Understanding guns in the USA: A fresh look

[Morkonan]

...What I own is not as important as my life or the lives of my family.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

But, at the moment a person decides that they are willing to risk going to prison in order to force their way into an occupied home, all "reasonable expectations" are void.

At the moment that the criminal encounters you and your family, they won't be thinking about your valuables, they'll be thinking about the fact that it is much more likely they will go to prison now that you can help police identify them, if they're even thinking at all.

It is true, however, that not all such criminals are willing to resort to killing someone when discovered. It is also certainly true that attempting to defend yourself by using lethal force may escalate the situation.

There is no assured outcome. All that can be assured is that a criminal has broken into your house and has already put aside any hesitation regarding the legal consequences of that. Are you willing to roll the dice, betting on the benevolence of such an individual and their reluctance, which you can't know, to commit murder during the commission of this crime?

Maybe they didn't come there just to steal from you?

You can only go so far when assuming someone's motivations and intentions, especially in a situation where the rules have already been thrown out the window. They could be there to do much worse than just stealing something.

[Nanook]

Especially since the vast majority of such crimes seem to be perpetrated by individuals who are after money for their drug habit. And such persons may feel desperate enough to commit bodily harm to those who may get in their way. If someone breaks into your home while you're there, you have three 'safe' options: run away, hide or, if you're able, take them out first. Anything else puts you and your family in grave danger. Those willing to break into occupied homes are extreme risk takers and so they probably wouldn't hesitate to cause you bodily harm.

[Masterbagger]

If we mandated that all such weapons sold to civilians must be painted bright, day-glow, pink, I bet you wouldn't be seeing these being used by many...

In fact, that's a damn good idea!

ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS MUST BE POWDER-COATED WITH DAY-GLO PINK!

Problem solved.

Oh really?

http://i63.tinypic.com/2s78bro.jpg


{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}

[Usenko]

Why do we even consider the situation of home invasion?

It's a sort of inverse version of winning the lottery - so unlikely that only irrational humans would even consider the possibility.

[pjknibbs]

Why do we even consider the situation of home invasion?

It's a sort of inverse version of winning the lottery - so unlikely that only irrational humans would even consider the possibility.

After the number of these threads we've had, it should be obvious by now that quoting statistics has no effect on anyone's opinion!

[Usenko]

In any case, my suggestion is to regard home invasion as a massively unusual event, with unpredictable motivations and cause. It is impossible to make a reasonable guess as to what the correct response would be (in that it could be a gang war, a random thief, a drug user, a jealous spouse . . . Each of these requires different responses.)

Disregard it. You can't plan for it any more than you can plan for how to respond when being hit by a meteor.

[Masterbagger]

Why do we even consider the situation of home invasion?

It's a sort of inverse version of winning the lottery - so unlikely that only irrational humans would even consider the possibility.

The same is true of mass shootings and yet here we are.

[Morkonan]

Why do we even consider the situation of home invasion?

It's a sort of inverse version of winning the lottery - so unlikely that only irrational humans would even consider the possibility.

A friend of mine was a victim of a "home invasion." (I've told the story here, before.) He, his young son, and his mother were held at gunpoint by some young (mid to late teens, maybe one a bit older) gang-bangers.

I think the only reason that he and his mother, who was just visiting, are alive today is that these people didn't want to have to kill his young son, who was just 9 or so, something like that, at the time.

They had fun beating on him while he pleaded for his son's life. He's a very big man and could have killed them all, with his bare hands, had they not been armed and holding his son at gunpoint.

Incidentally, they were armed with shotguns. At least, that's all that my friend saw.

What would have happened if he had a gun, too? I don't know. Nobody can answer that question. If he had a pistol, if he could have reached it before they finished kicking in the door, if he could have managed to shoot, much less target effectively...

I don't know.

But, they didn't kill him even though there were a lot of home-invasions going on during that period in that city and some people were murdered. Police statements seem to reflect that they suspected this was part of gang-related activity, with young members proving themselves and then discovering how "profitable", in their minds, it could be for them.

These punks were looking for cash and drugs, which led investigators to believe that they has mistaken his house for another. My personal opinion is that the investigators were morons. I know because I spoke with them, at length, several times. Eventually... they did nothing. But, that's another story.

The point - I agree that we can't full predict things like this. We can't say that "this would happen" because there are just too many variables involved. We can only list "options" and "circumstances."

