DescentBB

I'd like someone tell me how a gun would have prevented a home invasion.

woodchip wrote:Here lets throw this one in the mix:

Oh good, another article showing how the US is doing better on gun violence than developing nations with civil wars while still far below our peers. Nice to see Lebanon used as a benchmark for our quality of life. Be hey, were doing better than Honduras, right guys? GO USA!

Well, a few decades ago during the scared straight and revolving door era, there was this “study” with prison inmates as to which people or homes they choose to rob. And one common response in fact almost universal response was “I avoid anyone I think may be armed”.

I’m pretty sure the same would apply to a home invasion, unless there was something really important involved, like being hired to do a job against a specific family. (drugs, money in the mattress, mob hit…etc)

Yea, word gets around who is packing and who is not…not to mention that damn public registration info ★■◆● crooks have access to these days.

Not all crooks are afraid of facing a gun.

Not all homeowners are afraid to shoot them.

I think we can improve this forum not only by trying to be more civil, but also agreeing on some basic debate rules. I think we could sticky these rules and point to them for reference.

I suggest this as the first rule:

1. When linking to a study, survey etc. that has only published results, it is also incumbent on the poster to present the complied data used (complete) in a comprehensive way for people to examine and draw their own conclusions, and therefore allow proper debate to take place. No telling people to go look it up yourself…if you post the link…you post the proof, otherwise it shall be considered either propaganda or opinion, not fact.

I think we all would like to see improvements here, and I believe debate rules is a very good start…no I don’t really expect this forum to become a formal debate platform with judges and such, but there is room for improvement in the forum as it stands.

The rules should be voted on, but I will leave the details to someone with more clout to determine.

* If anybody seconds the notion I will place a formal request in feedback.

I see no problem with posting a study that lists sources and references whenever possible.

woodchip wrote:Not all homeowners are afraid to shoot them.

For that to happen, the homeowner has to know they're coming

again, when has there ever been a home invasion that doesn't rely on surprise?

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Not all homeowners are afraid to shoot them.

For that to happen, the homeowner has to know they're coming

again, when has there ever been a home invasion that doesn't rely on surprise?

The real surprise is when the homeowner shoots then.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Not all homeowners are afraid to shoot them.

For that to happen, the homeowner has to know they're coming

again, when has there ever been a home invasion that doesn't rely on surprise?

The real surprise is when the homeowner shoots then.

not even addressing the counterpoint, which is The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

Just in case you missed it... The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Not all homeowners are afraid to shoot them.

For that to happen, the homeowner has to know they're coming

again, when has there ever been a home invasion that doesn't rely on surprise?

The real surprise is when the homeowner shoots then.

not even addressing the counterpoint, which is The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

Just in case you missed it... The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

This kid knew. Sometimes these idiots knock first to see if you're home. If they don't get a response, and most of the time I won't open my door to someone I don't recognize, they'll then try to break in. If I was suspicious after someone knocked, and they did it several times at that, I'd watch what they do and I'd be ready for them. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot anyone who tries, or succeeds, in breaking into my home. I've got 16 shots without reloading and I'm a pretty good shot. I was thinking of getting a short shotgun however. Like they say, pray and spray is more reliable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1101484

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Not all homeowners are afraid to shoot them.

For that to happen, the homeowner has to know they're coming

again, when has there ever been a home invasion that doesn't rely on surprise?

The real surprise is when the homeowner shoots then.

not even addressing the counterpoint, which is The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

Just in case you missed it... The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

And my reply was no they don't. Many a homeowner was caught by surprise but still manage to get a gun and shoot the invader.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:The homeowner. has to know. they are coming.

And my reply was no they don't. Many a homeowner was caught by surprise but still manage to get a gun and shoot the invader.

I recently saw a video clip wherein a gang of 6-8 people tried a home invasion. They came up, started kicking the door, and... several minutes later, finished kicking down the door, because it was a pretty sturdy door and the criminals weren't entirely competent. The first kick let the resident know they were coming.

