like a ghost town, excpet for the street people. Boarded up store fronts.

We also have problems with flash mob robberies. Organized online a group appears at a mall or store and run through grabbing as they go.

We stopped calling the police. There is no point. If my eyesight was better I'd get a gun. I carry pepper spray both insie and outside the buildings.

For home invasion the best defense is a simple shotgun. We have home invasions and occasional they are faced with an armed homeowner.
 
Hiding may be an option if you have a safe room that would be practically impossible to break into for the casual burglar. And depending on various factors like where you live and local police presence in your area, it may take the police tens of minutes to respond. A lot can happen in that time, and a $400 investment in a pump-action shotgun and shotgun shells, along with time at the range learning to use the weapon with a qualified instructor may be sufficient to keep you and your family safe. And with a shotgun you usually don't have to worry about projectiles passing through walls and hurting neighbors.
This. Unless you have a good hiding area 911 isn't going to get there in time. If someone breaks in chances are either an immediate encounter or that you're in the master bedroom which is certainly going to be on their list of places to go.

Now, for most people the risk is very low--but most people are not all people. Note that in the situation that spawned this sub-thread the peaceful defense options had already been exhausted and the guy has demonstrated a willingness to use deadly force.

It's not about wanting to kill a bad guy--anyone who wants to should automatically be disqualified from owning firearms. It's just if something bad happens much better that it happen to a bad guy than to an innocent.
 
And this is so common? Crazy people deciding to kill you on the streets, using a concealed knife?

It’s a lot more common for there to be people like the McMasters family or Zimmerman, deciding that someone is a threat because??

Or people making a mistake and think they are shooting a deer only it’s a horse carrying a young girl.

I’ve dealt with my share of actual crazy people ( amateur diagnosis but …) one of whom was attacking someone else (no weapons but not a sure bet that he wasn’t armed—he was definitely crazy and hopped up on something). That’s not even counting the so called normal guys who were attacking girls/young women, sometimes me. That sort of thing is extremely common. Extremely. It’s not that often women decide to pull out guns to kill would be rapists.

What’s way too common is not the crazy guy with a 4 inch blade but the ‘perfectly normal’ crazies who walk around with guns and use them in crowds.

Did you miss the fact that the guy has already used potentially lethal force against an employee??
My uncle, who grew up hunting, and was a very good marksman (as was my father and my grandfather) and who served in WWII and so was extremely proficient with firearms was robbed in his own farmhouse. The thieves shot at him with his own gun, narrowly missing him and my aunt. My uncle was the only person I've known that I would say was perhaps tougher than my father--but then, I didn't know my grandfather until he was an old man. I understand he was something else. So, my uncle, who was in his mid 40's at the time, extremely strong and fit, extremely proficient with firearms was disarmed and nearly killed with his own firearms in his own house in his own kitchen. I am just not that sanguine about most people's ability to defend themselves with a gun, not to mention hitting only their target and not some innocent bystander or to be disarmed and have their own weapon used against them.

Things that I have defended myself against, without any weapon at all: Several attempted rapes and varying degrees of sexual assault. Twice, I threw a guy who was easily twice my size (under 100 lbs, under 5'2) over my head. Don't ask me how but I did it. I do not know martial arts. Another time, a guy who thought I was...what is now referred to, I think, as 'cock-blocking' him with regards to a friend who was extremely not interested in him decided to teach me a lesson by wrapping his bike lock/chain around my neck and pulling it very, very tight. I stopped someone from assaulting my then boyfriend. I stopped a long line of guys who were about to take turns on one of my friends who was quite drunk/ nearly passed out on a bed. No weapons used, except for that bicycle chain/lock.

My father talked a much larger drunken neighbor who was armed out of assaulting another neighbor who was actually in the bathtub at the time. The drunken neighbor was on a rampage looking for his wife (who had escaped in another neighbor's car) thought his wife was being hidden by the neighbor in the tub. Her husband drove truck and was on the road and she was alone with two toddlers. The drunk even tossed my dad his wallet when the cops came to take him away.

My grandparents were held up at gunpoint on their farm in the mid-60's.

Other relatives were victims of an armed home invasion with one being held at knife point for hours while the other was forced to drive to where the thief thought he could cash a check. They were rescued by SWAT teams and no one was hurt. No shots fired.

