3 ms·

I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For f

I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For financial gain? Just for jollies[1]? The thing about giving everyone a gun is that it makes every crime that much more likely to be fatal. In Canada, for example, if I break into your house for your TV and you catch me, we're sort of at an impasse. Maybe I have a knife or a hard-to-get, illegal gun, but more than likely I hadn't thought it out. I'll run away, you'll call the cops. Compare to the US, where I'd get a gun before I break into your house, because why not, they're everywhere. Now I want some crack, break into your house, get startled and shoot you. Or you shoot me. By introducing guns into what would have been a non-violent crime, you've significantly increased the risk of injury or death for all parties. This is not to say that it's impossible to get an illegal gun if you think it might be beneficial; as in your 'holding up a convenience store' example. But why would I cap a bunch of random bystanders, and turn my potential armed robbery charge into first-degree murder? If I do have an illegal gun, and I know everyone else is unlikely to be armed, I hold all the power. The gun is merely a tool to keep people in line, I don't have to shoot anyone to achieve my goal. If I think everyone has a concealed carry, suddenly the situation is fraught with peril for everyone. Gun control in the US is some terrible, bad-faith arms race where everyone 'needs' to defend themselves against these random, nun-toting boogey men. 1. One would argue that mass shootings are this sort of irrational behaviour. However, they tend to involve legally purchased guns, and they represent a very small proportion of gun-related deaths.

BryanB55 14y ago
Fair enough, so you would assume that the burglar would run away. What if they don't? A few years back in one of the wealthiest areas of Florida, I had 3 people enter my home one night while I was asleep and take computers, tvs, etc.. At the time I never owned a gun and didn't wake up to notice there were people in my home. They were later caught by police and found to be over 6 feet tall with baseball bats, crowbars and a history of violent crime. Had I gotten up that night and walked into something unexpected I would prefer to have something to help me through the situation... Just my opinion though. To me, a gun will help level the playing field. I have some empty hand combat skills but I surely wouldn't bet my life that I could take on 3 large men armed with baseball bats who didn't want to get caught and were clearly displaying reckless disregard for other people. I just really don't think bad people are some imaginary "boogey men".
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  Frankly, your story is the perfect, one-in-a-million anecdote. - Your house is broken into. Not really a routine occurrence. - The people breaking in don't have guns. If any of them had a gun, and you had a gun, now it's a proper disaster. So you're weighing all the risks of easy, legal gun-ownership ( lower barriers to shooting sprees, accidental discharges ) against being in this precise scenario, which happened to you one time. Further: - I'm going to take it on your word that 'history of violent crime' means beating up random homeowners. I can only imagine in the business of housebreaking and fencing stolen goods you probably have some extra-judicial problem solving, which might involve beating up other people you've had criminal dealings with. This is quite different from murdering suburban homeowners in cold blood. - Further, of course they had crowbars, they were housebreaking. The police didn't catch them at your house, so you can't really confirm the number or the kit they had at the time, just how many people the cops nabbed later. The really telling thing is your comment about hand-to-hand combat. Why the hell are you looking for a fight, anyways? Is punching a random burglar going to help your odds of getting out safely? This is the really perverse american attitude, that it's not sufficient that you avoid bodily harm, but you need to dominate and punish the intruder yourself, because they've wronged you. If you're open to appeasement or trying to get away quietly, you save yourself significant risk of injury.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    >Frankly, your story is the perfect, one-in-a-million anecdote. No, no it's not. Homeowners defend themselves against home intruders all the time with guns. Google is your friend.
    - alanctgardner2 14y ago
      I read that as "homeowners shoot people all the time". I meant that his scenario, where there was a real threat of violence, was rare. It's entirely possible for you to shoot a guy who would've run off. That doesn't mean it was necessary, or defending yourself.
bmelton 14y ago
Are you suggesting that home invasions don't actually happen? To add at least one anecdotal data point, my home was burgled a couple of weeks before Christmas by a group of armed burglars.
xtracto 14y ago
>I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For financial gain? Just for jollies[1]? FWIW, It happened tn the UK, specifically in Liverpool, in Kensington ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Liverpool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Liverpool ), where a friend lived while doing his PhD. Forunately he was not in and the door of his room was locked (he shared the house with other guys). The burglar took lots of valuable stuff from the rooms that were unlocked (so it was not someone of the friends).

BryanB55 14y ago

Fair enough, so you would assume that the burglar would run away. What if they don't? A few years back in one of the wealthiest areas of Florida, I had 3 people enter my home one night while I was asleep and take computers, tvs, etc.. At the time I never owned a gun and didn't wake up to notice there were people in my home. They were later caught by police and found to be over 6 feet tall with baseball bats, crowbars and a history of violent crime. Had I gotten up that night and walked into something unexpected I would prefer to have something to help me through the situation... Just my opinion though. To me, a gun will help level the playing field. I have some empty hand combat skills but I surely wouldn't bet my life that I could take on 3 large men armed with baseball bats who didn't want to get caught and were clearly displaying reckless disregard for other people. I just really don't think bad people are some imaginary "boogey men".

alanctgardner2 14y ago
Frankly, your story is the perfect, one-in-a-million anecdote. - Your house is broken into. Not really a routine occurrence. - The people breaking in don't have guns. If any of them had a gun, and you had a gun, now it's a proper disaster. So you're weighing all the risks of easy, legal gun-ownership ( lower barriers to shooting sprees, accidental discharges ) against being in this precise scenario, which happened to you one time. Further: - I'm going to take it on your word that 'history of violent crime' means beating up random homeowners. I can only imagine in the business of housebreaking and fencing stolen goods you probably have some extra-judicial problem solving, which might involve beating up other people you've had criminal dealings with. This is quite different from murdering suburban homeowners in cold blood. - Further, of course they had crowbars, they were housebreaking. The police didn't catch them at your house, so you can't really confirm the number or the kit they had at the time, just how many people the cops nabbed later. The really telling thing is your comment about hand-to-hand combat. Why the hell are you looking for a fight, anyways? Is punching a random burglar going to help your odds of getting out safely? This is the really perverse american attitude, that it's not sufficient that you avoid bodily harm, but you need to dominate and punish the intruder yourself, because they've wronged you. If you're open to appeasement or trying to get away quietly, you save yourself significant risk of injury.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  >Frankly, your story is the perfect, one-in-a-million anecdote. No, no it's not. Homeowners defend themselves against home intruders all the time with guns. Google is your friend.
  - alanctgardner2 14y ago
    I read that as "homeowners shoot people all the time". I meant that his scenario, where there was a real threat of violence, was rare. It's entirely possible for you to shoot a guy who would've run off. That doesn't mean it was necessary, or defending yourself.

bmelton 14y ago

Are you suggesting that home invasions don't actually happen? To add at least one anecdotal data point, my home was burgled a couple of weeks before Christmas by a group of armed burglars.

xtracto 14y ago

>I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For financial gain? Just for jollies[1]? FWIW, It happened tn the UK, specifically in Liverpool, in Kensington ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Liverpool http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Liverpool ), where a friend lived while doing his PhD. Forunately he was not in and the door of his room was locked (he shared the house with other guys). The burglar took lots of valuable stuff from the rooms that were unlocked (so it was not someone of the friends).