Even if it only takes a couple kicks, that's long enough for someone actively carrying to draw and position themselves. In the video I saw, it was long enough to wake up, access the safe, retrieve a weapon, set up an internal barricade and a funnel, and not have to use it because the cops actually got there in time

Also, many a homeowner has been caught by surprise, but still scared off an invader without firing a shot. The sight of a weapon pointed at you, or the distinctive sound of a shotgun being racked, can be a pretty effective deterrent.

That’s one reason why I have a security system, the other is to be damn sure I don’t arrive home to a house that has someone in it that doesn’t belong.

Lothar wrote:
I recently saw a video clip wherein a gang of 6-8 people tried a home invasion. They came up, started kicking the door, and... several minutes later, finished kicking down the door, because it was a pretty sturdy door and the criminals weren't entirely competent. The first kick let the resident know they were coming.

Even if it only takes a couple kicks, that's long enough for someone actively carrying to draw and position themselves. In the video I saw, it was long enough to wake up, access the safe, retrieve a weapon, set up an internal barricade and a funnel, and not have to use it because the cops actually got there in time

Also, many a homeowner has been caught by surprise, but still scared off an invader without firing a shot. The sight of a weapon pointed at you, or the distinctive sound of a shotgun being racked, can be a pretty effective deterrent.

Exactly. As Lothar has shown in the example, the security door was a much more effective deterrent to a home invasion than a gun, simply because the door served three tactics. One was a first-line defense mechanism, second was an early warning system and third, resistance to movement and force.

It was installed because the homeowner was smart enough to gather the intelligence necessary to make the proper decision. He was expecting an attack at some point but didn't know when, so the door fit the bill perfectly -- it was always on and always there.

The other example with the retrieval, funnel and barricade setup takes about six to eight minutes to execute. If the homeowner had that amount of time, the crook was busy casing the other areas of the house before he got to the funnel, which should be about the same time for a police unit to respond to the situation if they're close.

And in both examples, the gun was serving as a response measure, being employed after an alert.



Home invaders usually work in two-man or three-man teams (and in the case that Lothar showed, and eight-man team, enough for a large house and to control many occupants). In the case of a two-man team, one covers the front, one does the dirty work. I would know -- I met the business end of the two-man team, who were asking for drugs and money (try living with THAT for a week or two). Mistaken identity of the house was the premise of the situation. Home invasion in an otherwise crime-free neighborhood. I gave the shotgun wielding guy the same look that Mr. Roof gave the camera. He almost buggered off right then. It's too bad he didn't, it would have been nice.

Their tactic is two-fold. Surprise and stealth. Once they are at the door undetected, one good kick and they are in. Now, if you're at the other end of the house, you have time to respond because they haven't found you yet. However, if you are in the living room and your front door comes flying open, you have zero time to employ a response. No escape and evasion, no defensive setup, nothing. The situation is now firmly under their control and you are now their prisoner. The only time a gun would be advantageous in this situation is if it came from the outside -- held by an officer.

The gun itself is a rather ineffective tool for defense. But coupled with a way to barricade yourself from attack, funnel an enemy into a kill box, an early-warning system such as a camera or security door, or utilizing a buffer zone, and the gun becomes a force multiplier.

Spidey wrote:That’s one reason why I have a security system, the other is to be damn sure I don’t arrive home to a house that has someone in it that doesn’t belong.

Excellent! I commend and applaud you on your prudence.

dogs are an outstanding deterrent to burglers, not so much for an out-and out home invasion.

callmeslick wrote:dogs are an outstanding deterrent to burglers, not so much for an out-and out home invasion.

Yes. The invaders go after the dog first.

