A MAN 's HOME IS HIS CASTLE

DrewDad wrote:

Chai wrote:
So, would you shot someone who broke into your home, and rushed at you?

Quote:
No, because I don't have a gun in the house.
A gun is far more likely to injure my kids than an intruder is.

Perhaps your children are little babies who indeed cannot yet
be taught proper procedures for handling guns,
but the time will come when ( assuming normal mental abilities )
thay can learn proper use of firearms,
the same way that ( for safety 's sake ) thay learn to swim.

Quote:

I wasn't making fun of self defense, either. I was responding to this:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Proper and effective anti-pandering
is to remove violently recidivistic criminals from the scene permanently,
or until he is too old to recidivate again.

( Think Botany Bay; maybe thay 'll rent us space. )

Will u describe your objection ?

0 Replies

As always, I believe in self defense, and a handgun is about the best you can do. Make up all the scenarios you want to show a gun won't always help. I can make up as many to show it will.

Keep a couple of things in mind. If someone breaks into your home, his intentions are not benign. If you are home at the time, he either knows this from advance planning or doesn't care. The only safe assumption is that he is dangerous.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Chai wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
No, because I don't have a gun in the house. A gun is far more likely to injure my kids than an intruder is.

I've taken other measures to protect my family.

How is a gun that is not accessible to children more likely to injure them than a intruder that you don't know, and could be capable of anything?

You keep a gun in a place where a child cannot possibly get to it, but where you can.

How is a gun to which a child does not have ready access going to help with an intruder who is
"rushing at you," as you earlier posited,
or when awaking to find an intruder standing over you?

Some people wear their guns, habitually, all the time. This is an option.
I have known people who 've made a practice of sleeping with guns under their pillows.
(I do not employ that practice, but have a .44 revolver close at hand under a nite stand)

As to children,
it is a fact that on the day that a citizen is born,
he is not able to defend himself, under any circumstances, no matter what.
However, as time passes and he learns to walk and talk and to get some
sense of the world, in a few years, powers of self defense develop,
the same as his ability to read & to execute arithmetical operations,
or to swim. If he is of normal intelligence, it seems to me that for the
sake of the preservation of his life from predatory violence,
he shud be educated in proficient and safe handling of defensive firearms,
inasmuch as children have fallen victim to crime, sometimes getting killed.
If a person of any age is mentally and physically able to lift and use firearms,
he shud be at least be offered the opportunity to learn to defend his life.

The purpose of a citizen possessing a defensive firearm
is to enable him to control the situation, as well as possible,
if predatory violence falls upon him; in this circumstance,
the victim 's possession the necessary emergency equipment is a matter of life n death.

It is not enuf just to wail at the funeral that the bad guys,
or the animals, shud have left him alone.

The Constitutional imperative of equal protection of the laws
requires that no citizen of any age
be prevented from defending and preserving his life or property
from the violence of man or beast.

It is not acceptable
to say ( in effect ) to a child:
" YOU are too young to defend your life.
If a criminal or an animal attacks YOU,
u must just surrender yourself to his desires for your property or your body,
and permit him to exercise his discretion as to whether u will live or die;
( unless, of course u can run away fast enuf )".

In my opinion,
it is not morally acceptable
to contribute to a citizen ( of any age ) being killed
by interfering with his inalienable, fundamental right to defend his life,
as long as u INSULT his mental abilities first, before u violate his natural rights.

Insulting his mind does not justify your rendering him helpless
and open to predatory violence.

It is not enuf to simply PRETEND that children
have not been fatal victims of crime, and turn a blind eye to that.

David

0 Replies

However, no matter how much I agree with you on actual self defense posture, I disagree mightily that you seem to wish to abrogate any laws that want to attempt to limit gun ownership by criminals, and you only post the 2Amendmentas a reason. I dont find that position full of reason because its not proactive.
You are merely pimping for the gun manufacturers.
Im afraid that the present USSC will only broaden gun ownership thus forcing the entire country to settle arguments with the closest available piece of firepower. We havent, therfore, evolved much beyond the Midieval.

