5 ms·

>> Learning to become dependent on external intervention for all conflict is not a life skill I want to teach my kids. If someone breaks into my house and trie

>> Learning to become dependent on external intervention for all conflict is not a life skill I want to teach my kids. If someone breaks into my house and tries to beat me to death, I'm not going to try to reason it out with them, I'm calling the police.

giantg2 6y ago
Hopefully that's not all you do. That'd be a long beating with average police response being around 5 minutes.
- rgblambda 6y ago
  How would you approach the situation?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It depends on the specifics. Based on the original comment, if they've already broken into the house, they will be able to break into any room you are hiding in. If they are truly there to beat you to death, you have to be ready to defend yourself with whatever force is necessary to stop that threat. What that level of force is will vary greatly depending on situation, locale, persons involved, etc.
    - rgblambda 6y ago
      >> if they've already broken into the house, they will be able to break into any room you are hiding in I disagree. If possible, call the police immediately. Barricade yourself in a room and if it comes to it defend yourself. I don't fancy my chances against someone armed and motivated so it's a last resort. This is based on the advice from the Police Service in my country.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Dude, what's your interior house walls made of? I'm not saying don't barricade yourself. Just that if you have an attacker in your house who is intent of killing you ("beating you to death") and an average police response of 5 minutes or more, they can get into any room in a typical house. You can barricade the door, but anyone who knows about construction knows drywall is easy enough to get through. Most interior doors are lightweight wood and newer ones are practically cardboard. So usually it's much harder to get into a house from outside than to get to other internal parts of the house due to material differences. I think most people have no idea how insecure their homes are. Mostly because these types of scenarios are statistically rare and people always think it will happen to others. Plus, it could be hard to sleep at night knowing just how easy it is to pick locks if someone actually wanted to.
        rgblambda 6y ago
        Sometimes I forget how America centric HN is. The internal walls in my house are made of stone. But it's an old house. Most in my country are made of brick.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Older homes do tend to be more sturdy. Still, are the interior doors more durable than the external doors? Are the ceilings secure? Could be easy enough to go into the attic (either with access or by force) and come down in the room in under 5 minutes. Of course if the motive is to kill the occupant then the aggressor could bring tools to defeat the construction.
        rgblambda 6y ago
        This has become quite entertaining. >>Still, are the interior doors more durable than the external doors? Yes. >> Could be easy enough to go into the attic (either with access or by force) and come down in the room in under 5 minutes. Locate the entrance to the attic. Then the room I am in, despite not knowing the layout to the house. Then smash a hole in the ceiling. Then climb through said hole without getting stuck. Without me noticing. In under 5 minutes.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    I keep a baseball bat by the bed and a shotgun in the corner. That's my plan on resolving a burglary. Somewhere in there it would be nice to call the police. But they are a good 15-20 minutes away and would only be coming to see if I made it out alive or not.
    - speedgoose 6y ago
      You should get rid of the gun or put it in a safe when you are not using it for sport. It's too dangerous to have it just in the corner. It's more likely that you or a family member will use it against yourself or someone else you love.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Do you have the stats on that? It's really only valid if the person in question or his family have abuse or suicide issues.
        speedgoose 6y ago
