So you want to protect your home huh? [W:297, *567*]

[TurtleDude]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

People can buy guns and try and protect their homes and themselves all they want, but if they don't take the time to train, then their right under the second amendment is going to get them or a family member killed.

that may or may not be true. But I agree with you to some extent. MERELY buying a gun and pretending it will keep you safe is akin to buying a scalpel and pretending you can remove skin cancer properly. You might get lucky and do it right or you might make things worse. Which is why I advocate every gun owner practice constantly and get good instruction

 

[Maccabee]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You have a theory. Lets mandate the training and test it out

It has been tested out, in several states, including mine. Yet the states that have mandated minimum training standards to obtain a permit don't seem to pull out ahead of the states that don't have a minimum training standard as far as lowering gun crimes. Your premise is silly on it's face. The reason there aren't many attacks by vehicles or reckless drivers isn't because the training standard to obtain a license prevents that. The reason is there aren't many people willing to drive into a crowd of children or drive at 100 mph down Main St. The people seeking driver's licenses already have at least the decency to not do it.

 

[Maccabee]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

And it is none of your business why we want to take your guns.

It certainly is my business. You are taking my property. That alone should be reason enough for me to demand a reason.

 

[Maccabee]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

No need for SWAT. You will politely turn them over. you will not die over this

And what if an estimated 100 million gun owners refuse? That number alone outnumbers every law enforcement officer by 100.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

People can buy guns and try and protect their homes and themselves all they want, but if they don't take the time to train, then their right under the second amendment is going to get them or a family member killed.

This is all the training you need for that: dont point a gun at anything you dont want to destroy, keep your finger off the trigger until you are going to destroy something, and make secure preparations for your firearms in homes with minors or prohibited persons.

What other training is needed to keep from accidentally killing yourself or your family?

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

It has been tested out, in several states, including mine. Yet the states that have mandated minimum training standards to obtain a permit don't seem to pull out ahead of the states that don't have a minimum training standard as far as lowering gun crimes. Your premise is silly on it's face. The reason there aren't many attacks by vehicles or reckless drivers isn't because the training standard to obtain a license prevents that. The reason is there aren't many people willing to drive into a crowd of children or drive at 100 mph down Main St. The people seeking driver's licenses already have at least the decency to not do it.

They dont. It makes no difference.

So the assumption that 'mandatory' training is needed is *unfounded.* The evidence shows people get the training they need.

 

[joko104]

https://abcnews4.com/news/crime-news/witness-homeowner-killed-during-north-charleston-home-invasion

A sad tragedy. This man was a member of one of those neighborhood chat groups on facebook I'm in. I've never met the man, but his facebook page is filled with right-wing propaganda and just one week before this happened shared a video of Archie Bunker railing on gun control. The details from the article are sparse, but from what I understand at least two men entered his home around 1 in the morning, and this guy tried to play Dirty Harry only to end up getting himself shot and killed. Police believe it was a random event. A couple of thugs were likely looking for a quick score. Trying to grab a laptop a cell phone some loose change laying around. They probably didn't even think the guy was home and would have easily left without incident had he not surprised them and confronted them. This guy was a military vet. He knew how to handle guns. He knew the layout of his home better than the intruders, yet he still lost the fight.

It's obviously sad, but this is the reality you face when you decide you're going to protect your stuff. Obviously, we can't know everything that happened here, but if he stayed out of sight and just yelled at them to leave from another room they probably would have bolted once they realized someone was home. Anything he might have lost would have been covered by homeowners insurance. Instead, he tried to be a hero and lost his life.

So to recap, the odds of having your home broken into are already insanely low. Even if your home is broken into, odds are very low you'll be home. Even if you're home your odds of even getting to your gun aren't good unless you keep it loaded and on your person at all times. If you do that though you're at risk of an accidental shooting that could result in the death of yourself or a loved one. And even if you just happen to be in the right place at the right time with your loaded gun ready to defend yourself you're still starting a shootout inside your home that you could easily lose no matter how good you think you are with your gun.

