Weapons. Yes or No? Why?

[staralfur]

What are the chances of someone breaking into your home actually killing you? I can't remember the stats but I remember thinking it was surprisingly low. Like, so much so that I would seriously wonder if the risk of some random person entering my house and murdering me was more than the risk of an accident with a loaded gun in my home.

I'm sorry you experienced that, Randianne. I think my views would likely change had I been in that situation.

 

[Tiff]

What are the chances of someone breaking into your home actually killing you? I can't remember the stats but I remember thinking it was surprisingly low. Like, so much so that I would seriously wonder if the risk of some random person entering my house and murdering me was more than the risk of an accident with a loaded gun in my home.

I'm sorry you experienced that, Randianne. I think my views would likely change had I been in that situation.

My dad used to work in law enforcement, and he said that at least here "random break ins" with a weapon are not random encounters at all. Oftentimes the person breaking in knows the owners of the house and its either to steal something of value or inflict harm on the owners.

That definitely sucks that you had to experience that Radianne. How frightening!

However, I do disagree with how long it takes police to get to the house (again, at least here). When I charged my ex with assault I was terrified he'd come after me, so I installed an alarm system. I had it on all the time, there was feature that you could arm the alarm system on the doors and windows but not have the interior alarms set. I forgot one day that I had did that and opened my door which triggered my alarm. I had forgotten my safe word and the police were at my door within 3 minutes.

Which of course made me feel like the worlds biggest idiot, but also made me feel much better that if someone were trying to break into my house a) the alarm would sound and it is loud and b) there is a very quick response time for police.

But I do feel that you have to do what you are comfortable with. At least your loaded gun is locked? But where do you keep the keys? Only asking because in my mind given the scenario you gave wouldn't it be more than 60 seconds to wake up, realize someone is trying to break into your house, get out of bed, run to wherever its stored (for practicality I'm assuming its stored in your room somewhere) get the key, unlock it and then run to your daughter's room?

Just for the record, I am not trying to say anything negative about the set up you have. You said to ask questions And I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Randianne]

Tiff, thank you so much for asking questions. I really do appreciate it.

My gun is in a closet next to my bed. I have a key in the nightstand next to my bed and in several other locations in the house including my daughter's room. My plan (former military -- I have a plan) is to grab my gun and get to my daughter's room, then unlock the gun. I have been handling firearms for sixteen years, but I don't want to be running with a loaded weapon under that much stress. It's not safe. Even the most experienced firearms instructors make mistakes when fight or flight kicks in (another reason I don't want to load a gun then -- if you load it incorrectly it can jam at best or blow up your hand at worst). Of course, that plan could go out the window depending on the circumstances (which is why I have keys hidden in several areas). You never really know.

The chances of being broken into are really low. I doubt I'll ever have to use my gun to defend myself. I'm not the shoot instantly type either. We would likely hole up in a closet and and hope the police did get there. However, if they don't I can defend myself.

I think one misconception about keeping a loaded gun around is that we want to use it. I definitely don't. People like your friend, Tiff, who want to act like cowboys and say stupid things like 'I hope it happens to you' are doing so much damage. They make me just as angry as those who accuse gun owners of hating children.

In all the talk about gun reform, I hear very little about education and that bothers me. People who are irresponsible and uneducated are causing problems for all of us. I think you should have to pass a firearms class to own a gun. And don't get me started on arming teachers. That is one of the worst solutions I have ever heard.

I agree reform is needed, but a ban is extreme. We need to enforce current gun laws, increase education on guns, increase access to mental health services, and ban guns from the irresponsible few who are too stupid to take basic precautions.

ETA: Response times for PD vary hugely. If you're in a well populated area and it's a slow day a three minute response time is possible. I live in a smaller suburb (about 30,000). We only have four police officers on duty at one time. If they're tied up, they have to bring in a police officer from the city and that takes time. My cousins live in a rural area. They have one county police officer to cover a 50 mile area. You can imagine what the response times are for them.