So, I will shoot the intruders because thats my only recourse and Ill really hate myself in the morning for being such a neanderthal.

0 Replies

whatever people choose to do at their homes is their affair.

i will not own a gun, period.

0 Replies

Me neither, dag... and happy b'day, by the way.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

No, because I don't have a gun in the house. A gun is far more likely to injure my kids than an intruder is.

I've taken other measures to protect my family.

How is a gun that is not accessible to children more likely to injure them than a intruder that you don't know, and could be capable of anything?

You keep a gun in a place where a child cannot possibly get to it, but where you can.

A bottle of perscription drugs is likely to badly harm a child, and kill them. Yet, most people have some sort of perscription drug in their home.

Safety caps on pill bottles, safety locks on guns.

I'd guess every child has at some point seen mom or dad take a bottle from the medicine cabinet, take the pills out and swallow them. Then, they watch them put it back, so they know exactly where to find it when they think about it later.

If you own a gun, it's not necessary for the child to even know you have it, so will never think to go looking for it.

I don't care if an individual keeps or doesn't keep a gun in their home. However, if a child is injured by one, it's through the carelessness of the adults by leaving it in a place the child can get to it, or even knows it's there.

Garg asked how often that scenerio of an intruder happens. I have no idea......I will say though, that it happens much more often than people are attacked by sharks.

I've heard lots of people through the years say they are afraid of sharks.

I'm not, don't have the slighted bit of fear of sharks, or bengal tigers, or polar bears. I'm not ever going to be in a place where any of them can get at me.

I'm not scared of a gun kept in it's proper place either, since it can't jump up and shot me.

I am afraid of intruders though, because there is a much larger likelihood of me waking up with a stanger standing over me, than a manta ray.

The fear of an intruder in no way rules my life, but, yeah, I'd prefer to be prepared, not with an arsenal, but a pistol would be fine.

So...if you woke up with an intruder hovering over you, you'd be able to go get the gun where you keep it safe from the kids, load it, aim, and shoot?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

However, no matter how much I agree with you on actual self defense posture,
I disagree mightily that you seem to wish to abrogate any laws

The purpose of the 2A is to legally disable government
from having jurisdiction to control or even to influence possession of guns
for 2 reasons:

1 ) to enable the citizens to overthrow governments, as the Authors had just done,
being leery of governments

and

2 ) to ensure n protect each citizen 's right of self defense.
Experts on English grammar have agreed on this;
( so far as I am aware, this consensus is unanimous ).

Quote:

that want to attempt to limit gun ownership by criminals,

Of course; that 's a fool 's errand, Farmer.
If u can t convince them to abjure murder, robbery, or even use of marijuana
HOW can u convince them to obey gun control laws ?

ITS LIKE A JOKE.

Quote:

and you only post the 2Amendment as a reason.

That 's not accurate.

Quote:

I dont find that position full of reason because its not proactive.
You are merely pimping for the gun manufacturers.

Without THEM, we 'd be screwed,
until we went back to making our own guns,
as we did for centuries before mass production.
Pimping is a dirty word and not at all suitable for this discussion.
Maybe I shud buy corporate stock in them; I have not done it yet.

I have respect n gratitude for them,
but I exalt the rights of my fellow citizens to self defense above everything.

Quote:

Im afraid that the present USSC will only broaden gun ownership

Yes; more gun ownership;
however, I expect that the approach that thay will take
probably will require at least one additional decision on another case,
before state gun control laws will be significantly truncated.

Faithfulness to 2A requires return to the freedom of the early 1900s
and the 1800s; i.e., no law on this point at all,
the same as government has no authority to make u go to Church.

Even sales taxes on guns or ammunition are unconstitutional.
Constitutional rights cannot be taxed,
without violating the Constitution
(e.g., a tax on reading a newspaper or a tax on expressing an opinion).

Quote:

thus forcing the entire country to settle arguments
with the closest available piece of firepower.

That is a nonsequitur, and contrary to known fact;
for instance, in Alaska and in Vermont
which have NO gun laws, people have NOT done what u claimed wud happen.

Quote:

We havent, therfore, evolved much beyond the Midieval.

