11 ms·

Or when someone breaks into your apartment and the police have an average response time of, what, 10 minutes or so? How about when you pull over to assist a cra

by 67726e 11y ago

Or when someone breaks into your apartment and the police have an average response time of, what, 10 minutes or so? How about when you pull over to assist a crashed motorcyclist and it turns out he's a DUI-case and attempts to car-jack you? How about when you see someone waltz into your neighbors backyard and kick in the door? All things that have happened to either myself, or a coworker in the past year. Is it unreasonable to have a firearm for those needs? I'm not Dirty Harry over here, and I'd rather not have to draw, let alone use a firearm, but I'm not also naive enough to think that the police can save me from all of the bad things that might happen. In a nation with as many firearms as people, the cat's out of the bag.

lern_too_spel 11y ago
Nothing like that has ever happened to me. In fact, I have never been in a situation where I would have been better off with a gun on me. Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often.
- mondoshawan 11y ago
  Correlation is not causation.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    Who said it was?
    - mondoshawan 11y ago
      "Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often." You implied it.
- pkaeding 11y ago
  I'd be careful implying causation here. Another way to look at it is that people who often find themselves in dangerous situations feel the need to have guns to protect themselves. When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound so 'funny'.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Well, in this case it might be. In a society where no one owns guns, the chance that some intruder has a gun is near to null, so you don’t need a gun either.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Clearly a 5'1", 105lb woman has no need of a gun when a 6'4", 240lb man breaks into her home.
      - matroosberg 11y ago
        How is that clear? Where is the data that backs up your claim? The studies cited in http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a... certainly point the other direction.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        The article you cite discusses intimate partner violence and seems to suggest that abusive households which have a gun present may result in the gun being used against the woman. If you read my comment, I was discussing attacks by strangers. Here is an article, for example, that suggests violent resistance (ideally with a gun) is the best way to avoid property loss and injury when attacked. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00539.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.... Are you seriously asserting that a small female under attack by a large male is better off unarmed?
        foldr 11y ago
        Of course it is possible to imagine situations in which a gun makes you safer. The point is that in the real world, you are more likely to end up in a situation where it makes you less safe. More specifically, women are far more likely to be killed by their abusive partners than they are to face a life-threatening home invasion.
- 67726e 11y ago
  Funny part was, I didn't even own a gun for the break in or when I found the dude breaking into my neighbors house. In fact, I was lucky enough that there happened to be a cop driving by right as I ran out the door to try to grab his plate number. In the case of the carjacking, that happened to my boss when he pulled over to render assistance to a man who crashed his motorcycle. Him just trying to be a good Samaritan at 3 in the afternoon on a Sunday. After the break in I bought a rifle, and after my boss nearly got carjacked I bought a pistol and am pursuing a concealed permit. I'm not going into with a John Wayne mentality, rather I have something of a Scout's Motto mentality. Be Prepared.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    My two takeaways are to have a strong door and to let the proper authorities handle accidents that don't require immediate aid. Those two behaviors seem safer for all involved.
  - markb139 11y ago
    The Scouts aren't armed with concealed weapons.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Incorrect. Every Boy Scout I know carries at least one knife, after they get their Toting Chit.
  - foldr 11y ago
    Given that your HN posting history mostly consists of you saying how you really want to join the army and kill people, can you honestly say that self defense was your primary motivation for buying a gun? It sounds to me like you want to use it. Your stories don't really support your position because everyone involved is still alive. If you'd had a gun, then at least one person could very well be dead as a result of committing a not particularly serious crime.