When we got shot at, I knew every available cop in a city of a million people was on the way. Cops get really angry when you shoot at ambulances because we work so closely with them. But we were in a more rural area on the outskirts of the city. It was a worst case scenario type of thing that I never thought would happen in a million years. Previously, my worst experience with a patient had been a drunk guy wielding a decorative sword.

 

[Wildfire81]

I have a pistol, and a shotgun. Somebody broke into my house 2 weeks ago when my son and I were home. I am imagining what could have happened if I did not have protection. By the time the police arrived, it would be far too late!

 

[Tiff]

Yes, I was quite irritated with him when he said that he hoped it would happen to us. What an awful thing to say! Not to mention for all his swagger I highly doubt he'd react well with a gun in the first place. But I definitely don't think that the entire population of the states has that mentality.

That makes sense about your plan to run to your kiddos room, then unlock. My hubby's family is military as well, they definitely have proper gun respect/storage etc. Do you ever worry that she'll find the key and potentially get into the box?

 

[Randianne]

Yes, I was quite irritated with him when he said that he hoped it would happen to us. What an awful thing to say! Not to mention for all his swagger I highly doubt he'd react well with a gun in the first place. But I definitely don't think that the entire population of the states has that mentality.

That makes sense about your plan to run to your kiddos room, then unlock. My hubby's family is military as well, they definitely have proper gun respect/storage etc. Do you ever worry that she'll find the key and potentially get into the box?

When she gets older, yes. That's why we'll teach her that guns are dangerous and should never, ever be touched (until she's old enough to respect what they can do). We'll also add a lock to our closet when we're out of the room. Most break ins occur at night, so that's probably when we'll have the closet unlocked.

I have my concealed carry license and I used to carry a gun in my purse or car when I knew I'd be alone after dark or in a bad area of town. I have down graded myself to pepper spray and a tazer (also with a lock) now that I have Quinn. We put a gun (with trigger lock) locked in the glove box for long trips when OH and I are both around to watch it. Other then that, I've stopped carrying. It's way too risky to carry a gun in a purse when you have a child.

Wildfire, I'm so sorry. That must have been terrifying and I'm glad you're both alright.

 

[Wildfire81]

Yes, I was quite irritated with him when he said that he hoped it would happen to us. What an awful thing to say! Not to mention for all his swagger I highly doubt he'd react well with a gun in the first place. But I definitely don't think that the entire population of the states has that mentality.

That makes sense about your plan to run to your kiddos room, then unlock. My hubby's family is military as well, they definitely have proper gun respect/storage etc. Do you ever worry that she'll find the key and potentially get into the box?

When she gets older, yes. That's why we'll teach her that guns are dangerous and should never, ever be touched (until she's old enough to respect what they can do). We'll also add a lock to our closet when we're out of the room. Most break ins occur at night, so that's probably when we'll have the closet unlocked.

I have my concealed carry license and I used to carry a gun in my purse or car when I knew I'd be alone after dark or in a bad area of town. I have down graded myself to pepper spray and a tazer (also with a lock) now that I have Quinn. We put a gun (with trigger lock) locked in the glove box for long trips when OH and I are both around to watch it. Other then that, I've stopped carrying. It's way too risky to carry a gun in a purse when you have a child.

Wildfire, I'm so sorry. That must have been terrifying and I'm glad you're both alright.

It was very terrifying. Only quick thinking got me through. Honestly, without protection not even a deadbolt door will keep a criminal out, not a knife (that would aloow them to get too close) nor any other weapon that allows them to get close. It was after it was over I went to the back door and they had jammed the door closed, leading the police to speculate they might have planned to trap me in the house, possibly to rape and or kill.

 

[Randianne]

It was very terrifying. Only quick thinking got me through. Honestly, without protection not even a deadbolt door will keep a criminal out, not a knife (that would aloow them to get too close) nor any other weapon that allows them to get close. It was after it was over I went to the back door and they had jammed the door closed, leading the police to speculate they might have planned to trap me in the house, possibly to rape and or kill.

It really changes your view when you become a victim of gun violence doesn't it? The police are great, but they can't be everywhere at once.

