Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2015, 05:09 PM
 
4,738 posts, read 4,432,247 times
Reputation: 2485

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Yeah, kinda silly. Like having insurance, wearing seatbelts or having a fire extinguisher or smoke detectors in the house. Odds are they will never be needed, right?

insurance
seat belts
fire extinguisher
helmets


all of these items have low cost, high benefit.

All of these items happen far more often than a fatal home invasion (insurance is broad term, but almost every policy has broad protections that are used by most people from hail storms to backing into a tree with your Buick)


Fire by itself happens to 300 out of 100,000 households, significantly more than any kind of fatal home invasion.


Guns in the home are associated with higher risk for the people in the home (Suicide, Accident, or Domestic Abuse). .so its an idiotic thing to do to buy a gun "for protection" if chances are it will be used on you or your family first.


And purely from a no risk standpoint (hey lock up your guns so tightly you never get to use them in a home invasion). .

are you never walking drunk (pretty fatal) or crossing streets (pretty risk) or wearing a helmet at all times? seems idiotic to pay $350 to 500 for a gun to protect you from a 1 in 250k event if you won't even pay $300 for a backup camera on your car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2015, 05:14 PM
 
4,738 posts, read 4,432,247 times
Reputation: 2485
The chances of getting ALS is around 1 in 100,000 for a human being.

you don't need a gun for most burglaries, of course. Your NOT THERE. Guns don't help, unless you got a drone or something

in 2011 Chicago listed only one homicide as burglary as a motive with only 100 homicides due to burglary ever year nationwide. Don't believe me, look it up. You have 0 chance (or as close as a statics major can note) of being killed in burglary..

so lets re-do the math

is 5,600 > 100

the answer, NO -

fix your math and it will make a lot more sense.





(Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion - The Atlantic



Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Hmmm.

There are 3.7 million home burglaries each year in the US. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

5,600 people are diagnosed with ALS each year in the US. Who Gets ALS? - The ALS Association

You might want to check your math. 3,700,000 > 5,600
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 05:22 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,882,380 times
Reputation: 2460
Default Good for the Home Owner and 2nd amendment Rights.

Those Thugs got what they deserved and coming back ? Really?

The story really uncovers the mentality of Criminals who think it is their legal right to break in and steal your belongings and threaten lives.
A Liberal would of offered them coffee and Sandwiches and helped them load up the van.

Really underlines the fact that trainer gun owners can make a difference. Now the tax payers do need to house these thugs for the next 10-20 years in State Prison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 05:30 PM
 
8,061 posts, read 4,882,380 times
Reputation: 2460
Default The right of self defence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Dumb question, but this incident made me think of this hypothetical.

The invaders are always by definition bad guys.

But suppose there's a situation where the homeowner is also a bad guy. Say on a drug deal gone bad or something like that.

I know that's not the situation here but just as a what if. Is the homeowner still entitled to take out the intruders?
Its call self defense and the Castle Law. Most trained gun owners have practiced and have extra Mags. If you own a Glock 19 you have Mags that have up to 14 shots. Plus the Glock is a fast accurate weapon.
For the Thugs , most of the time the first 2-3 quick shots will deter a thug. Most of the ,your criminal, do not want to stay around foe law enforcement. By time a citizen squeezes of the first round. (911 has been called and additional forces are in route (8-9 minutes)

Of course you would natural let in the crooks and give them your stull and take out one of your kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 08:36 AM
 
32,019 posts, read 36,759,555 times
Reputation: 13290
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ View Post
Its call self defense and the Castle Law. Most trained gun owners have practiced and have extra Mags. If you own a Glock 19 you have Mags that have up to 14 shots. Plus the Glock is a fast accurate weapon.
For the Thugs , most of the time the first 2-3 quick shots will deter a thug. Most of the ,your criminal, do not want to stay around foe law enforcement. By time a citizen squeezes of the first round. (911 has been called and additional forces are in route (8-9 minutes)

Of course you would natural let in the crooks and give them your stull and take out one of your kids.
I'm talking about a hypothetical where the homeowner is also a bad guy.

Say a thug is involved in a drug deal gone bad and the other parties come to his house to get the drugs, take the money, kill him, or some such thing.

If they try to bust in, does he also get the benefit of self defense and the Castle law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 08:49 AM
 
Location: CasaMo
15,971 posts, read 9,379,907 times
Reputation: 18547
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
calling the police and putting hands up is your best defense.
That sounds more like surrender than defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,752,379 times
Reputation: 24862
I never had to carry more than 8 rounds in my Colt 1911 pistol or seven in my shotgun. They were adequate in an actual war so I consider them adequate for my home. I consider being alert, aware and armed to be the safest policy. If not actually safer it certainly feels better than counting on the instant arrival of the cops or the assailant's mercy.

I am amused by the "many, many shot" proponents of big magazines in defensive guns. I figure if I cannot stop the assault with seven or eight rounds I should hunker down and call for an airstrike or artillery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 09:01 AM
 
4,738 posts, read 4,432,247 times
Reputation: 2485
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNative34 View Post
That sounds more like surrender than defense.
staying alive, since out of the 100 or so people killed each year in burglaries most didn't surrender
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,420 posts, read 10,821,941 times
Reputation: 7801
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
insurance
seat belts
fire extinguisher
helmets


all of these items have low cost, high benefit.

All of these items happen far more often than a fatal home invasion (insurance is broad term, but almost every policy has broad protections that are used by most people from hail storms to backing into a tree with your Buick)


Fire by itself happens to 300 out of 100,000 households, significantly more than any kind of fatal home invasion.


Guns in the home are associated with higher risk for the people in the home (Suicide, Accident, or Domestic Abuse). .so its an idiotic thing to do to buy a gun "for protection" if chances are it will be used on you or your family first.


And purely from a no risk standpoint (hey lock up your guns so tightly you never get to use them in a home invasion). .

are you never walking drunk (pretty fatal) or crossing streets (pretty risk) or wearing a helmet at all times? seems idiotic to pay $350 to 500 for a gun to protect you from a 1 in 250k event if you won't even pay $300 for a backup camera on your car.
Bravo Sierra.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2015, 09:07 AM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
16,352 posts, read 8,087,610 times
Reputation: 9726
I remember a news story from several years ago in Chicago about a series of home invasion robberies. And the home invaders turned out to be...Chicago police. What do you do? Call the police? They're already there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top