        Yes it's mostly deaths related to suicide. With a few domestic homicides or children playing with weapons. But suicide thoughts can happen to everyone, yourself in the future perhaps, or someone you care about and where you didn't see or ignored the signs. About USA: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mos... In France where weapons are relatively rare except for hunting : https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2017/10/05/quels-est-le-nombre-moyen-de-morts-par-armes-a-feu-chaque-annee-en-france-crimes-suicides-accidents_1652547 https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2017/10/05/quels-est-le-...
        giantg2 6y ago
        I think we should let the individual decide based on their own situation. Taking away the choice to own a gun for self defense, or suggesting in a blanket statement that people should sell their gun or make it inaccessible (useless for self defense), is not something I support. Maybe your perspective is different, and that's fine. That French page is not very useful - total numbers of firearm deaths is not as important as looking at suicide rates. Suicide rates between the US and France are 13.7 and 12.1 respectively (WHO 2016 data). That doesn't seem like a very big difference, especially if you consider the large difference in guns per 100 people (US 120, France 19, suggesting weak correlation). You also see developed countries in that data which have low gun ownership and higher suicide rates (Sweden, Japan, etc). This seems to point to factors other than gun ownership driving suicide rates. The New York article is looking at short term reduction studies. We see that suicides drop temporarily after a prevalent method of suicide has been removed. If we follow the rate over time, it will increase as people learn of new ways to kill themselves. In the US, we have recently seen an increase in teens gassing themselves with household chemicals. It just takes time for societal knowledge to perform that shift, so you end up playing a shell game. The best way to reduce suicides is to focusing on getting at-risk individuals treatment. The starting point is to destigmatize the subject and educate people on the options. Addressing the root problems are more effective than addressing the symptoms, which just ends up going down a never-ending rabbit hole of banning the next method to replace the last. There are a number of mental health workers who agree. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201607...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
abfan1127 6y ago
uhh. if someone is in your house with intent to harm you, the police will not arrive in time to prevent it. Police response times are measured in minutes. You're much better off running away or defending yourself with a weapon, the ultimate equalizer being a firearm.
- rgblambda 6y ago
  >>the ultimate equalizer being a firearm. Not if you live in a country where firearms are strictly regulated and self defence isn't a justifiable reason for a firearm permit.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Sad but true.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > Not if you live in a country where firearms are strictly regulated and self defence isn't a justifiable reason for a firearm permit. "External intervention is violating my right to defend myself" is not a argument in favor of external intervention.
Avamander 6y ago
I think we all very clearly know that there are exceptions where you do need to ask for external help.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  For people not institutionalized with a jailer or nurse in close proximity there is no "external help" that has a useful SLA if you unexpectedly find yourself in a situation where bodily harm is imminent. You either need to prevent the situation from happening yourself or deal with it yourself.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Pretty sure police and most government services don't even give you an SLA (loved that you used that term though, gave me a nice chuckle). It's more of a "we'll get to it when we can". Not to mention, the courts have held that the police have no obligation to protect you (ie you can't sue them for not getting there in time or not rushing into a building to save you, etc).
- nmz 6y ago
  Some things still need to be said.
tremon 6y ago
If they're already in your house and beating you to death, what makes you think you'll manage to make that phone call?