My son's girlfriend thwarted an armed attempt at carjacking her car. Their neighbors were victims of a car jacking (different neighborhood).

None of these are experiences that I or anyone else involved would like to go through again. We were all lucky that no one got hurt---including the attackers.

A couple of my cousins served in Viet Nam, one as a sniper. I will NEVER forget the look on his face when, at his homecoming party, my jerk of an uncle (different side of the family than the other one) asked how many he had killed. He went paler than pale, even for a white boy. It is no joke to shoot someone. No joke at all. We do not live in a cowboy movie or a Liam Neeson or Denzel Washington movie.

I grew up in the home of someone who was an excellent hunter, as were my uncle and grandfather, marksmen all. It was impressed upon me very, very, very strongly that one NEVER pointed a gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot and you NEVER shot for any reason except to kill (or at a practice target). The angriest I ever saw my father was the time I wanted to try out the new scope on his rifle and drew a bead on my sister. He and I had just cleaned that rifle and two others: we knew it was empty. But he made it extremely clear to me that even though I knew and he knew that the gun was loaded, we could have been wrong and it was NEVER ok to point a gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot and you NEVER EVER pointed a gun at a person. It still makes me shiver to remember his voice. And I don't blame him. I was being a thoughtless asshole show off and it was very dangerous.

I do understand that some people feel differently than I do and feel the need to be armed in order to protect themselves.
Interesting but just because you or anyone in your family were never seriously injured or killed in an attack or home invasion does not mean that many, many people are not as lucky. Some people would rather rely on preparedness than luck or the kindness of the attacker.

I worked my way through college so, with only a low wage job as income, the combination of tuition, lab fees, books, etc. there was little left over for food and housing. This meant that I could only afford an apartment in a rather seedy section of town. I thwarted two home invasions during that time by simply having a pump action shotgun available. One of them, three thugs actually busted down the door to gain entrance. The other was only one goon climbing in the window. Just the sound of my pumping a round into the chamber was enough to make them flee so no shooting was necessary. Maybe you can imagine that they were only breaking in to say hi but I think it more likely that they were capable of much more than warm greetings.

I could be mistaken but I figure that anyone that is breaking into an occupied home does not have the best interest of the occupants in mind.
I don’t disagree, honestly.

BTW, I couldn’t afford a gun. I really could barely afford food.

Most of the women you know have had to fend off at least one sexual assault. It is likely that at least one woman you know wasn’t successful in fighting off an attacker —or weighted her options and decided not to fight. Relatively few women fight off/scare off attackers using a weapon.

I wouldn’t say it was ‘luck’ that people managed to get out of terrible situations without injury—except my uncle. It was just luck that those idiots were poor shots.

Some of it was having the right reflexes. My dad did have a presence about him that conveyed Do not even think about fucking with me—except no one would have dared use the word fuck. Or to have even thought about fucking with him. My family members were both brace and smart in managing to alert authorities to their situation so that they could be rescued. The SWAT team did not have to fire a shot. As for me? I had the elements of surprise and fury/adrenaline on my side. If anyone had been armed, I’m sure things would have turned out differently.

But: I don’t think that people in the US are any worse than people in other countries and yet in other countries, people’s first reaction is not to grab a gun if they hear noises in the night.
That may be true but you didn't complete the thought. What do you claim people in the U.S. or other countries do (or should do) when surprised by a home invasion? Reality is that many are beaten, raped, or killed.
I don't think that's true outside the US. Certainly it's not compatible with my experiences and observations in the UK and Australia.

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.
According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?
Even though both happen to only a very small percentage of the population, I am careful both driving to avoid accidents and to insure that I have the means to defend against or repel a home invasion. I don't imagine that I am a ninja master that could overpower invaders or glib enough to convince them to walk away leaving me and my family unharmed.
In my experience, you can persuade a housebreaker to flee just by looking at him.
 
And this is so common? Crazy people deciding to kill you on the streets, using a concealed knife?

It’s a lot more common for there to be people like the McMasters family or Zimmerman, deciding that someone is a threat because??

Or people making a mistake and think they are shooting a deer only it’s a horse carrying a young girl.