There was a girl in my state who shot and killed a man who had been threatening her and decided to break into her house when he learned her husband had died a few days previously. She was protecting herself and her baby. Stories like yours and hers are why I keep a loaded gun in my house. I can keep a gun away from my daughter, but I can't guarantee someone won't break in and try to hurt her.

 

[Foogirl]

I live in a state that has had one school shooting ever and it was fourteen years ago. We also have some of the highest rates of firearms ownership and concealed carry holders in the nation. We have a very low crime rate and gun death rate. Interestingly enough, it's much lower then the states with strict gun laws.

I think what you forget about the US is that we have at least 300,000,000 guns currently. Do you really think the criminals are going to turn in their guns after a ban? Or are the law abiding people going to turn in their guns and leave only the criminals armed? It's different in the UK because it is very unlikely that your criminals will be armed. Your police officers don't even carry guns. Our police officers would be slaughtered if they didn't carry weapons. We cannot handle things in the same way the UK does.

Our criminals are armed, we have armed response units. Some of our police are routinely armed. That you think your police would be slaughtered without arms is the sort of scare mongering the media and the gun lobby want you to believe. That said, at no point did I suggest US police should not be armed (although I do think that radical move could actually work to reduce the numbers of guns criminals carry) I also think a burglar is less likely to carry a weapon if there is little risk of them being shot. But I can understand why that would not be acceptable to nation who lives in fear of gun crime.

The same old argument was made here about criminals keeping guns and law abiding citizens giving them up, but guess what? That never happened.

I never suggested the US handles things the same way as the UK. Clearly the people of the US are not ready for that. However, taking automatic weapons like the ones generally used in these school shooting, ones which no law abiding citizen can possibly have a use for, out of the reach if anyone who wants to carry out these actions is surely a good step?

Delusional to think that our elected government is going to turn our own army against us, delusional to think that our volunteer army would attack their fellow citizens and delusional to think you'd stand a chance in hell fighting them off if they did!

I respectfully disagree. It is human nature to be corrupted by power. There are examples of that everywhere. [\QUOTE]
It wasn't me who said that, although I do disagree with most of your comments made in response.

 

[Stelly]

I havent read through the whole thread.. but just will say my little bit of thoughts on it. I think a large part of people's thoughts on gun is culture related. My state's culture equals the majority of residents have a gun. My family subsistence hunts every year to stock our freezers- we all have hunting rifles plus handguns for personal protection (not only just for break-ins, but bear protection etc as well) I don't think an all out ban is appropriate.. Particularly in our state, it would really damage many peoples way of life and providing food for their families. I agree with Randianne says about requiring training, better mental health care, etc.

There are ways to properly store weapons with children in the home that don't pose a risk to their safety.

Alaska- as a whole, is a rural place. It can be a while until police can make it to your home. It can be a LONG while until they can respond.

I dont agree with vigilantism... but I'm a firm supporter of self defense.

 

[Randianne]

I am honestly baffled by the thinking that criminals wouldn't carry guns if police didn't. Why do you think that? If it were true, shouldn't the UK's gang related gun crime rate be getting better instead of worse?

The UK stopped allowing self defense as a reason for a getting a gun in 1969. It banned guns in 1998. Very few citizens had guns compared to the number of guns US citizens have. They had very limited access to guns and ammunition for decades before the ban. Also, according to the UK government's own statistics, hand gun crime rate doubled from 1998 to 2008. That doesn't sound like a gun ban that worked. Since 2008, the gun crime rates have been in decline in the UK. It's done the same thing in the US. This is from our CDC:

https://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/firearm-crime-per-capita-graph-gun-control.png

If you look at statistics, the gun ban hasn't been wildly successful. I'm not saying it hasn't helped anything, but it hasn't fixed the gun problem by any means.

The assault weapons thing is irritating. First of all, if you want to talk about propaganda, the term 'assault weapon' didn't describe anything but fully automatic weapons until the gun control movement adopted the term. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US since the 1930s. The last time we banned 'assault' weapons, the criteria was insane. It made a certain style of hand grip an 'assault' weapon. It made a gun of a certain weight an 'assault' weapon. A gun can be heavy and have a different hand grip and still have poor accuracy and fire a maximum of six shots before reloading. Does that sound like an assault weapon to you?