    - 67726e 11y ago
- Spooky23 11y ago
  That's a really ignorant statement. The problem with the gun debate is that nobody wants to walk in another's shoes. There are many people who live in areas where police response is nonexistent for many types of crime or response times are awful. Guns are a great equalizer for the weak. The overblown prohibition push over the years has empowered the more extreme gun advocates and created the potential for more problems.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I had a man break into my home when I was there. He got in through the roof, going up scaffolding on a derelict building next door. I offered him a cup of tea, and told him it would probably be safer for him to leave via my front door and down the stairs rather than back down the scaffolding. He declined the tea, but I went and made one for myself and called the police. He went back out the way he'd come in. The police caught him in the garden, where he brandished a bottle at them. They did not shoot and kill him[1], they de-escalated then caught and cuffed him. He served a short sentence, got some drug and alcohol rehab, and is now only engaged in minor crime. At no point did I think "this would be better if any of us (me, him, the police) could have a gun". [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police-in-england-and-wales-only-fired-their-weapons-twice-during-14864-operations-in-201314-10378829.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police-... Armed Police in England and Wales only fired their weapons twice out of 14684 operations in 2013/2014. And let's not forget that the UK has terrorist and paramilitary groups operating here.
    - aaronem 11y ago
      That's nice, especially since he didn't have one of the very many knives which are, I gather from the news, such a perennial problem in your neck of the woods. Here's hoping you stay lucky!
      - DanBC 11y ago
        Knife crime is rare in UK. Stats are skewed by gang violence in Glasgow, some parts of Manchester, and London. I never fear knife crime in my small town (pop approx 100,000).
- isaacremuant 11y ago
  This is a fallacy. You're anecdotal evidence and generalizing gun-owners' experiences.
reagency 11y ago
It is also naive to think yor gun can save you. Do you know where criminals guns? By taking them from people like you
- 67726e 11y ago
  Or other criminals, or a straw purchase, or buying them on the street, or buying via the "gun show" loophole. Truth be told, I have friends who went down "the wrong path" in life. I've got family that aren't exactly on the straight and narrow either, and a pistol can be had for a few hundred dollars on the street, no questions asked. To think that my owning a firearm is going to get me robbed is a flat out idiotic statement. I'm never seeking a confrontation, but my having a firearm is going to put me at a marked advantage over someone who doesn't.
  - ux-app 11y ago
    > but my having a firearm is going to put me at a marked advantage over someone who doesn't No, statistically speaking (and via simple logical deduction) it will dramatically increase the chance that a life (yours and/or your attackers) will end. If you informed on the mob then, yes, you should be worried about getting murdered on the street, and you should probably carry. Otherwise, that punk that pulls a knife on you just wants your wallet. Just hand it over and nobody dies that day (I'm assuming you don't value the contents of your wallet over a human beings life). The statistics unequivocally point to guns reducing safety. I'm not usually a big fan of Jim Jeffries' comedy, but he does a great bit about gun control (NSFW link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl--YVnni0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl--YVnni0I I'm in total agreement with Jeffries here. It's ok to like guns. Just drop the "it makes me safer to carry one, one day I'll stop a robbery, etc" nonsense. Be honest and say "fuck the statistics. I like guns. You can't stop me from owning one. Now piss off". It's much more intellectually honest.
Maken 11y ago
Aside from starting a gun race with the burglar and fearing losing your life altogether with your possessions, I never follow this reasoning. How is it worse facing without guns a unarmed intruder than facing with a gun a well armed one?
- tehwebguy 11y ago
  For better or for worse that argument is facile in countries where guns are already plentiful. No one gets to choose whether their intruder will be armed.
  - 67726e 11y ago
    As I said in my original response: The cat is out of the bag.
- baddox 11y ago