Your best defense in a home invasion is not a gun. It's a deadbolt, a motion sensor light, a decent sized dog with a loud bark, and an understanding that unless you have specific enemies they are almost certainly not here to kill you.

He didn't get himself shot. Rather, it was unable to prevent his being shot. It is obvious they did know he was home - or otherwise they would have knocked on the door or rung the doorbell to make sure no one was. If the home invaders did not mean to kill him, why did they? Why didn't they just run when they saw him?

Half the people in the country rent where they live. so "a decent size barking dog" is out. Motion sensor lights stop no one.

Why didn't your friend have a deadbolt? I don't know of ANY residences - house or apartment - that doesn't have a deadbolt. Why didn't the deadbolt protect him like you claim?

It is amazing to read claiming any person murdered in their own home is responsible for their own death, not the murder(s), under your theory that no one can be more trusted to be good moral people than armed home invaders when they know or did not check first if someone was home. - having brought the gun(s) fully prepared to murder whoever was in that house or they would not have the gun(s).

But maybe I misunderstood your point. Maybe it is that if he had a dog they instead would have shot the dog attacking them instead of him, and then the 2 or more armed invaders would have told the man "Sorry to disturb your sleep, sir, and about the dog. Please don't tell the police about this or what we look like" and quietly left - after grabbing his laptop, cell phone and a few other items. Is that your point?

 

[joko104]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

that may or may not be true. But I agree with you to some extent. MERELY buying a gun and pretending it will keep you safe is akin to buying a scalpel and pretending you can remove skin cancer properly. You might get lucky and do it right or you might make things worse. Which is why I advocate every gun owner practice constantly and get good instruction

That is a terrible analogy. While training certainly is good, I do not agree no one should have a self defense firearm unless they regularly shoot a million bullets like you do.

Well over 90% of the time the mere presence of a firearm is all it takes - and for most of the other situations once a shot is fired the assailant/criminal(s) is running away, even if also armed.

While some shooting familiarity is a good idea, it is more important the person 1.) truly understand gun laws including usage in self defense, safe storage, and other practical information and 2.) with this knowledge pre-decide what they will do in various situations before it happens.

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

This is the reason for mandatory training. Some people THINK they know gun safety.

You made my case brilliantly. LOL

Yes, some people, like you...and you're wrong.

You made the case that training prevents suicide (by providing info on where to get help, info on depression, etc)...and yet cops, who get a great deal of training...have one of the highest suicide rates in the country.

Want to tell me again how much 'you know' about training?

 

[joko104]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Most times when a person needs a self defense firearm the other person does not have a firearm or an exposed weapon. Rather, it is in a situation of clear imminent danger for which displaying a firearm prevents any further escalation - and nothing happens at all.

"I have a gun" and the other person seeing it will cause virtually anyone - and everyone - to retreat regardless of the person's true motives.

 

[joko104]

I am confident that self defense personal firearms prevent hundreds of thousands of victimizations a year - most it not even known if anything would have happened because nothing did because of the presence of a firearm. The crime is prevented before it starts or even could be known as it is still just a plan in the criminal's head only.

Of those hundreds of thousands of averted crimes due to a self defense firearm, I doubt 1/1oo of 1% of the time whether the potential victim was a marksmen medalist or couldn't hit a cow running at them from 30 feet with a shotgun made any difference in the safety of that potential victim one iota.

I also am convinced if a woman or man heard someone kick in their door, if that person shouted out "I HAVE GUN" and depending on the residence design fires a shot into the ceiling or floor, even if there were 5 armed intruders, they'd be tripping over each other to back out the door they kicked in - whether the person firing in the ceiling or floor was the world's worst shot and firing a single action 22 revolver. (Never go looking for trouble. If there is trouble, make it come to you.)

 

[Lursa]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Crime and accidents among CCW holders is VERY VERY low. It works quite well. It should be expanded

In many states, no training is required for a CC permit. As a matter of fact, some states require no training OR permit to carry a firearm.

And yes, the crime and accident rate IS very low for people legally carrying firearms.

