Summations Only

Hi Theo, From what I read that was not a justified shoot and the homeowner will go to jail.At his age he was probably in Nam. I know some of those fellows who have some real problems with reality. So I would want more information, before I could pass judgment.I have a brother in law that was in Nam and he will not have any weapons in the house. He don't even want knives in the kitchen. He still has nightmares because of what he went through.Now you can see why I want to be able to see who is at my door and I will take action if they kick my door in and enter my house.Had that gentleman been in his house and they came up and kicked the door in and came in his housse he would have been justified to shoot those who came inside. But if they ran back outside he could not follow them as the danger would have passed.God Bless,

Is that what you do when you're home, keep your eyes locked on the video of your front door?Please.Let's examine your paranoiac statement from your Message 1550 again: The specifics aren't important. What's important is the paranoid frame of mind, the blind willingness ("I will not look to see if he has a weapon or not") to assume your life is threatened and respond with deadly force. That's how people get killed. That's why your guns should be taken away from you, because you put so strong emphasis on your own safety at the expense of everyone around you. I think you haven't read the whole thread, though that's no excuse since obviously the skills one requires to appropriately employ firearms for defensive purposes are not gained at the firing range. That's just aiming practice. If you had ever attended a defensive tactics training course you might have given a more nuanced answer than just, "I'm shooting anyone who breaks down my door, weapon or not."And as I keep saying, which is actually just repeating what police knowledgeable about this kind of thing say, it's a highly perishable skill. It's has to be repeated every couple months or the skills deteriorate and eventually evaporate. That's why I said that your high opinion of your ability to deal with such situations is likely highly exaggerated. You might want to read the Wikipedia article on Illusory superiority. It explains the effect where most people believe they're above average, which is, of course, impossible.About your statistics, you need to cite a source, and then you need to explain how you concluded that 278 justifiable homicides were all committed by homeowners in defense of their homes, and where the 192 figure comes from. This is little better than your earlier attempt - you're just listing a lot of numbers and then baldly claiming they support your position.In 1993 the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) released a study that found that a gun in the home offered little protection but increased by around three times the risk of one household member shooting another. Subsequent research has supported this finding over and over again. For example, here's the abstract from a 2004 paper titled Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study: In other words, having a gun in the home makes you less safe, not more safe.--Percy

So an innocent man is dead, a family has lost a son, brother, possibly a father and the silly old man will go to jail.but don't worry, cos your right to own and hold a gun is safe. That's what's important here right?

Hi Percy, I would probably be in my yard by the time EMT got out of their vehicle from the sound of the sirens, to see which of my neighbors was in trouble. I just assumed that anyone who had a CCP would own a home. It makes no difference where he/she killed the crook. He/she killed the crook to protect his/her life, or the life of others. He/she did that with the wepon he/she had on his/her person, which was in his/her house when he/she got home. Here in table 11 you find 780 murders in robbery and 80 deaths in burglary. Here In these facts you find that 14.3% of robberies take place in the home. So I used the 14.3% and let them kill all of them making 112 dead victims. I don't think there would be a death in every home robbery but I treated it as such. Here you find that in 2010 there was 378 justified homicides. That is where a person uses lethal force to protect one's self 378 times.You should be able to find all the numbers below in those references above.

quote:

---

In 2010 there was 11,078 gun homicides in the US.
In 2010 there was 19,392 gun suicides.
In 2010 there was 606 unintentional gun deaths.
In 2010 there was 278 justified homicides.
In 2010 there was 780 deaths in robberys
14/3% in home invasion making a total of 112 victims.
In 2010 there was 80 deaths in burglary, I will assume all in homes.

​

We have homeowners 278
We have crooks 192

---

I have read that report several times. So what sources do they use for their stats? Yes you make that statement and they make that statement but there are other studys that refute that study.I have been putting the hard data from the FBI files in my posts. Here you can find a study by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig who are anti-gun proponents.You need to download the pdf file to get all the information it is the second one down.They say one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year which = 295.8904109589041 per day which = 12 per hour or 5 per minute.I would think that is not very rare but frequent.They also cite other studies that go from 1.5 million to 3.1 million a day.Just taking their rare number of DGUses your statement is refuted. Here you can find a bias report going in the other direction.But just going by the FBI raw data mankind is safer having a gun that not having a gun.Did you know California leads the country with the most justified shootings? Here

quote:

---

Justifiable homicides are concentrated in just a handful of states. California, Michigan, Oklahoma and Louisiana, with only 18 percent of the nation’s population, account for nearly half the justifiable homicides by civilians.