  If you're physically weaker than the other person, it's pretty clear how it's worse. Two people with guns is a much more even match than two different-sized people without guns. And that's ignoring the criminals-will-still-have-guns argument.
  - Qwertious 11y ago
    It improves your odds, but raises the stakes. You should only raise the stakes if you care more about successfully stopping the intruder from taking your stuff, than you do about increasing the risk of death. At the end of the day we still need to look at the stats (how often do intruders hurt/kill homeowners when unprovoked?), but it still doesn't make too much sense to raise stakes for the sake of survival.
  - ux-app 11y ago
    Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, the vast, vast majority of home intruders don't want to murder you (it's so rare that these people get special nicknames like "Son of Sam" or "Zodiac Killer"). Most intruders just want your shit so they can sell it off. Adding a gun into the mix runs counter to simple common sense. The rational response is to have property insurance and stay out of a burglar's way. This approach is a double win. 1. Nobody dies (yay!) 2. You get brand new stuff paid for by the insurance company!
rorykoehler 11y ago
My personal experiences in some of the cases you have mentioned. 2 times house break, both times I confronted the burglars with a kitchen knife and gave them an avenue to escape which they took. I would never want to kill someone because they tried take my property. It's just stuff and quite frankly I value human life much higher, even if it is the life of a criminal who is taking my things. The fact that there are so many of these situations points towards a different and bigger problem in society and I would much rather energy was spent on fixing them than treating symptoms with firearms. I do agree that the cat is out of the bag but I still don't want anything to do with guns. They are bad news and only good for killing which is an experience I would rather avoid in life.
- baddox 11y ago
  > The fact that there are so many of these situations points towards a different and bigger problem in society and I would much rather energy was spent on fixing them than treating symptoms with firearms. Of course there's a bigger problem. But I would much rather own a gun and actually be able to protect myself and my family, than refuse to have a gun on principle and just pray that one day I get to effect all of society. The latter is like refusing to wear a seat belt, because people should really be driving safely.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    The chances of being in a car crash are substantially higher than being shot. Also car crashes are rarely intended. It's not that I don't understand the perspective you put forward, especially in the US where there is already a high prevalence of gun ownership. I do however think the importance of the right to bear arms is way overstated. It's really easy (and dare I day, liberating) to live without a gun.
  - vacri 11y ago
    More people are killed by family members with their own guns than by 'home invasion' murders in the US. Despite what the NRA propagandises, 'home invasion' murders are actually pretty rare.
  - 11y ago
matroosberg 11y ago
Yes, it is unreasonable to want a gun for this situation because you only escalate the situation with a gun present. Carrying a gun increases your risk to get shot: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-i... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Saying that the cat is out of the bag so you need a gun is cold war logic were you need to be able to kill the other more times. So you rather want to escalate the situation further instead of trying e.g., what Australia did by implementing gun control?
- refurb 11y ago
  Your New Scientist article is laughable.... So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. This study only looked at one side of the equation of people who carry guns, the ones who got shot. What about all the people who carry guns and never use them? Wouldn't they be excluded from this study?
  - matroosberg 11y ago
    No, it did not just look at one side of the equation. "We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables." How does this only look at people carrying a gun?
    - refurb 11y ago
      Oh where to start? "Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both."[1] [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/ [2]http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-skydivers-would-be-better http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-skydivers-would-be-bet... [3]http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/ http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-...