I don't like dogs...

well, Spidey, there is just something wrong with you!(says the guy who has never been without a dog for more than 6 weeks in the past 46 years)

written elsewhere, by a fishing friend of mine, and put well:

"I am conservative. So conservative the modern Republican party makes me want to puke. People need governed, and thus need government. The modern "conservative" hatred of government isn't conservative at all, it's insanity. I am also a gun owner. A multiple gun owner. Long and short. I like guns. I believe the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. But a people who won't value life doesn't deserve the unfettered right to own guns. It seems to me that's where we are as a nation. So yes, I support more and stronger regulation of gun ownership. I support closing all background check loopholes, including gun show sales and private sales, and even gifts between family members. I support mandatory training classes for anyone who wants to own a handgun. I support making it illegal for minors to own handguns (sure, parents can let their kids use them, but if they use it illegally then the parents will also be held criminally liable). I support mandatory hunter safety training for everyone, not just minors. What else? I don't know right now. All I know is what we do now is not enough."

Weren't you complaining a few posts back about how training wouldn't be enough (and giving examples of cops messing up)? I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the quote you just posted.

In my opinion, yes, Lothar. I just wanted to share the point of view of someone more conservative than I, whose opinion I respect(respect does not mean I am in lock-step agreement).


edit--that sort of mutual respect between 'conservatives' and 'liberals' and seeking common ground between points of difference is what the whole issue needs, IMHO.

callmeslick wrote:well, Spidey, there is just something wrong with you!(says the guy who has never been without a dog for more than 6 weeks in the past 46 years)

I'm with Spidey. I hate dogs, as a personal pet for myself. I also hate the neighbor's dogs, when they bark all night or take a dump on my property, especially with the owner standing right there watching them do it like they're proud. Now cats.......there's a fine species to love.

tunnelcat wrote:
Now cats.......there's a fine species to love.

TC I ever tell you the time I got in a round corn crib with a full grown male african lion with all his teeth and claws?

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
Now cats.......there's a fine species to love.

TC I ever tell you the time I got in a round corn crib with a full grown male african lion with all his teeth and claws?

Felis Catus =! Panthera leo

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
Now cats.......there's a fine species to love.

TC I ever tell you the time I got in a round corn crib with a full grown male african lion with all his teeth and claws?

Well, you're obviously still in one piece so I'm guessing you and he had a jolly good time frolicking around in that corn crib.

TC, in my opinion, your problem isn't with dogs, but with their owners. When it comes to personality and all, though, no cat can approach the nature of a dog. Like all animals, they need to be trained properly.....

Today we were driving down the beltline, and suddenly brake lights everywhere, squealing tires...and one puppy running down against traffic with very alarmed looking owner some distance behind on the shoulder.

Unfortunately, a couple cars back the dog had a sudden name change to "decal". Although it is possible it survived, since it only bounced off a plastic bumper, it didn't take flight or go under the vehicle. Still, that had to hurt and I couldn't watch any more than that.

dogs are tough. When I was young, and a pre-vet major, I worked for small animal and large animal vets. Both dogs and cats can take a real hit and survive.....

callmeslick wrote:TC, in my opinion, your problem isn't with dogs, but with their owners. When it comes to personality and all, though, no cat can approach the nature of a dog. Like all animals, they need to be trained properly.....

Nope. Dogs are dirty and crude. Cats at least clean themselves and lay quietly in your lap purring. Cats can be trained too. They're not stupid, just independent, which is a bonus if you can't give them your attention all the time. Plus, putting a paper bag down on the floor gives the owner no end of entertainment.

My neighbor owns an Austrailian Cattle Dog that sits by the fence all day, alone and staring and barking at every other dog that walks by, or sleeping. It's so bored it's become neurotic and crazy. It's also very territorial and unfriendly to strangers and will bite. A cat, on the other hand, will find ways to amuse itself if you give it a window, some space and a few toys.

Why don't you guys in the US have something as obvious as psychological tests for people acquiring firearms? I bet it's already been suggested hundreds of times. It really would solve the whole school shooting issue etc.