---

I wonder why that is? They have strick gun laws. Maybe it is because the crooks are lulled to sleep about guns in the homes by all the talk about gun control and enter more homes that have guns in them.God Bless,

Hi Theo, I don't know if if happens everyday but I do know that juvinile gang kills 673 people per year or 1.8 every day.And yes they do have such initations. As the new member can not then testify against the other gang members. SourceGod Bless,

ICANT has set up a scenario where his assumption is justifiable. Some drunk might stumble into my living room accidentally and mean me no harm, but if someone bursts through ICANT's steel door, I highly doubt that they are collecting for the red cross.I don't envy ICANT his paranoia. But anyone breaking into that citadel either has bad intentions or is coming to arrest someone in the house.

Cuz you saw it on TV?

Theodoric asks: Actually I have had intimate experience with gang initiation. It is no joke. My own younger son was awesome in thwarting them. Without a gun. No joke. Probably TMI.

Well ICANT - It appears you are not nearly as prepared for the impending end of civilisation as you might have thought. Check this guy out:

quote:

---

From the outside, Jerry Erwin's Oregon home is a nondescript house with a manicured front lawn and little to differentiate it from those of his neighbors.

​

But tucked away out of sight in his backyard are the signs of his preparations for doomsday, a catastrophic societal collapse that Erwin, 45, now believes is likely within his lifetime.

​

"I've got, under an awning, stacks of firewood, rain catching in barrels, I've got a shed with barbed concertina wire, like the military uses," he told AFP.

​

He and his wife also have also stockpiled thousands of rounds of ammunition and enough food for about six months.

​

"Several years ago I worked on paying off the house, replacing all the windows, and just very recently, I'm proud to say, we've replaced all our exterior doors with more energy-efficient ones, with as much built-in security features as I could get," he told AFP.

​

"Plus I'm going to be adding some more structural improvements to the door frames to make it hopefully virtually impossible to take a battering ram to them."

---

ICANT do you think this guy is taking sensible and measured precautions? Do you think we should all follow his fine example? Or is this over-the-top in your view? I suspect there is a far greater chance of me being mowed done by a bus as I cycle round London. I suspect that there is a far greater chance of a gas explosion killing my family. But I'm not going to cease cycling round London and I'm not going to stop using the domestic gas supply to my home. Because the risk of these things is minimal and the benefits of them are considerable.We can all imagine extreme case scenarios that if taken truly serioulsy would require us all to walk around in full body armour, wearing helmets, avoiding roads, refusing to use flammable fuels and generally living out some kind of post apocalyptic lifestyle. That is the logical conclusion to the culture of fear you are advocating. Will you be following Erwin's example above? I mean just think - In this financial-meltdown-societal-collapse scenario of yours what is to stop a bunch of hoodlums commandeering a mad-max style armoured vehicle and ramming it through one of your steel doors? It's worth thinking about..... You'd better get to work on your underground bunker......

Hi Theo, No.Cuz I existed as a teen ager in Niagara Falls for 2 years in the early 50's.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, A six month supply of food is not enough. It requires a year's worth to be able to grow a new crop of food. But that depends on the time of year also.But I know people who are much better prepared that this fellow. That is a definite possibility.But why did't you answer the question? I am satisfied with my preparations. It is kinda hard to do that in Florida. The water table in my back yard is 7 feet down.God Bless,