I’ve dealt with my share of actual crazy people ( amateur diagnosis but …) one of whom was attacking someone else (no weapons but not a sure bet that he wasn’t armed—he was definitely crazy and hopped up on something). That’s not even counting the so called normal guys who were attacking girls/young women, sometimes me. That sort of thing is extremely common. Extremely. It’s not that often women decide to pull out guns to kill would be rapists.

What’s way too common is not the crazy guy with a 4 inch blade but the ‘perfectly normal’ crazies who walk around with guns and use them in crowds.

Did you miss the fact that the guy has already used potentially lethal force against an employee??
My uncle, who grew up hunting, and was a very good marksman (as was my father and my grandfather) and who served in WWII and so was extremely proficient with firearms was robbed in his own farmhouse. The thieves shot at him with his own gun, narrowly missing him and my aunt. My uncle was the only person I've known that I would say was perhaps tougher than my father--but then, I didn't know my grandfather until he was an old man. I understand he was something else. So, my uncle, who was in his mid 40's at the time, extremely strong and fit, extremely proficient with firearms was disarmed and nearly killed with his own firearms in his own house in his own kitchen. I am just not that sanguine about most people's ability to defend themselves with a gun, not to mention hitting only their target and not some innocent bystander or to be disarmed and have their own weapon used against them.

Things that I have defended myself against, without any weapon at all: Several attempted rapes and varying degrees of sexual assault. Twice, I threw a guy who was easily twice my size (under 100 lbs, under 5'2) over my head. Don't ask me how but I did it. I do not know martial arts. Another time, a guy who thought I was...what is now referred to, I think, as 'cock-blocking' him with regards to a friend who was extremely not interested in him decided to teach me a lesson by wrapping his bike lock/chain around my neck and pulling it very, very tight. I stopped someone from assaulting my then boyfriend. I stopped a long line of guys who were about to take turns on one of my friends who was quite drunk/ nearly passed out on a bed. No weapons used, except for that bicycle chain/lock.

My father talked a much larger drunken neighbor who was armed out of assaulting another neighbor who was actually in the bathtub at the time. The drunken neighbor was on a rampage looking for his wife (who had escaped in another neighbor's car) thought his wife was being hidden by the neighbor in the tub. Her husband drove truck and was on the road and she was alone with two toddlers. The drunk even tossed my dad his wallet when the cops came to take him away.

My grandparents were held up at gunpoint on their farm in the mid-60's.

Other relatives were victims of an armed home invasion with one being held at knife point for hours while the other was forced to drive to where the thief thought he could cash a check. They were rescued by SWAT teams and no one was hurt. No shots fired.

My son's girlfriend thwarted an armed attempt at carjacking her car. Their neighbors were victims of a car jacking (different neighborhood).

None of these are experiences that I or anyone else involved would like to go through again. We were all lucky that no one got hurt---including the attackers.

A couple of my cousins served in Viet Nam, one as a sniper. I will NEVER forget the look on his face when, at his homecoming party, my jerk of an uncle (different side of the family than the other one) asked how many he had killed. He went paler than pale, even for a white boy. It is no joke to shoot someone. No joke at all. We do not live in a cowboy movie or a Liam Neeson or Denzel Washington movie.

I grew up in the home of someone who was an excellent hunter, as were my uncle and grandfather, marksmen all. It was impressed upon me very, very, very strongly that one NEVER pointed a gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot and you NEVER shot for any reason except to kill (or at a practice target). The angriest I ever saw my father was the time I wanted to try out the new scope on his rifle and drew a bead on my sister. He and I had just cleaned that rifle and two others: we knew it was empty. But he made it extremely clear to me that even though I knew and he knew that the gun was loaded, we could have been wrong and it was NEVER ok to point a gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot and you NEVER EVER pointed a gun at a person. It still makes me shiver to remember his voice. And I don't blame him. I was being a thoughtless asshole show off and it was very dangerous.

I do understand that some people feel differently than I do and feel the need to be armed in order to protect themselves.
Interesting but just because you or anyone in your family were never seriously injured or killed in an attack or home invasion does not mean that many, many people are not as lucky. Some people would rather rely on preparedness than luck or the kindness of the attacker.