The reason people shot down the new ban is because of the crazy criteria. If they're going to enforce this law, they are going to be able to take away self defense weapons because of their style of pistol grip or the material they are made out of. The pistol grip and weight do not significantly effect the accuracy of a weapon. If they want it to pass, they need to come up with a criteria that doesn't ban guns that aren't assault weapons.

The AR-15 gets tossed around a lot as an assault weapon and I have no issues with those being banned, but I don't think it'll have much effect (they are already banned as hunting weapons for big game because they are so inaccurate). California has an assault weapon ban that includes the AR-15 and it is responsible for 68% of the US's gun related homicides. Again, the states with the highest gun crime rates are the ones with the strictest gun laws. If gun control worked, it would be the other way around.

 

[Foogirl]

I am honestly baffled by the thinking that criminals wouldn't carry guns if police didn't. Why do you think that? If it were true, shouldn't the UK's gang related gun crime rate be getting better instead of worse?

The UK stopped allowing self defense as a reason for a getting a gun in 1969. It banned guns in 1998. Very few citizens had guns compared to the number of guns US citizens have. They had very limited access to guns and ammunition for decades before the ban. Also, according to the UK government's own statistics, hand gun crime rate doubled from 1998 to 2008. That doesn't sound like a gun ban that worked. Since 2008, the gun crime rates have been in decline in the UK. It's done the same thing in the US. This is from our CDC:

https://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/firearm-crime-per-capita-graph-gun-control.png

If you look at statistics, the gun ban hasn't been wildly successful. I'm not saying it hasn't helped anything, but it hasn't fixed the gun problem by any means.

The assault weapons thing is irritating. First of all, if you want to talk about propaganda, the term 'assault weapon' didn't describe anything but fully automatic weapons until the gun control movement adopted the term. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US since the 1930s. The last time we banned 'assault' weapons, the criteria was insane. It made a certain style of hand grip an 'assault' weapon. It made a gun of a certain weight an 'assault' weapon. A gun can be heavy and have a different hand grip and still have poor accuracy and fire a maximum of six shots before reloading. Does that sound like an assault weapon to you?

The reason people shot down the new ban is because of the crazy criteria. If they're going to enforce this law, they are going to be able to take away self defense weapons because of their style of pistol grip or the material they are made out of. The pistol grip and weight do not significantly effect the accuracy of a weapon. If they want it to pass, they need to come up with a criteria that doesn't ban guns that aren't assault weapons.

The AR-15 gets tossed around a lot as an assault weapon and I have no issues with those being banned, but I don't think it'll have much effect (they are already banned as hunting weapons for big game because they are so inaccurate). California has an assault weapon ban that includes the AR-15 and it is responsible for 68% of the US's gun related homicides. Again, the states with the highest gun crime rates are the ones with the strictest gun laws. If gun control worked, it would be the other way around.

Anyone can play fast and loose with statistics. The immediate rise in gun fatalities was followed by a massive fall back to Pre- ban levels. within a few years and if you look at the years prior to Dunblane you will see a similar pattern. It might not have an impact on individual fatalities but one thing cannot be denied. If the perpetrator had not had that particular weapon, The victims would have stood a better chance of survival and that was the point of the ban.

Gang related gun crime has increased because gangs have increased. There are varying theories as to why but the problem is with that culture and not with the weapons they use. Primarily the weapon of choice for most gangs are knives, this is a much bigger problem in the UK. Not ideal but I'd rather a knife problem than a gun problem.

The point about criminals not arming themselves is, most burglars have no intention of becoming murderers. Weapons are take to crimes for self defence, Stands to reason if you think there is a lower chance of being shot at you are less likely to carry a gun.

Put it this way, if your criminals didn't have guns, wouldn't you feel less likely to need one for protection against them? Is it too far a stretch to assume that most criminals would be of the same human nature?

 

[Randianne]

Anyone can play fast and loose with statistics. The immediate rise in gun fatalities was followed by a massive fall back to Pre- ban levels. within a few years and if you look at the years prior to Dunblane you will see a similar pattern. It might not have an impact on individual fatalities but one thing cannot be denied. If the perpetrator had not had that particular weapon, The victims would have stood a better chance of survival and that was the point of the ban.