by 67726e 11y ago

lern_too_spel 11y ago

Nothing like that has ever happened to me. In fact, I have never been in a situation where I would have been better off with a gun on me. Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often.

mondoshawan 11y ago
Correlation is not causation.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  Who said it was?
  - mondoshawan 11y ago
    "Funny how people who own guns seem to end up in dangerous situations so often." You implied it.
pkaeding 11y ago
I'd be careful implying causation here. Another way to look at it is that people who often find themselves in dangerous situations feel the need to have guns to protect themselves. When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound so 'funny'.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Well, in this case it might be. In a society where no one owns guns, the chance that some intruder has a gun is near to null, so you don’t need a gun either.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Clearly a 5'1", 105lb woman has no need of a gun when a 6'4", 240lb man breaks into her home.
    - matroosberg 11y ago
      How is that clear? Where is the data that backs up your claim? The studies cited in http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a... certainly point the other direction.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        The article you cite discusses intimate partner violence and seems to suggest that abusive households which have a gun present may result in the gun being used against the woman. If you read my comment, I was discussing attacks by strangers. Here is an article, for example, that suggests violent resistance (ideally with a gun) is the best way to avoid property loss and injury when attacked. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00539.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.... Are you seriously asserting that a small female under attack by a large male is better off unarmed?
        foldr 11y ago
        Of course it is possible to imagine situations in which a gun makes you safer. The point is that in the real world, you are more likely to end up in a situation where it makes you less safe. More specifically, women are far more likely to be killed by their abusive partners than they are to face a life-threatening home invasion.
67726e 11y ago
Funny part was, I didn't even own a gun for the break in or when I found the dude breaking into my neighbors house. In fact, I was lucky enough that there happened to be a cop driving by right as I ran out the door to try to grab his plate number. In the case of the carjacking, that happened to my boss when he pulled over to render assistance to a man who crashed his motorcycle. Him just trying to be a good Samaritan at 3 in the afternoon on a Sunday. After the break in I bought a rifle, and after my boss nearly got carjacked I bought a pistol and am pursuing a concealed permit. I'm not going into with a John Wayne mentality, rather I have something of a Scout's Motto mentality. Be Prepared.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  My two takeaways are to have a strong door and to let the proper authorities handle accidents that don't require immediate aid. Those two behaviors seem safer for all involved.
- markb139 11y ago
  The Scouts aren't armed with concealed weapons.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Incorrect. Every Boy Scout I know carries at least one knife, after they get their Toting Chit.
- foldr 11y ago
  Given that your HN posting history mostly consists of you saying how you really want to join the army and kill people, can you honestly say that self defense was your primary motivation for buying a gun? It sounds to me like you want to use it. Your stories don't really support your position because everyone involved is still alive. If you'd had a gun, then at least one person could very well be dead as a result of committing a not particularly serious crime.
  - 67726e 11y ago
Spooky23 11y ago
That's a really ignorant statement. The problem with the gun debate is that nobody wants to walk in another's shoes. There are many people who live in areas where police response is nonexistent for many types of crime or response times are awful. Guns are a great equalizer for the weak. The overblown prohibition push over the years has empowered the more extreme gun advocates and created the potential for more problems.
- DanBC 11y ago
  I had a man break into my home when I was there. He got in through the roof, going up scaffolding on a derelict building next door. I offered him a cup of tea, and told him it would probably be safer for him to leave via my front door and down the stairs rather than back down the scaffolding. He declined the tea, but I went and made one for myself and called the police. He went back out the way he'd come in. The police caught him in the garden, where he brandished a bottle at them. They did not shoot and kill him[1], they de-escalated then caught and cuffed him. He served a short sentence, got some drug and alcohol rehab, and is now only engaged in minor crime. At no point did I think "this would be better if any of us (me, him, the police) could have a gun". [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police-in-england-and-wales-only-fired-their-weapons-twice-during-14864-operations-in-201314-10378829.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police-... Armed Police in England and Wales only fired their weapons twice out of 14684 operations in 2013/2014. And let's not forget that the UK has terrorist and paramilitary groups operating here.
  - aaronem 11y ago
    That's nice, especially since he didn't have one of the very many knives which are, I gather from the news, such a perennial problem in your neck of the woods. Here's hoping you stay lucky!
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Knife crime is rare in UK. Stats are skewed by gang violence in Glasgow, some parts of Manchester, and London. I never fear knife crime in my small town (pop approx 100,000).
isaacremuant 11y ago
This is a fallacy. You're anecdotal evidence and generalizing gun-owners' experiences.

reagency 11y ago

It is also naive to think yor gun can save you. Do you know where criminals guns? By taking them from people like you

67726e 11y ago
Or other criminals, or a straw purchase, or buying them on the street, or buying via the "gun show" loophole. Truth be told, I have friends who went down "the wrong path" in life. I've got family that aren't exactly on the straight and narrow either, and a pistol can be had for a few hundred dollars on the street, no questions asked. To think that my owning a firearm is going to get me robbed is a flat out idiotic statement. I'm never seeking a confrontation, but my having a firearm is going to put me at a marked advantage over someone who doesn't.
- ux-app 11y ago
  > but my having a firearm is going to put me at a marked advantage over someone who doesn't No, statistically speaking (and via simple logical deduction) it will dramatically increase the chance that a life (yours and/or your attackers) will end. If you informed on the mob then, yes, you should be worried about getting murdered on the street, and you should probably carry. Otherwise, that punk that pulls a knife on you just wants your wallet. Just hand it over and nobody dies that day (I'm assuming you don't value the contents of your wallet over a human beings life). The statistics unequivocally point to guns reducing safety. I'm not usually a big fan of Jim Jeffries' comedy, but he does a great bit about gun control (NSFW link) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl--YVnni0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl--YVnni0I I'm in total agreement with Jeffries here. It's ok to like guns. Just drop the "it makes me safer to carry one, one day I'll stop a robbery, etc" nonsense. Be honest and say "fuck the statistics. I like guns. You can't stop me from owning one. Now piss off". It's much more intellectually honest.