But they didn't use their siren upon approach.Anyway, there are two important things to note:First, obviously things aren't as cut-n-dried as you claimed. You don't watch your front door video constantly as you appeared to claim. Could you maybe drop with all the cartoon superhero type claims of how skillful and protected you are? What we expect from someone truly responsible and aware of the dangers of gun ownership is words to the effect about what a heavy responsibility it is to own a handgun and the need for regular training and practice with emphasis on defensive tactics. That's definitely not what we're getting from the gun advocates in this thread like yourself. What we're getting is a lot of bravado and braggadocio.Second and as I keep saying, it isn't the specifics, it's the attitude that if in your mind you're threatened you're going to use lethal force. That's how people get killed. Your attitude combined with your guns are a threat to all in your vicinity.But we should be talking statistically rather than specifically. I'd prefer not to keep the focus on you as an example. No individual is typical (you keep bragging about how untypical and far above the norm your skills are anyway), and self-testimony is notoriously biased. Most of the time when we say "you" we mean the impersonal you. We're not talking about you personally, so there's no need to keep explaining how wonderfully prepared and skilled with firearms you are. I see now what you were trying to show with these figures. You're arguing that crooks kill more homeowners than vice-versa. Though I think your derived figures are likely in the right order of magnitude I don't think they're correct, but this isn't a point worth arguing because the point you're trying to make isn't one anyone thinks worth disputing.No one's arguing this point because it's dwarfed by another figure, as has been explained over and over again. Even if were true that crooks kill a hundred more homeowners than vice versa, thousands of times every year a gun owner's gun is used with murderous effect against themselves or people they know. Thousands versus a few hundred - it's not even remotely close.Again, the irony is that people are placing themselves in greater danger by purchasing a gun for defensive purposes against crime. If you use peek mode you can preserve the link when you copy-n-paste. The link again is Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study.In answer to your question about sources, it's in the first sentence of the abstract that I quoted: If you mean specifically what survey, then since you read the paper several times I can't see how you missed this from further down in the paper: You claim to provide a link to a study here, or at least a way to find a link to a PDF of a study: But this is a link to a Google search. I'm guessing that for you the top link is the correct one, but Google personalizes search results, so what's on top for you won't be on top for me and I can't find what you're referring to. If you provide a link to the PDF I'll give it a look.Speaking of studies, here's another one titled Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. From the abstract: You might want to read that conclusion several times. No, ICANT, it doesn't. The FBI data shows that thousands of people are murdered every year just because there was a gun in the home. Thousands more die of suicide, many of which would not have happened had there been no gun availaibing, studies showing that a significant percentage of suicides are impulsive, i.e., had five or so more minutes gone by the person would not have committed suicide.The bald facts show that thousands die needlessly every year just because a gun was available.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

First let me say that if I am going to be confronted by a murderous home invader I would much rather do so in Britain where they probably won't be armed with a gun than in the US where they probably will be.But in the unlikely event that a gun wielding home invader is intent on murdering me and my entire family as some sort of gang initiation ceremony - The fact is that they would probably succeed in murdering us in our beds with little or no resistance.But I have no more intention of living my life in fear of this happening than I have of walking around in full body armour due to fear of being killed by random debris falling from the sky or somesuch. I answered your question. Will you now answer mine?ICANT - Who enjoys the greater freedom in your view. Man A or man B?Man A lives in a situation where he genuinely needs to bolt his doors, set his alarms and persistently arm himself because there is a strong likelihood that if he doesn't he or his family will come to significant physical harm.Man B lives in a situation where he can be relatively unconcerned about personal security because he is unlikely to be a victim of violent crime.Who enjoys the greater freedom? Sadly I have little doubt this is true. Because you obviously mix with others who consider a culture of fear and paranoia to be entirely normal.I pity you for that.

Hi Percy, You got to be kidding. All of our emergency personel are voluntary, and they run the lights and sirens from the time they leave where the vehicles are parked until they get to the destination. I would be able to hear them from the time they left until arival at my house which would take about 2 minutes for one group as they are 4 blocks away, with the fire dept about 1 minute behind as they are 6 blocks away. No Percy, the crooks do not kill more homeowners.The Homeowners were responsible for 278 crooks dying, while the crooks only killed 112 victims.Had the homeowners not killed the 278 crooks there possibly would have been 390 dead homeowners or many more depending on how many people were in the house.The numbers I used came from the FBI reports so you can dismiss them if you like, but you can't say they are wrong. Actually you could say they are wrong because you did. So maybe you did not even look at the sources I provided. You keep saying that, as well as a lot of other people but where are the numbers, the facts is what counts.People who commit suicide are going to commit suicide whether they have a gun or not so you can't count them. I knew what your source was. I was referring to what the authors source was. You do realize this is a 20 year old study.Their statement: "Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home." is true as shown by the numbers I gave you.In 2010 there was 278 more justified homicides by individuals having a gun in their posession than there would have been had they not had a gun. But many and probably most of them would have been the homicide victim had they not had a gun.And yes there were more suicides committed with guns where guns were in the house. But those without guns in the home found a way to commit suicide. Many even went and bought a gun and then went home and committed suicide with it. Some even waited years before going through with committing suicide.So I would ask you to examine the FBI numbers and show me where your conclusion is correct. Here you will find the study.As I said in my post these 2 getlemen are anti-gun and yet they say "one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year" which = 295.8904109589041 per day which = 12 per hour or 5 per minute. Other studies go up to 3.5 million times a year. But this is what is said by anti-gun people.Notice this study was done in 1997 when they say there was "nearly 200 million guns in private hands". HereIn the appendix. Number of nonfatal gunshot injuries and firearm-related deaths in 1997, there was:32,436 total firearms deaths.
13,252 total firearm homicides
17,566 total firearm homicides.All these with less than 200 million guns in the hands of the citizens.In 2011 there were:32,163 total firearms deaths. down 267.
11,101 total firearm homicides. down 2151.
19,766 total firearm homicides. up 2200All these with over 270 million guns in the hands of the citizens.How does those numbers support your assertion?
"In other words, having a gun in the home makes you less safe, not more safe." SourceThere was over 70 million guns in the homes in 2011 than in 1997 and yet there was 267 less deaths by guns.More guns in the homes does not equal more deaths from guns, but less deaths from guns.Will you trust the numbers rather than studies that are paid for by anti-gun groups and even ignore what 2 anti-gun proponents have to say about 1 person every 5 seconds use their gun in self defense in some way.