Gang related gun crime has increased because gangs have increased. There are varying theories as to why but the problem is with that culture and not with the weapons they use. Primarily the weapon of choice for most gangs are knives, this is a much bigger problem in the UK. Not ideal but I'd rather a knife problem than a gun problem.

The point about criminals not arming themselves is, most burglars have no intention of becoming murderers. Weapons are take to crimes for self defence, Stands to reason if you think there is a lower chance of being shot at you are less likely to carry a gun.

Put it this way, if your criminals didn't have guns, wouldn't you feel less likely to need one for protection against them? Is it too far a stretch to assume that most criminals would be of the same human nature?

My statistics aren't 'fast and loose'. They are all easily verifiable from government resources.

Most burglars don't want to become murderers, but they're also not the ones committing the majority of the gun crimes. Most gun crimes are drug or gang related. Both of these groups feel the need to protect something whether it be money or turf. If they're not letting a law stop them from running drugs or engaging in illegal gang activity, why would they let a law stop them from carrying firearms?

 

[SerenityNow]

Delusional to think that our elected government is going to turn our own army against us, delusional to think that our volunteer army would attack their fellow citizens and delusional to think you'd stand a chance in hell fighting them off if they did!

I respectfully disagree. It is human nature to be corrupted by power. There are examples of that everywhere.

Look at the Benghazi situation. Anyone who questioned the official story after it happened was labeled a conspiracy theorist. Now we know they were right. The Obama administration didn't attack Americans, it just watched them die even though they could have stopped it. Then they made up a lie to cover their trail. Why would you trust a government that cares more about it's reputation then it's citizens to do the right thing?

I agree that America's army wouldn't turn on it's citizens. For the most part. The ground soldiers are so trained to obey orders that some of them have stopped questioning their superiors and would do it just because someone of a higher rank told them to.

People who throw out crazy theories about Obama being the antichrist are not the same as those who question the government. Yet for some reason, we all get lumped into one group. I don't agree with a lot of Obama's policies, but he's not out to get us.

I think if you truly want to understand the gun culture, you need to do research and talk to us. Jumping to conclusions won't help either side. There are very legitimate reasons for owning guns, and banning them is an awful idea unless you want to see another American civil war and up the death toll into the millions.

I'm the one who said that. And although I enjoy shooting guns and have owned a gun in the past and would own one again if I felt like it, I think people who believe that we as citizens need to be armed to protect ourselves from our own government are batshit crazy.

My dad is retired military and has a purple heart from Vietnam. I've lived all over this country and I have too much respect for our military, our constitution and our fellow citizens to buy into that kind of paranoid, apocalyptic nonsense. I fully believe that I stand a greater chance of being killed by a meteor than by a US soldier.

These arguments are emotional, not rational. It makes you feel safer to have a gun in your closet that you can use against an intruder but the far more likely scenario is that intruder will break in while you are not home and your unsecured gun will be stolen.

 

[Stelly]

Not all guns are just left lying around in closets. There are many types of quick access safes for home security purposes and the safes can be secured so they can't be carried away. So no- it's not likely someone will be able to break in and take it when not home * in my home anyway

 

[SerenityNow]

California has an assault weapon ban that includes the AR-15 and it is responsible for 68% of the US's gun related homicides. Again, the states with the highest gun crime rates are the ones with the strictest gun laws. If gun control worked, it would be the other way around.

That is just false. In 2011 California was responsible for 12.2% of the nation's homicides. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4

Everyone loves to use Illinois as an example as a state with strict gun laws and high murder rates in an attempt to correlate the two, but even Illinois has a lower homicide rate than Michigan, Missouri, Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona and New Mexico.

 

[Pearls18]

I'm laughing at the statement "the gun ban hasn't been wildly successful in the UK".......it's great when Americans actually look at other countries' statistics, I only wish they would do so accurately, and not just try and find ones that support their own argument, look at the bigger picture, and look comparatively at your own country's also.