I worked my way through college so, with only a low wage job as income, the combination of tuition, lab fees, books, etc. there was little left over for food and housing. This meant that I could only afford an apartment in a rather seedy section of town. I thwarted two home invasions during that time by simply having a pump action shotgun available. One of them, three thugs actually busted down the door to gain entrance. The other was only one goon climbing in the window. Just the sound of my pumping a round into the chamber was enough to make them flee so no shooting was necessary. Maybe you can imagine that they were only breaking in to say hi but I think it more likely that they were capable of much more than warm greetings.

I could be mistaken but I figure that anyone that is breaking into an occupied home does not have the best interest of the occupants in mind.
I don’t disagree, honestly.

BTW, I couldn’t afford a gun. I really could barely afford food.

Most of the women you know have had to fend off at least one sexual assault. It is likely that at least one woman you know wasn’t successful in fighting off an attacker —or weighted her options and decided not to fight. Relatively few women fight off/scare off attackers using a weapon.

I wouldn’t say it was ‘luck’ that people managed to get out of terrible situations without injury—except my uncle. It was just luck that those idiots were poor shots.

Some of it was having the right reflexes. My dad did have a presence about him that conveyed Do not even think about fucking with me—except no one would have dared use the word fuck. Or to have even thought about fucking with him. My family members were both brace and smart in managing to alert authorities to their situation so that they could be rescued. The SWAT team did not have to fire a shot. As for me? I had the elements of surprise and fury/adrenaline on my side. If anyone had been armed, I’m sure things would have turned out differently.

But: I don’t think that people in the US are any worse than people in other countries and yet in other countries, people’s first reaction is not to grab a gun if they hear noises in the night.
That may be true but you didn't complete the thought. What do you claim people in the U.S. or other countries do (or should do) when surprised by a home invasion? Reality is that many are beaten, raped, or killed.
I don't think that's true outside the US. Certainly it's not compatible with my experiences and observations in the UK and Australia.

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.
According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?
Even though both happen to only a very small percentage of the population, I am careful both driving to avoid accidents and to insure that I have the means to defend against or repel a home invasion. I don't imagine that I am a ninja master that could overpower invaders or glib enough to convince them to walk away leaving me and my family unharmed.
In my experience, you can persuade a housebreaker to flee just by looking at him.
As I said, the percentage of the population that are seriously injured victims of home invasions is only a small percentage of the total population, as are the percentage of the population that are killed in an auto accident. I don't doubt that you have no first hand knowledge of a serious home invasion. But the fact that you don't know of any doesn't mean that they do not happen even in Australia ... as this news report from Sydney indicates:

 

Attachments

  • 1642032982779.png
    1642032982779.png
    114.6 KB · Views: 1
And this is so common? Crazy people deciding to kill you on the streets, using a concealed knife?

It’s a lot more common for there to be people like the McMasters family or Zimmerman, deciding that someone is a threat because??

Or people making a mistake and think they are shooting a deer only it’s a horse carrying a young girl.

I’ve dealt with my share of actual crazy people ( amateur diagnosis but …) one of whom was attacking someone else (no weapons but not a sure bet that he wasn’t armed—he was definitely crazy and hopped up on something). That’s not even counting the so called normal guys who were attacking girls/young women, sometimes me. That sort of thing is extremely common. Extremely. It’s not that often women decide to pull out guns to kill would be rapists.

What’s way too common is not the crazy guy with a 4 inch blade but the ‘perfectly normal’ crazies who walk around with guns and use them in crowds.

Did you miss the fact that the guy has already used potentially lethal force against an employee??
My uncle, who grew up hunting, and was a very good marksman (as was my father and my grandfather) and who served in WWII and so was extremely proficient with firearms was robbed in his own farmhouse. The thieves shot at him with his own gun, narrowly missing him and my aunt. My uncle was the only person I've known that I would say was perhaps tougher than my father--but then, I didn't know my grandfather until he was an old man. I understand he was something else. So, my uncle, who was in his mid 40's at the time, extremely strong and fit, extremely proficient with firearms was disarmed and nearly killed with his own firearms in his own house in his own kitchen. I am just not that sanguine about most people's ability to defend themselves with a gun, not to mention hitting only their target and not some innocent bystander or to be disarmed and have their own weapon used against them.