I know it might seem restrictive, but it would really weed out those with potential to abuse the guns. Also, I realize full well that if someone has had some privilege since always and it's suddenly taken away, it feels like oppression. But it looks differently from say, a Pole's perspective. Back here only people who can really justify it have any chance of obtaining a gun license - so people such as detectives, key witnesses and otherwise endangered individuals. I'm not saying this is entirely good, as Poland is one of the most disarmed countries in Europe, then again I don't think the country's people are ready for free access to firearms. I have a feeling that people would be dying left and right if guns were free to purchase here.

For example the Czech Republic issues more than 10x as many gun permits as Poland does yearly, yet the number of robberies and assaults at gunpoint is still lower, nominally (though their population is way lower). So yeah, I think it boils down to people knowing what they're doing.

I personally feel that if given free access to guns, I'd murder someone for sure, sooner or later. My most likely target would be one of those chavs/bros/white trash hip hop dudes with aggression issues. But as things are now I can still beat his ass with an extendable baton or spray him to hell with mace - the consequences of which I'll probably not come to regret as much.

Guns definitely do work as a deterrent, but if everyone can get a gun, I'm sure people over time grow quick to rely on them and resort to them instantly, which can potentially lead to some problems.

So yeah, basically it all boils down to that psychological tests should be taken by wannabe gunslingers to see if they're not likely to overuse or misuse their weapon.

Xfing wrote:Why don't you guys in the US have something as obvious as psychological tests for people acquiring firearms? I bet it's already been suggested hundreds of times. It really would solve the whole school shooting issue etc...

I can answer this.

Because: NRA and their whole "don't let them take your guns! they'll be tyrants!!" angle.

Xfing wrote:Why don't you guys in the US have something as obvious as psychological tests for people acquiring firearms? I bet it's already been suggested hundreds of times. It really would solve the whole school shooting issue etc.

Then lets have the same tests for buying a car. Or knives. Or Alchohol.

Xfing wrote:I know it might seem restrictive, but it would really weed out those with potential to abuse the guns. Also, I realize full well that if someone has had some privilege since always and it's suddenly taken away, it feels like oppression. But it looks differently from say, a Pole's perspective. Back here only people who can really justify it have any chance of obtaining a gun license - so people such as detectives, key witnesses and otherwise endangered individuals. I'm not saying this is entirely good, as Poland is one of the most disarmed countries in Europe, then again I don't think the country's people are ready for free access to firearms. I have a feeling that people would be dying left and right if guns were free to purchase here.

People here predicted shoot-outs in the street when people were allowed to get their CCW's. Never happened. Also people with a criminal history are not allowed a ccw nor to buy firearms.

Xfing wrote:I personally feel that if given free access to guns, I'd murder someone for sure, sooner or later.

You obviously have mental issues and it is good you understand that.

Xfing wrote:Guns definitely do work as a deterrent, but if everyone can get a gun, I'm sure people over time grow quick to rely on them and resort to them instantly, which can potentially lead to some problems.

I suggest you look up how many CCW holders here in the states are "quick" to rely on them. It has been shown CCW holders as a group are safer than the police are.

Xfing wrote:So yeah, basically it all boils down to that psychological tests should be taken by wannabe gunslingers to see if they're not likely to overuse or misuse their weapon.

You've been watching to many gangsta movies.

woodchip wrote: You've been watching to many gangsta movies.

Be that as it may, still I think it's a bit too easy for complete wackos to acquire guns.

Or even callous, cynial dudes such as myself, who'd shoot an assailant in the shoulder just to teach them a lesson given half the chance.

woodchip wrote:It has been shown CCW holders as a group are safer than the police are.

Apples and oranges. Police have a duty to enter dangerous situations, the average person doesn't. Compare CCW with the average unarmed person for a more realistic evaluation. (The most comprehensive study I've seen showed violence generally went up along with CCW, but it was uneven across crime categories. Example: robbery down, rape up.)