 

[Piper84]

My statistics aren't 'fast and loose'. They are all easily verifiable from government resources.

Most burglars don't want to become murderers, but they're also not the ones committing the majority of the gun crimes. Most gun crimes are drug or gang related. Both of these groups feel the need to protect something whether it be money or turf. If they're not letting a law stop them from running drugs or engaging in illegal gang activity, why would they let a law stop them from carrying firearms?

I think what Foogirl is saying is that you can interpret statistics in different ways very easily. The fact is, the flurry of gun-related crime directly after the ban quickly subsided. Firearm deaths in the UK per capita are minute in comparison to the US (for obvious reasons).

Gang-related gun crime is another matter altogether. Luckily, "citizens" are not often affected by it, unlike gun crime in the US. I read somewhere that most illegal weapons arrive in the UK via Northern Ireland, which has a lively connection to a lot of less-than-savoury countries with a ready supply of arms (think Colombia, Libya). A lot of illegal firearms in NI also come with the "help" of Americans who somehow think they're doing the Irish cause good by funding and promoting violence.

Apparently, gang-related violence in the UK has got a lot worse since a lot of gang elders have been locked up. There is a lack of discipline among the young ones and a lot of jostling for position. It's sick, and I'm not sure how one goes about dealing with it within the law, especially when you're faced with different gang cultures depending where you are, like Yardies, Albanians, Kurds, Irish, indigenous etc.

 

[Foogirl]

Anyone can play fast and loose with statistics. The immediate rise in gun fatalities was followed by a massive fall back to Pre- ban levels. within a few years and if you look at the years prior to Dunblane you will see a similar pattern. It might not have an impact on individual fatalities but one thing cannot be denied. If the perpetrator had not had that particular weapon, The victims would have stood a better chance of survival and that was the point of the ban.

Gang related gun crime has increased because gangs have increased. There are varying theories as to why but the problem is with that culture and not with the weapons they use. Primarily the weapon of choice for most gangs are knives, this is a much bigger problem in the UK. Not ideal but I'd rather a knife problem than a gun problem.

The point about criminals not arming themselves is, most burglars have no intention of becoming murderers. Weapons are take to crimes for self defence, Stands to reason if you think there is a lower chance of being shot at you are less likely to carry a gun.

Put it this way, if your criminals didn't have guns, wouldn't you feel less likely to need one for protection against them? Is it too far a stretch to assume that most criminals would be of the same human nature?

My statistics aren't 'fast and loose'. They are all easily verifiable from government resources.

Most burglars don't want to become murderers, but they're also not the ones committing the majority of the gun crimes. Most gun crimes are drug or gang related. Both of these groups feel the need to protect something whether it be money or turf. If they're not letting a law stop them from running drugs or engaging in illegal gang activity, why would they let a law stop them from carrying firearms?

Legality has nothing to do with it, for most it's seen as a necessity. You honestly think if there was no chance of being shot, the average burglar would carry a gun? If that were the case, why are most British burglars unarmed? It's not as if it is impossible to get a gun in the Uk.

 

[Randianne]

I really don't have time to reply to all of you, but thank you to those of you who had a respectful debate. There are two ways of looking at this and I appreciate those of you who see that instead of only being concerned with being right.

Completely valid statistics are definitely used by both sides in their favor. I think that alone says that there is no clear cut right answer to this. I do learn something every time I talk to those of you from a the anti-gun culture in the UK. I really see no easy or clear cut answer to the gun problem.

I'm laughing at the statement "the gun ban hasn't been wildly successful in the UK".......it's great when Americans actually look at other countries' statistics, I only wish they would do so accurately, and not just try and find ones that support their own argument, look at the bigger picture, and look comparatively at your own country's also.

You know what, I had a reply written to you but I couldn't post it when I saw your tickers. That makes me so sad. I really hope you don't laugh and make mocking comments to your son when he says something you don't agree with. I hope you reserve that treatment for people on the internet because your computer gives you confidence. I would try to remember that there are actual people reading your messages and that making a comment solely to tell someone that you're laughing at them is mean spirited and certainly doesn't help make your argument in a debate.