It's also worth noting that most people who state they have a weapon for "home defense" store it in ways that make it practically inaccessible an impractical in a "home defense" situation. Those things happen quick. But, on the flip-side, making it too accessible, possibly making it easy for children to get to, is problematic as well.

And, few people want to walk around their own home with a gun strapped to their hip, ready at all times, "just in case."

(PS: One has to note that home invasions/burglaries/worse have been successfully prevented, sometimes with no injuries/deaths, because the home-owner had a firearm and used it judiciously.)

Lastly, sorry for the rambling...

If they bring a firearm with them, they're empowering themselves with the option to use it, if they feel its necessary. At that point, it's a mortal threat, no matter if they actually assault anyone with it or not.

[Masterbagger]

Just going to post this footage of a home invasion for thought. It's not particularly graphic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxlVHQF1BQ4

That woman had a lot of luck on her side as well her pistol. She would have had no chance at all without a gun. The thing to take away from watching that unfold is that there are people who are so far beyond human decency that they would go into someones home and threaten them with death. You alone make the choice of how you prepare for and respond to that.

[Usenko]

My thought is that if you genuinely want a weapon for home defence (rather than as a more socially acceptable version of "I like guns and wanna play"), then it would be a shotgun or rapid firing pistol, and would be mounted at or near the doorway of the home, in some kind of holster arrangement such that it could be accessed quickly but was high up out of the reach of any children that might visit. I have seen advertisements for such things (Some of which were code locked to restrict access to the home owner).

However, although things may be different in the USA, here the chance of a gun owner committing suicide by his or her gun is orders of magnitude higher than their chance of a home invasion. Similarly the chance of injury or death from accidental discharge is higher than their chance of injury or death from home invasion.

Therefore to have a weapon for home defence is illogical in Australia; even if you live in one of the most crime-prone areas of Sydney your chance of death or injury goes up rather than down if you are armed.

[pjknibbs]

If they bring a firearm with them, they're empowering themselves with the option to use it, if they feel its necessary. At that point, it's a mortal threat, no matter if they actually assault anyone with it or not.

The important word there is "if". Criminals in the UK will rarely bring guns if they're going to rob you. What would be the point? Guns are hard to get and it's very unlikely the householder you're robbing has one, so bringing a gun along just adds illegal gun ownership to the charges in the event you get caught, and if you actually use the gun on someone, then that's an actual or attempted murder charge as well.

This comes back to what's been said before--even if you banned all guns in the US tomorrow, there are so many of the things in circulation that it would take decades before they could all be removed, no matter how many gun amnesties you had. This is why a total ban on guns is impractical over there, not any intrinsic gun-owning right.

[clakclak]

What I don't get is why this discussion always is about a total ban vs changing nothing at all. Surely there are some things in between a majority of people can agree upon that may help. The real hardliners won't change their position, but a total ban or total free for all are both not feasible solutions.

[pjknibbs]

That's actually why I made my comment. A total ban is clearly impractical, but a gradual process could work--limit guns to over 21s in the first instance, say, then ban some of the more ridiculous ones, etc. Unfortunately this is exactly the sort of creeping process that the pro-gun lobby fears will happen if *any* sort of gun control is brought in!

[Avis]

..
It's also worth noting that most people who state they have a weapon for "home defense" store it in ways that make it practically inaccessible an impractical in a "home defense" situation. Those things happen quick. But, on the flip-side, making it too accessible, possibly making it easy for children to get to, is problematic as well....

I used to think this, but of the friends I have in the states who do have guns for home defence a couple have a handgun on a bedside cabinet in a sort of day safe, (not sure of the proper name for them, it's locked during the day only unlocked when they go to bed) so it's easily accessible but also safe from the kids getting a hold of it when they are not there.

[JSDD]

What I don't get is why this discussion always is about a total ban vs changing nothing at all. Surely there are some things in between a majority of people can agree upon that may help. The real hardliners won't change their position ...

but those a**holes cry the loudest when it comes to possible legislations. and "working together" isnt something that a congress(wo)man can convince his(her) constituency (anymore), but the hardliners will surely take any attempt to work with the other side as treasonous act that must be punished by death sentence ... really, common sense polititians are those with the least attention, you first have to shutdown the government / defund nasa and such to become kind of "famous and popular" in these days

usually there are many common sense polititians in the democratic party, thats why common sense policy gets done when they are in charge. not so when republicans are ... and of course not if a clown like trump is president

[Morkonan]

My thought is that if you genuinely want a weapon for home defence (rather than as a more socially acceptable version of "I like guns and wanna play"), then it would be a shotgun or rapid firing pistol,..