Things that I have defended myself against, without any weapon at all: Several attempted rapes and varying degrees of sexual assault. Twice, I threw a guy who was easily twice my size (under 100 lbs, under 5'2) over my head. Don't ask me how but I did it. I do not know martial arts. Another time, a guy who thought I was...what is now referred to, I think, as 'cock-blocking' him with regards to a friend who was extremely not interested in him decided to teach me a lesson by wrapping his bike lock/chain around my neck and pulling it very, very tight. I stopped someone from assaulting my then boyfriend. I stopped a long line of guys who were about to take turns on one of my friends who was quite drunk/ nearly passed out on a bed. No weapons used, except for that bicycle chain/lock.

My father talked a much larger drunken neighbor who was armed out of assaulting another neighbor who was actually in the bathtub at the time. The drunken neighbor was on a rampage looking for his wife (who had escaped in another neighbor's car) thought his wife was being hidden by the neighbor in the tub. Her husband drove truck and was on the road and she was alone with two toddlers. The drunk even tossed my dad his wallet when the cops came to take him away.

My grandparents were held up at gunpoint on their farm in the mid-60's.

Other relatives were victims of an armed home invasion with one being held at knife point for hours while the other was forced to drive to where the thief thought he could cash a check. They were rescued by SWAT teams and no one was hurt. No shots fired.

My son's girlfriend thwarted an armed attempt at carjacking her car. Their neighbors were victims of a car jacking (different neighborhood).

None of these are experiences that I or anyone else involved would like to go through again. We were all lucky that no one got hurt---including the attackers.

A couple of my cousins served in Viet Nam, one as a sniper. I will NEVER forget the look on his face when, at his homecoming party, my jerk of an uncle (different side of the family than the other one) asked how many he had killed. He went paler than pale, even for a white boy. It is no joke to shoot someone. No joke at all. We do not live in a cowboy movie or a Liam Neeson or Denzel Washington movie.

I grew up in the home of someone who was an excellent hunter, as were my uncle and grandfather, marksmen all. It was impressed upon me very, very, very strongly that one NEVER pointed a gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot and you NEVER shot for any reason except to kill (or at a practice target). The angriest I ever saw my father was the time I wanted to try out the new scope on his rifle and drew a bead on my sister. He and I had just cleaned that rifle and two others: we knew it was empty. But he made it extremely clear to me that even though I knew and he knew that the gun was loaded, we could have been wrong and it was NEVER ok to point a gun at anything you didn't intend to shoot and you NEVER EVER pointed a gun at a person. It still makes me shiver to remember his voice. And I don't blame him. I was being a thoughtless asshole show off and it was very dangerous.

I do understand that some people feel differently than I do and feel the need to be armed in order to protect themselves.
Interesting but just because you or anyone in your family were never seriously injured or killed in an attack or home invasion does not mean that many, many people are not as lucky. Some people would rather rely on preparedness than luck or the kindness of the attacker.

I worked my way through college so, with only a low wage job as income, the combination of tuition, lab fees, books, etc. there was little left over for food and housing. This meant that I could only afford an apartment in a rather seedy section of town. I thwarted two home invasions during that time by simply having a pump action shotgun available. One of them, three thugs actually busted down the door to gain entrance. The other was only one goon climbing in the window. Just the sound of my pumping a round into the chamber was enough to make them flee so no shooting was necessary. Maybe you can imagine that they were only breaking in to say hi but I think it more likely that they were capable of much more than warm greetings.

I could be mistaken but I figure that anyone that is breaking into an occupied home does not have the best interest of the occupants in mind.
I don’t disagree, honestly.

BTW, I couldn’t afford a gun. I really could barely afford food.

Most of the women you know have had to fend off at least one sexual assault. It is likely that at least one woman you know wasn’t successful in fighting off an attacker —or weighted her options and decided not to fight. Relatively few women fight off/scare off attackers using a weapon.

I wouldn’t say it was ‘luck’ that people managed to get out of terrible situations without injury—except my uncle. It was just luck that those idiots were poor shots.

Some of it was having the right reflexes. My dad did have a presence about him that conveyed Do not even think about fucking with me—except no one would have dared use the word fuck. Or to have even thought about fucking with him. My family members were both brace and smart in managing to alert authorities to their situation so that they could be rescued. The SWAT team did not have to fire a shot. As for me? I had the elements of surprise and fury/adrenaline on my side. If anyone had been armed, I’m sure things would have turned out differently.

