4 ms·

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

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.
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      It's a rare scenario, and one that's not a problem until you're the one with an intruder in your house, the place where your family sleeps, and all you have is a bat (or whatever) because people who never thought they would be in that situation have seen to it that guns were outlawed.

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.
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    It's a rare scenario, and one that's not a problem until you're the one with an intruder in your house, the place where your family sleeps, and all you have is a bat (or whatever) because people who never thought they would be in that situation have seen to it that guns were outlawed.