So I guess 'mandatory' training isnt needed at all. People seem to be handling their own training requirements quite well.

 

[Lursa]

He didn't get himself shot. Rather, it was unable to prevent his being shot. It is obvious they did know he was home - or otherwise they would have knocked on the door or rung the doorbell to make sure no one was. If the home invaders did not mean to kill him, why did they? Why didn't they just run when they saw him?

Exactly. This is what I wrote earlier in the thread:

And even if you just happen to be in the right place at the right time with your loaded gun ready to defend yourself you're still starting a shootout inside your home that you could easily lose no matter how good you think you are with your gun.

.

Because he would be less dead if they shot him without defending himself? :doh

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

That is a terrible analogy. While training certainly is good, I do not agree no one should have a self defense firearm unless they regularly shoot a million bullets like you do.

He's not making that claim.

 

[jet57]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

This is all the training you need for that: dont point a gun at anything you dont want to destroy, keep your finger off the trigger until you are going to destroy something, and make secure preparations for your firearms in homes with minors or prohibited persons.

What other training is needed to keep from accidentally killing yourself or your family?

Right; so you're fine with people who know nothing about how to use weapons carrying them around in public.

Got it.

 

[jet57]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

It might; the vast majority of the time it does not. I encourage gun owners to get training. I just don't believe that it should be mandatory, with the requirements set by Democrats who don't know anything about guns, safety or training.

So there are no Democrats who know anything about guns.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

So there are no Democrats who know anything about guns.

There are no gun control laws written by Democrats who have sufficient knowledge of firearms, the Constitution and law enforcement to write good, Constitutional, effective, enforceable laws. The Democrats who know about guns don't get to write gun laws.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Right; so you're fine with people who know nothing about how to use weapons carrying them around in public.

Got it.

You're fine with no one carrying guns in public, even with SEAL level training, unless they can show a need based on your opinion and can provide sufficient campaign funding to the country sheriff to be convince him to issue a permit.

Just what is the annual death toll from untrained people lawfully carrying legally owned guns in public?

 

[marke]

https://abcnews4.com/news/crime-news/witness-homeowner-killed-during-north-charleston-home-invasion

A sad tragedy. This man was a member of one of those neighborhood chat groups on facebook I'm in. I've never met the man, but his facebook page is filled with right-wing propaganda and just one week before this happened shared a video of Archie Bunker railing on gun control. The details from the article are sparse, but from what I understand at least two men entered his home around 1 in the morning, and this guy tried to play Dirty Harry only to end up getting himself shot and killed. Police believe it was a random event. A couple of thugs were likely looking for a quick score. Trying to grab a laptop a cell phone some loose change laying around. They probably didn't even think the guy was home and would have easily left without incident had he not surprised them and confronted them. This guy was a military vet. He knew how to handle guns. He knew the layout of his home better than the intruders, yet he still lost the fight.

It's obviously sad, but this is the reality you face when you decide you're going to protect your stuff. Obviously, we can't know everything that happened here, but if he stayed out of sight and just yelled at them to leave from another room they probably would have bolted once they realized someone was home. Anything he might have lost would have been covered by homeowners insurance. Instead, he tried to be a hero and lost his life.

So to recap, the odds of having your home broken into are already insanely low. Even if your home is broken into, odds are very low you'll be home. Even if you're home your odds of even getting to your gun aren't good unless you keep it loaded and on your person at all times. If you do that though you're at risk of an accidental shooting that could result in the death of yourself or a loved one. And even if you just happen to be in the right place at the right time with your loaded gun ready to defend yourself you're still starting a shootout inside your home that you could easily lose no matter how good you think you are with your gun.

Your best defense in a home invasion is not a gun. It's a deadbolt, a motion sensor light, a decent sized dog with a loud bark, and an understanding that unless you have specific enemies they are almost certainly not here to kill you.

If the dead teachers from Sandy Hook were to choose today between being protected by a deadbolt or by a personal handgun I think most of them would opt for the handgun.