quote:

---

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

---

Conclusion: the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.So a conclusion is a statement of opinion.So the conclusion is the opinion of the people who wrote the study.Buts lets examine the conclusion.1. Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt.2. than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.According to the study I refered to by the 2 anti-gun proponents guns are used about 108,000 per year which = 295.8904109589041 per day which = 12 per hour or 1 every 5 seconds.In 1997 there was a total of 84,200 non fatal gun related injuries that did not result in death. That is 1 in a little over 6 seconds.A gun was helpful ever 5 seconds and harmeful every 6 seconds.So a gun was more helpful than harmeful. In 2010 there was only 8,874 murdered in all situations with a gun and only 8,583 in 2011 a decrease of 291 yet there was millions more guns in the posession of citizens.You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.Assertions that more guns equal more death has been refuted.The truth is more guns equals less deaths. The numbers don't lie. Have you ever studied suicides or suicide prevention? I have, and try to refresh the course every year. If a person has come to the conclusion they have nothing to live for the suicide can only be prevented by them deciding they do have something to live for. If you can convince them that their life is worth something and they have something to live for you make keep them from commiting suicide. But many will later commit suicide as my friend did, that I spoke about earlier.So don't give me a song and dance about a suicide being impulsive. It is a planed event as you see carried out in the mass killings, which usually end in the shooter shoting themself. There are mass killers that have no intention of dying. Example the shooter in the theater.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, I know a lot of the people like man A who lived as you describe. In fact I was raised in such an environment in the 40's and 50's we did not even have locks on the doors. A rope through the door to the outside would lift the wood latch on the inside so it could be opened. But then my country changed when God got kicked out of school.Now those people who are still alive prepare for the worst and hope for the best.But all the people I know who go to the firing range live full happy lives, but are prepared for the worst if it happens.We love to fish, hunt, bowl, golf, watch sports and have cook outs.Since we live worlds apart in totally different environments I would say man A is happier, as he has no worries.You seem to think I live a miserable life worrying about something that is never going to happen. I love what I do and take pride in being prepared if ocasion ever arises that I need to use that preparation. I enjoy going to the range and shooting whether it is in competition or not. I love fooling around with electronics that I use for detection. I am still trying to figure out how I can get the video pictures from my cameras on the TV while watching it like I can on the computer monitor. It is neat I can be typing this message on my computer in the back bedroom and if someone approached the front door their picture would pop up on my monitor, activated by a motion sensor. Now this part is a game with me.But those idiots in America that live like man B who is unconcerned about personal security and sleeps with his doors unlocked is the easy marks that the criminal is going to go for. So without even knowing it he/she will more than likely become one of the statistics I have been referencing in my posts to Percy.I am sure that all of the B men who are in denial would declare that they are happier, and they may very well be. But I don't think so because all they have to do is watch the TV news or read the paper and know they are in danger. Being in denial is not happiness. National Geographic has done several pieces on people that are preparing for one kind of dooms day or another.One man is building a castle in Tenn. He has a cellar bunker that has electricity, powered by solar, a deep well for water food supplies for 2 years. Enough amunition and weapons to start a small war. Above ground is 3 floors of living space with all sides of the house designed to give a full line of fire in all directions. Oh and I did not mention this house is on top of a mountain. He has already spent over a million dollars and still has much work to do.Now I think that is a little overkill. But he and his children, and grandchildren work on the castle on the weekends. The activities with all the children involved looks to me to be a great educational tool as well as a family outing away from the city life. All the children and their spouses participate. How many family's get together every weekend and do something together? In the city he is an artichect. What they do together sounds like fun to me. Don't pity me I enjoy what I do just as much as you enjoy taking a ride on your cycle.God Bless,