But: I don’t think that people in the US are any worse than people in other countries and yet in other countries, people’s first reaction is not to grab a gun if they hear noises in the night.
That may be true but you didn't complete the thought. What do you claim people in the U.S. or other countries do (or should do) when surprised by a home invasion? Reality is that many are beaten, raped, or killed.
I don't think that's true outside the US. Certainly it's not compatible with my experiences and observations in the UK and Australia.

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.
According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?
Even though both happen to only a very small percentage of the population, I am careful both driving to avoid accidents and to insure that I have the means to defend against or repel a home invasion. I don't imagine that I am a ninja master that could overpower invaders or glib enough to convince them to walk away leaving me and my family unharmed.
In my experience, you can persuade a housebreaker to flee just by looking at him.
As I said, the percentage of the population that are seriously injured victims of home invasions is only a small percentage of the total population, as are the percentage of the population that are killed in an auto accident. I don't doubt that you have no first hand knowledge of a serious home invasion. But the fact that you don't know of any doesn't mean that they do not happen even in Australia ... as this news report from Sydney indicates:

Actually I’ve described two very serious home invasions that I know a great deal about because they happened to very close family members, in homes where I spent a great deal of time. Both crimes involved weapons and very credible threats of violence. In one case, my uncle was shot at in his own home. My other family member was rescued by multiple SWAT teams. They had been held hostage with a knife at their throat. Their spouse had been held at gunpoint.

The only person who was shot at was the only person actually proficient in the use of firearms.

Many more people are killed in motor vehicle accidents than are killed in home invasions. I went to the funeral of a16 year old killed in an auto accident.
 
Hiding may be an option if you have a safe room that would be practically impossible to break into for the casual burglar. And depending on various factors like where you live and local police presence in your area, it may take the police tens of minutes to respond. A lot can happen in that time, and a $400 investment in a pump-action shotgun and shotgun shells, along with time at the range learning to use the weapon with a qualified instructor may be sufficient to keep you and your family safe. And with a shotgun you usually don't have to worry about projectiles passing through walls and hurting neighbors.
This. Unless you have a good hiding area 911 isn't going to get there in time. If someone breaks in chances are either an immediate encounter or that you're in the master bedroom which is certainly going to be on their list of places to go.

Now, for most people the risk is very low--but most people are not all people. Note that in the situation that spawned this sub-thread the peaceful defense options had already been exhausted and the guy has demonstrated a willingness to use deadly force.

It's not about wanting to kill a bad guy--anyone who wants to should automatically be disqualified from owning firearms. It's just if something bad happens much better that it happen to a bad guy than to an innocent.
Can we get to the part where all employees at my place would need to be armed for this plan to work?
 
In 2020, there were 38,680 deaths from automobile/traffic accidents
That sounds about right. And then the average number of home invasions per year was 1,030,000 between 1994 and 2010. As I said both effected a small percentage of the population. But both are something that we should try to prevent happening to us.
Technically if your house is invaded, and you have a firearm... you haven't prevented the house from being invaded.
That is true. But like having taken the Coved vaccine does not prevent me being infected, repelling home invaders prevents a more serious outcome.
I was more or less being a wiseass.

And I'm all for repelling. The trouble is when the repellent isn't effective or helps to incite panic or further aggression.
 
And home security isn't the same as walking into a guy that might want to attack you in a tight confined area and one decides to draw a gun as a measure of presumed defense, which only works if the attacker doesn't go for it. Presenting a gun into a situation only works as deterrence if the other person backs off.
You only draw your gun when you are fully committed to using it.
 
Other countries seem to manage to keep their citizens safe without arming everybody to the teeth. There is not the epidemic of school shootings in other countries as there is here in the US. There are no shootings at malls or movie theaters or concerts. There is no little girl or boy shot dead in their bed at night or while they're doing their homework at the kitchen table.

Only here.
The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put it back in.
 
Other countries seem to manage to keep their citizens safe without arming everybody to the teeth. There is not the epidemic of school shootings in other countries as there is here in the US. There are no shootings at malls or movie theaters or concerts. There is no little girl or boy shot dead in their bed at night or while they're doing their homework at the kitchen table.