 

[MrWonka]

He didn't get himself shot. Rather, it was unable to prevent his being sh

False. You're operating under the assumption that the intentions of the criminals were to kill. They weren't. In fact, I've heard some more details about this incident since I posted this thread. It turns out these guys showed up to rob a poker game. Out of all the people that were in the house playing only one guy actually got shot. It was the homeowner. Because instead of just putting his hands up, and letting them take the few hundred dollars that were on the table and leave he tried to be a hero. He got shot and killed. Everyone else at the table was left alone, and the **** heads left.

Do you seriously think these guys wanted to commit multiple murders just for the maybe $1000 tops that were on that table?

https://abcnews4.com/news/crime-new...charleston-home-invasion-early-sunday-morning

One witness told police he was in the house when at least two, and maybe three men came entered the home. He says there was a struggle and shots were being fired when he ran from the home and into the woods nearby.

The guy who ran out the back door survived just fine. The guy that stayed and fought is dead. There was reportedly up to 8 people in the home during the robbery. The only one who got shot was the guy that fought back. When the police entered the room it states there was a black revolver on the table. How much you want to bet that wasn't the bad guys who left it there? It was the homeowners who drew it in defense, and that's what got him shot.

 

[MrWonka]

If the dead teachers from Sandy Hook were to choose today between being protected by a deadbolt or by a personal handgun I think most of them would opt for the handgun.

Actually, I think if you could ask them they'd have much rather been able to duck into a classroom with a bulletproof door and lock themselves inside. I work for a defense contractor and it is mandatory that we receive active shooter training on a yearly basis. This is a building that is brimming with ex-military personnel. Still, no weapons are allowed inside. The active shooter training tells us that upon realizing there is an active shooter your first goal is to escape. If you can't escape, goal number two is to hide. Get to an interior room, lock the door and stay low.

Trying to confront the intruder is the absolute last possible option. In fact, it tells us that if you escape, don't go get a gun out of your car and go back in. You're risking your life unnecessarily and when the police show up they may not know who the shooter is.

 

[MrWonka]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

Just what is the annual death toll from untrained people lawfully carrying legally owned guns in public?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Accidental_and_negligent_injuries

Over 120 children 15 years old or younger were killed in gun accidents in 1998.[139] Accidental injuries are most common in homes where guns are kept for self-defense.[139] The injuries are self-inflicted in half of the cases.

 

[Rucker61]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Accidental_and_negligent_injuries

You do realize that you didn't answer the question, right?

 

[MrWonka]

Re: So you want to protect your home huh?

You do realize that you didn't answer the question, right?

These are the best statistics available because Republicans won't allow the subject to be studied closer. Apparently, they're afraid science will as usual prove them wrong.

 

[Rucker61]

Actually, I think if you could ask them they'd have much rather been able to duck into a classroom with a bulletproof door and lock themselves inside. I work for a defense contractor and it is mandatory that we receive active shooter training on a yearly basis. This is a building that is brimming with ex-military personnel. Still, no weapons are allowed inside. The active shooter training tells us that upon realizing there is an active shooter your first goal is to escape. If you can't escape, goal number two is to hide. Get to an interior room, lock the door and stay low.

Trying to confront the intruder is the absolute last possible option. In fact, it tells us that if you escape, don't go get a gun out of your car and go back in. You're risking your life unnecessarily and when the police show up they may not know who the shooter is.

Run, hide, fight. I'd prefer that the last resort be a bit more effective than throwing office supplies. I work in a large, open office, and none of the conference rooms have locks. We also have had active shooter training, and two items stand out from that training. One, the training was hosted by the head of corporate security from California (I work in a Colorado location). At the beginning of the training he asked who in the room had ever fired a gun or had heard one fired. Every hand went up. He looked surprised, and said that in California maybe three hands out of a hundred would have been raised. The other item was from the training film, where one scenario had small group of employees in a conference room react to an active shooter in the building. They barricaded the door and "armed" themselves with whatever weapons they could improvise from items in the conference room. One women grabbed a large potted plant to try to bash the shooter with.

The next week the company removed all large potted plants from the facility.