Either is good. Though, if you live in an apartment or condominium, a shotgun is a safer choice. It won't likely penetrate the walls...

I guess my point was more that people will sometimes buy a firearm for "home defense" and then they stop there. It gets put in a close or someone's "sock drawer" in their bedroom and forgotten. They fee safer, for some reason, because they "have a gun." Then, a kid gets ahold of it and their parents don't know, because they never even looked at the gun after they stored it.

If one is keeping a weapon for that purpose, it needs to be near you when you'd need it. That's a difficult thing to predict. Because of that, the effectiveness of having a firearm for "home defense" is much reduced unless one goes around with a pistol holstered on their hip while cooking dinner...

A couple of good exterior light fixtures might be more effective for "home defense" in some situations.

...The important word there is "if". Criminals in the UK will rarely bring guns if they're going to rob you. What would be the point? ..

It's a magic tool - Point it at someone and, suddenly, they're more likely to do what you tell them to do. I would think most criminals breaking into a home aren't thinking about the implications of getting caught and how to prepare themselves if they are caught by doing all that they can to minimize the sentence and years of incarceration. Either they're confident they don't need it for a "snatch and grab" kind of break-in, they don't think they'll end up confronting anyone or they don't have access to one. Thought, it seems that knife popularity is on the rise.

...but also safe from the kids getting a hold of it when they are not there.

^--- This. I've spoken to a couple of friends of mine about guns. They've got kids and were considering purchasing a firearm for home defense. My opinion on the matter was "Be cautious and don't buy one if you aren't more than positive you can keep it out of your child's hands." When I was a kid, I had access to all sorts of guns. My parents didn't discourage it, but it could have been dangerous if I had been a little bit...stupider.

..usually there are many common sense polititians ...

What does one of those look like? I think a "common sense politician" is like Bigfoot. Everyone say's they know someone who knows someone who's seen one, but nobody's ever seen one, themselves.

Politicians want to get re-elected more than they want to stand up at a podium an preach "common sense." Well, unless making such statements would, in fact, inspire their constituents to re-elect them.

But, "common sense" doesn't inspire someone to get in the car and drive over to stand in line at the polls when it's raining outside and otherwise inconvenient. To really get people rushing to the polls in a panic, disregarding their daily responsibilities and comforts, you have to have a "crisis" or a "threat" that scares the bejeebus out of them and makes them desperate enough to brave heavy traffic and endure the pain of trying to find a parking space... Politicians that can inspire that rather than sissy, stupid, egg-headed "common sense" are the politicians that get elected.

[Usenko]

You know, that's an interesting thing.

I think we do genuinely get quite a few common-sense politicians in Australia - and the reason is that you don't need to get people out to vote when it's inconvenient. The $50 fine does that job for you.

(That, and because we have practically 100% voter turnout, we have to have things set up to make it as convenient as possible).

[Morkonan]

You know, that's an interesting thing.

I think we do genuinely get quite a few common-sense politicians in Australia - and the reason is that you don't need to get people out to vote when it's inconvenient. The $50 fine does that job for you.

(That, and because we have practically 100% voter turnout, we have to have things set up to make it as convenient as possible).

All that and more - The ravenous drop-bears and spiders the size of small dogs weed out the weak, infirm, and... stupid.

[Usenko]

Weird thing, Americans think Australia is dangerous, because of venomous wildlife. Australians think America is dangerous because of guns . . .

Joking aside, the big thing is that since voting is compulsory, it is a practical necessity to make it easy. No-one in the city is outside of walking range of a polling booth, and the queues are short. Plus you can generally get a good sausage-sizzle at the polling booth.

[UniTrader]

You know, that's an interesting thing.

I think we do genuinely get quite a few common-sense politicians in Australia - and the reason is that you don't need to get people out to vote when it's inconvenient. The $50 fine does that job for you.

(That, and because we have practically 100% voter turnout, we have to have things set up to make it as convenient as possible).

All that and more - The ravenous drop-bears and spiders the size of small dogs weed out the weak, infirm, and... stupid.

basically a Country/Continent as Darwin himself would have created it