Only here.
The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put it back in.
Sure there is. It would be ugly but it's certainly possible. Now, I'm in my 60's so I'm an old fart but nonetheless: I find it appalling the way that gun ownership has exploded over the last 30-40 years, particularly the semi-automatic weapons. I really did grow up oldschool as far as gun safety and a high degree of responsibility for owning or even being around firearms.

We really need to make it much, much more difficult to own firearms and frankly to restrict their use to hunting.
 
Other countries seem to manage to keep their citizens safe without arming everybody to the teeth. There is not the epidemic of school shootings in other countries as there is here in the US. There are no shootings at malls or movie theaters or concerts. There is no little girl or boy shot dead in their bed at night or while they're doing their homework at the kitchen table.

Only here.
The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put it back in.
Widespread gun ownership was the norm in 19th and early 20th century Europe.

Illegal guns are easy to obtain today in most of Europe. Criminals - particularly petty criminals - don't want them, because they're a massive liability.

The degree of difficulty in solving the problem is far lower than the NRA would have you believe.

Australia did it only a couple of decades ago.

Bear in mind that the objective is to reduce as far as possible the use of firearms in commission of a crime. It doesn't matter if every second household has a gunsafe full of shotguns, as long as those guns are licensed, insured, accounted for, and appropriately secured at all times when not in use.

Guns are not banned in Europe; They just aren't unregulated.
 
No one at least publicly is seriously discussing the link between violence and culture itself. Grand Theft Auto is avideo gae kids play comiuting crime and shooting. In the 90s there was a video gane where yiu gt points for rape. It is an indicator of the culture we live in. Of course Hollywood and video game makers say if you don't lke it don't watch it.

In TV and movies genraly the criminal in the end loses. Today the criminal is a hero, for example the Fast And Furious movies. Crme is exciting adventure.

When I was a kid guns were far easier to get than today. Mail order no background checks. Thompson sub-machine guns were once in a Sears catalog. It started to tightnen after the JFK assassination.

The USA is unique in some ways. We have no authoritarian top level power to enforce safety compared to China. We have a large decetrilzed population. The country grew from the ground up without a lot of organized law enforcement. Arming the FBI as a national police that coud cross state lines was conr troversial.

A lot of the country is rural with low police per capita. We have a large population spread around the country. Th idea of defending yourself and home is in our DNA. We are not and never have been homogeneous compared to France.

A sense of right and wrong has gone out of the culture. Anything goes.

As to home invasion being low probability, I don't think it matters to victims. Yeteray a multiple armed car jacking. Two guys jacked a car and robbed a store. During a police chase they jacked another car. It is the wild west. Shootngs at malls and large stores are happening, mostly drug related the poilce say.

A few weeks ago a guy found two guys stealing his catalytic converter, they shot at him over that.

IMO it is a general breakdon in culture and civil order with multiple causes. Our new mayor says he is going to do something about crime and gun violens ce. The progressive refrain is always communty involvmnt, changes in piolicing, and anti violence social programs for kids. Pissing in the wind.
 
Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.
 
Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.
There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.
 
Last edited:
Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.
There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.
Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

"Home invasion" is a recent neologism, created by the media whose main source of income is sensationalism. It's not a thing that routinely happens.

A housebreaker stealing your iPod is a "Home invader" in the same way that the imposition of checkpoints on the Tugun Bypass is "Slamming the border shut".

The news media, and popular fiction, love drama and don't care about causing fear.

Gun culture is a positive feedback loop of needless fear causing homeowners to arm themselves, which causes criminals to arm themselves, which instills further fear in homeowners. Neither the fear nor the firearms are in any way valuable to those employing them. But they are a multi-million dollar entertainment business for both news and drama outlets.
 
Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.
There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.
Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.
It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions (obviously in Australia) where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion
 
Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.
There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.
Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.
It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion
Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.
 
Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.
There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.
Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.
It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion
Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.
Are you saying that they should not report such things or that those people were not killed?
 
Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.
That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.
There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.
Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.
It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion
Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.
Are you saying that they should not report such things because there are no sociopaths in Australia or that those people were not killed?
 
Back
Top Bottom