giantg2 6y ago

Hopefully that's not all you do. That'd be a long beating with average police response being around 5 minutes.

rgblambda 6y ago
How would you approach the situation?
- giantg2 6y ago
  It depends on the specifics. Based on the original comment, if they've already broken into the house, they will be able to break into any room you are hiding in. If they are truly there to beat you to death, you have to be ready to defend yourself with whatever force is necessary to stop that threat. What that level of force is will vary greatly depending on situation, locale, persons involved, etc.
  - rgblambda 6y ago
    >> if they've already broken into the house, they will be able to break into any room you are hiding in I disagree. If possible, call the police immediately. Barricade yourself in a room and if it comes to it defend yourself. I don't fancy my chances against someone armed and motivated so it's a last resort. This is based on the advice from the Police Service in my country.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Dude, what's your interior house walls made of? I'm not saying don't barricade yourself. Just that if you have an attacker in your house who is intent of killing you ("beating you to death") and an average police response of 5 minutes or more, they can get into any room in a typical house. You can barricade the door, but anyone who knows about construction knows drywall is easy enough to get through. Most interior doors are lightweight wood and newer ones are practically cardboard. So usually it's much harder to get into a house from outside than to get to other internal parts of the house due to material differences. I think most people have no idea how insecure their homes are. Mostly because these types of scenarios are statistically rare and people always think it will happen to others. Plus, it could be hard to sleep at night knowing just how easy it is to pick locks if someone actually wanted to.
      - rgblambda 6y ago
        Sometimes I forget how America centric HN is. The internal walls in my house are made of stone. But it's an old house. Most in my country are made of brick.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Older homes do tend to be more sturdy. Still, are the interior doors more durable than the external doors? Are the ceilings secure? Could be easy enough to go into the attic (either with access or by force) and come down in the room in under 5 minutes. Of course if the motive is to kill the occupant then the aggressor could bring tools to defeat the construction.
        rgblambda 6y ago
        This has become quite entertaining. >>Still, are the interior doors more durable than the external doors? Yes. >> Could be easy enough to go into the attic (either with access or by force) and come down in the room in under 5 minutes. Locate the entrance to the attic. Then the room I am in, despite not knowing the layout to the house. Then smash a hole in the ceiling. Then climb through said hole without getting stuck. Without me noticing. In under 5 minutes.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  I keep a baseball bat by the bed and a shotgun in the corner. That's my plan on resolving a burglary. Somewhere in there it would be nice to call the police. But they are a good 15-20 minutes away and would only be coming to see if I made it out alive or not.
  - speedgoose 6y ago
    You should get rid of the gun or put it in a safe when you are not using it for sport. It's too dangerous to have it just in the corner. It's more likely that you or a family member will use it against yourself or someone else you love.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Do you have the stats on that? It's really only valid if the person in question or his family have abuse or suicide issues.
      - speedgoose 6y ago
        Yes it's mostly deaths related to suicide. With a few domestic homicides or children playing with weapons. But suicide thoughts can happen to everyone, yourself in the future perhaps, or someone you care about and where you didn't see or ignored the signs. About USA: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mos... In France where weapons are relatively rare except for hunting : https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2017/10/05/quels-est-le-nombre-moyen-de-morts-par-armes-a-feu-chaque-annee-en-france-crimes-suicides-accidents_1652547 https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2017/10/05/quels-est-le-...
        giantg2 6y ago
        I think we should let the individual decide based on their own situation. Taking away the choice to own a gun for self defense, or suggesting in a blanket statement that people should sell their gun or make it inaccessible (useless for self defense), is not something I support. Maybe your perspective is different, and that's fine. That French page is not very useful - total numbers of firearm deaths is not as important as looking at suicide rates. Suicide rates between the US and France are 13.7 and 12.1 respectively (WHO 2016 data). That doesn't seem like a very big difference, especially if you consider the large difference in guns per 100 people (US 120, France 19, suggesting weak correlation). You also see developed countries in that data which have low gun ownership and higher suicide rates (Sweden, Japan, etc). This seems to point to factors other than gun ownership driving suicide rates. The New York article is looking at short term reduction studies. We see that suicides drop temporarily after a prevalent method of suicide has been removed. If we follow the rate over time, it will increase as people learn of new ways to kill themselves. In the US, we have recently seen an increase in teens gassing themselves with household chemicals. It just takes time for societal knowledge to perform that shift, so you end up playing a shell game. The best way to reduce suicides is to focusing on getting at-risk individuals treatment. The starting point is to destigmatize the subject and educate people on the options. Addressing the root problems are more effective than addressing the symptoms, which just ends up going down a never-ending rabbit hole of banning the next method to replace the last. There are a number of mental health workers who agree. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201607...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

abfan1127 6y ago

uhh. if someone is in your house with intent to harm you, the police will not arrive in time to prevent it. Police response times are measured in minutes. You're much better off running away or defending yourself with a weapon, the ultimate equalizer being a firearm.

rgblambda 6y ago
>>the ultimate equalizer being a firearm. Not if you live in a country where firearms are strictly regulated and self defence isn't a justifiable reason for a firearm permit.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Sad but true.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Not if you live in a country where firearms are strictly regulated and self defence isn't a justifiable reason for a firearm permit. "External intervention is violating my right to defend myself" is not a argument in favor of external intervention.

Avamander 6y ago

I think we all very clearly know that there are exceptions where you do need to ask for external help.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
For people not institutionalized with a jailer or nurse in close proximity there is no "external help" that has a useful SLA if you unexpectedly find yourself in a situation where bodily harm is imminent. You either need to prevent the situation from happening yourself or deal with it yourself.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- giantg2 6y ago
  Pretty sure police and most government services don't even give you an SLA (loved that you used that term though, gave me a nice chuckle). It's more of a "we'll get to it when we can". Not to mention, the courts have held that the police have no obligation to protect you (ie you can't sue them for not getting there in time or not rushing into a building to save you, etc).
nmz 6y ago
Some things still need to be said.

tremon 6y ago

If they're already in your house and beating you to death, what makes you think you'll manage to make that phone call?