Correct;
I believe that there has been no human evolution within the last 500 years.

Quote:

So, I will shoot the intruders
because thats my only recourse
and Ill really hate myself in the morning for being such a neanderthal.

Gun control is a Jonny-come-lately.
Life in America will return to the circumstances
experienced now in Vermont and Alaska where crime is dangerous FOR CRIMINALS
and to the circumstances of pre-gun control life.
That was good.

David

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

whatever people choose to do at their homes is their affair.

i will not own a gun, period.

Shud we infer that u believe
that fanatical pacifism is a deterrent to aggression and predatory violence ?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
Chai wrote:
So, would you shot someone who broke into your home, and rushed at you?

No, because I don't have a gun in the house.
A gun is far more likely to injure my kids than an intruder is.

Perhaps your children are little babies who indeed cannot yet
be taught proper procedures for handling guns,
but the time will come when ( assuming normal mental abilities )
thay can learn proper use of firearms,
the same way that ( for safety 's sake ) thay learn to swim.

Actually, I do plan to teach them firearm safety.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

drewdad wrote:

I wasn't making fun of self defense, either. I was responding to this:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Proper and effective anti-pandering
is to remove violently recidivistic criminals from the scene permanently,
or until he is too old to recidivate again.

( Think Botany Bay; maybe thay 'll rent us space. )

Will u describe your objection ?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Chai wrote:
So...if you woke up with an intruder hovering over you, you'd be able to go get the gun where you keep it safe from the kids, load it, aim, and shoot?

Yes, I would.

The thing about guns is, you can move them.

When you are not in bed, you can lock them in a gun safe.

When you go to bed, you can put in a case near you, in a hard for child to reach place, like between the wall and the bed, that, if a child tampered with the case, wait, let's make this better, if a child even moved the case, a loud alarm would go off. You are within a foot or so of this case. Hopefully though, your child rummaging through your bedroom in the middle of the night and shaking your mattress around looking for a box that they don't even know is there would wake you up.

In the event of awakening to a stranger over you, it might not be the best move to search for the gun yourself in any event.

The intruder is counting on surprise, so, you surprise him. I'm not saying I would have the presence of mind to do this, but if I did, I would actually grab him and pull him close, putting you on more equal footing. You can't get away from him, he can't get away from you. This gives you the opportunity to think of your next intelligent move, like going for the gun when the opportunity presents itself.

Immediately going into fight mode is not always the best answer. Playing possum, matching him, or doing something he isn't expecting may be.

I was reading once in the book The Gift of Fear, how this woman was pumping gas at a station, and saw she was being approached in an agressive manner by someone who was obviously going to mug her.
Instead of trying to escape into her car, which she didn't have time to do, or run, which wouldn't work, she caught him by surprise.

She called out loudly "Hey! How you doin??!! I'm Davids sister, remember me?"......counting on the fact that everyone knows a David.

Well ****, he wasn't going to mug someone who could identify him, it's David's sister for Christs sake, she probably knows where he lives.

Would that always work? Of course not. Would grabbing your intruder work? Don't know. But, it's better than the alternative.

0 Replies

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf

Quote:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]

Keep telling yourself that owning a gun makes you safer....

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf

Quote:
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times),
a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times)
than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]

Keep telling yourself that owning a gun makes you safer....

O, my GOODNESS, Drew !
U r actually quoting statistics from THEM ??
Under a variety of different aliases,
thay have perpetrated the most outrageous statistical hoaxes,
like counting people who drowned at sea
among people who got killed with guns in the home,
( OK, yeah thay had guns in the home, at the time )
or traffic fatalities, the same thing
or
counting cab drivers who were murdered during robberies by their passengers,
among victims killed by acquaintances.
The same thing qua grocers who were killed during robberies,
by robbers who hung around browsing before beginning the robbery.

Of course, everyone knows that NO ONE COMMITTED SUICIDE
BEFORE GUNS WERE INVENTED; no one ever thought of opening a carotid artery with a knife,
however, I maintain that everyone has the right to end his life
when he wants to, as a personal decision.

David

0 Replies

Here's a link to the actual study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182.