Maken 11y ago

Aside from starting a gun race with the burglar and fearing losing your life altogether with your possessions, I never follow this reasoning. How is it worse facing without guns a unarmed intruder than facing with a gun a well armed one?

tehwebguy 11y ago
For better or for worse that argument is facile in countries where guns are already plentiful. No one gets to choose whether their intruder will be armed.
- 67726e 11y ago
  As I said in my original response: The cat is out of the bag.
baddox 11y ago
If you're physically weaker than the other person, it's pretty clear how it's worse. Two people with guns is a much more even match than two different-sized people without guns. And that's ignoring the criminals-will-still-have-guns argument.
- Qwertious 11y ago
  It improves your odds, but raises the stakes. You should only raise the stakes if you care more about successfully stopping the intruder from taking your stuff, than you do about increasing the risk of death. At the end of the day we still need to look at the stats (how often do intruders hurt/kill homeowners when unprovoked?), but it still doesn't make too much sense to raise stakes for the sake of survival.
- ux-app 11y ago
  Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, the vast, vast majority of home intruders don't want to murder you (it's so rare that these people get special nicknames like "Son of Sam" or "Zodiac Killer"). Most intruders just want your shit so they can sell it off. Adding a gun into the mix runs counter to simple common sense. The rational response is to have property insurance and stay out of a burglar's way. This approach is a double win. 1. Nobody dies (yay!) 2. You get brand new stuff paid for by the insurance company!

rorykoehler 11y ago

My personal experiences in some of the cases you have mentioned. 2 times house break, both times I confronted the burglars with a kitchen knife and gave them an avenue to escape which they took. I would never want to kill someone because they tried take my property. It's just stuff and quite frankly I value human life much higher, even if it is the life of a criminal who is taking my things. The fact that there are so many of these situations points towards a different and bigger problem in society and I would much rather energy was spent on fixing them than treating symptoms with firearms. I do agree that the cat is out of the bag but I still don't want anything to do with guns. They are bad news and only good for killing which is an experience I would rather avoid in life.

baddox 11y ago
> The fact that there are so many of these situations points towards a different and bigger problem in society and I would much rather energy was spent on fixing them than treating symptoms with firearms. Of course there's a bigger problem. But I would much rather own a gun and actually be able to protect myself and my family, than refuse to have a gun on principle and just pray that one day I get to effect all of society. The latter is like refusing to wear a seat belt, because people should really be driving safely.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  The chances of being in a car crash are substantially higher than being shot. Also car crashes are rarely intended. It's not that I don't understand the perspective you put forward, especially in the US where there is already a high prevalence of gun ownership. I do however think the importance of the right to bear arms is way overstated. It's really easy (and dare I day, liberating) to live without a gun.
- vacri 11y ago
  More people are killed by family members with their own guns than by 'home invasion' murders in the US. Despite what the NRA propagandises, 'home invasion' murders are actually pretty rare.
- 11y ago

matroosberg 11y ago

Yes, it is unreasonable to want a gun for this situation because you only escalate the situation with a gun present. Carrying a gun increases your risk to get shot: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-i... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Saying that the cat is out of the bag so you need a gun is cold war logic were you need to be able to kill the other more times. So you rather want to escalate the situation further instead of trying e.g., what Australia did by implementing gun control?

refurb 11y ago
Your New Scientist article is laughable.... So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. This study only looked at one side of the equation of people who carry guns, the ones who got shot. What about all the people who carry guns and never use them? Wouldn't they be excluded from this study?
- matroosberg 11y ago
  No, it did not just look at one side of the equation. "We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables." How does this only look at people carrying a gun?
  - refurb 11y ago
    Oh where to start? "Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both."[1] [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/ [2]http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-skydivers-would-be-better http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/why-skydivers-would-be-bet... [3]http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/ http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-...