Quote:

OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide. METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas. RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. 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.

I don't see any drowning deaths. Only "shootings ... in or around a residence."

0 Replies

Missouri is a "Castle" state.

0 Replies

Chai wrote:

The intruder is counting on surprise, so, you surprise him. I'm not saying I would have the presence of mind to do this, but if I did, I would actually grab him and pull him close, putting you on more equal footing. You can't get away from him, he can't get away from you. This gives you the opportunity to think of your next intelligent move, like going for the gun when the opportunity presents itself.

Immediately going into fight mode is not always the best answer. Playing possum, matching him, or doing something he isn't expecting may be.

Years ago, I read of a tourist on safari in Africa
who was pounced upon by a lion, when he was not expecting it.
He grabbed the lion 's tongue
( who probably was not expecting that ) and he delayed the situation
for quite a while and survived it.

( No, he did not French the lion. )

David

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Here's a link to the actual study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182.

Quote:
OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide. METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas. RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. 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.

I don't see any drowning deaths.
Only "shootings ... in or around a residence."

Keep digging; as I remember, it was in the 1990s.
These groups keep spewing distortions of fact,
until thay r exposed n discredited to a non-viable extent,
whereupon thay reappear under new name.

My point was that thay exagerated the count of people who got killed
with guns in the home, to make gun possession look worse, by fraud.
Thay did not reveal that the deaths were not related to gunfire
( drowning or traffic accidents, etc by victims who had guns at home ).

There were even worse statistical hoaxes; very good for a laff,
but it is so long ago, that I don 't remember all of them well.

David

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf

Quote:
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]

Keep telling yourself that owning a gun makes you safer....

Ok, let's delete the 11 suicides....if someone wants to kill themselves, and a gun is not available, they'll find another way.

So, we've eliminated 50% of the issue.

Unintentional shooting? Meaning a child shooting themselves or someone else?....how many of those 4 times would be eliminated by the adults being responsible.

When I read stories or hear in the news about a child involved in an unintentional shooting, it seems its usually a child who finds a gun that was not properly secured. I would be very interested in learning the statistics of how many guns were in an position to be easily found, or that the child knew the gun existed, as opposed to a child who went out of their way rummaging and search through the house in search of a gun, finding that one is in a place they cannot get to, and devising some way to get the gun out of that place. Did the child do that once out of the 4 times? Twice? Or did the dickens find that gun every time?

As far as the gun being used against you in a homicide or assault, yes, that's disturbing.
I have to wonder though, if the intruder was willing to take the gun from you, and shot you, was he not ready to do harm to you anyway?

How many times of those 7 did the shooting result from the "stop, I'll shoot. No....don't come any closer, I'll shoot you. All right now, stop approaching me, I mean it....." until they are on top of you.

If you do choose to have a gun in your home, it is of course with the mindset that warnings to the intruder are not necessary.

I agree with Roger. Find a reason not to have a gun, someone can find a reason to have one.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Chai wrote:

The intruder is counting on surprise, so, you surprise him. I'm not saying I would have the presence of mind to do this, but if I did, I would actually grab him and pull him close, putting you on more equal footing. You can't get away from him, he can't get away from you. This gives you the opportunity to think of your next intelligent move, like going for the gun when the opportunity presents itself.

Immediately going into fight mode is not always the best answer. Playing possum, matching him, or doing something he isn't expecting may be.

Years ago, I read of a tourist on safari in Africa
who was pounced upon by a lion, when he was not expecting it.
He grabbed the lion 's tongue
( who probably was not expecting that ) and he delayed the situation
for quite a while and survived it.

( No, he did not French the lion. )

David

WOW!

Slick move!

I'll remember that if I'm ever attacked by a lion down by Town Lake.

I hear punching a shark in the nose works too (sometimes).

0 Replies

As a kid, I was told that you could catch birds by sneaking up on them and sprinkling salt on their tails. I organized an expedition of kids and we were all armed with salt shakers. It took us about an hour to realize that it was all a wagonload of bullshit that grownups routinely made up to get us out of their hair.

0 Replies

A MAN 's HOME IS HIS CASTLE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know