@MichiganMan

Frankly, yes. Say an armed criminal enters your family home. The chances are his aim is to steal stuff and leave, which is bad but not the end of the world. If you have a gun and want to challenge him this raises the stakes considerably in a game in which the odds favour the other guy. It strikes me as being an insane course of action to take.

Clearly you don't want to invite criminals in, but the best strategy to deter them is the use of good locks and alarms... maybe even a dog. This will be enough to fend off the more timid criminal, and those who enter regardless are exactly the sort you wouldn't want to engage in a gub fight when your loved ones are in harms way.

Those are some mighty big assumptions as to the intentions of an intruder -- are you willing to stake your life and the lives of your family on those assumptions? Anyone that enters a residence, especially one that is known to be occupied, has to be assumed to be intent upon doing harm to the residents. Yes, that is not the kind of guy one wants to be in a potential gunfight with. However, at that point, one is upon you -- avoidance isn't really practical at that point, is it?

@MM

The intent of doing harm? Why on earth would you think that?

@Oct - alarms don't do shit. they can be bypassed and in today's financial climate with cash-strapped small towns and cities, police are getting laid off and response times mean they might get there sometime after the criminal has cleaned you out and left.

And the dog is a poor substitute when the criminal has a gun and will just shoot your beloved family pet.

Finally, why do you think the criminal is armed? So if you try to stop him with something short of a gun yourself, he'll just kill you.

By disarming all law abiding citizens, you are telling the crooks "go ahead! You have carte blanche to rape, pillage, and murder". They will know their black market guns are the only guns on the streets and will become even more brazen.

It's been said in this thread before. The genie's out of the bottle. There ain't no putting him back. so taking away the guns is just going to disarm those who abide by the law, not those who will find a way to get their guns illegally.

Personally, I don't own a gun. But then I walk out of my house and two doors down is a Deputy Sherrif for our county *and* my house is a modest house (big lot, but nothing fancy in the house) in a modest neighborhood whose worst crime issues involves vandals and the occassional stealing of Christmas decorations by teens out causing trouble. But if I lived in either a very expensive neighborhood (I choose not to spend half my income on my mortgage) or a very rough neighborhood, then you damn well better be certain a handgun would be added to my home defense. I'd hope to never have to use it, but it would be there and I and my wife would be trained in it's use just in case. And no, we don't have kids, so no tragedy waiting to happen.

@Oct - MichMan didn't say they had it, just that one has to assume they do. Assume the worst and protect against it. to do other wise is foolhardy.

Because one cannot know their intent, as such, one MUST assume the worst NOT hope for the best. To do the latter is naive idiocy.

Since you anti-gun crazies continue to ignore simple facts and reason, you have forced me to stoop down to using anecdotes.

An intruder has a shotgun pointed at your daughter's head. He snuck into your house and you have three seconds to react before he turns and shoots you and has his way with her. While you might throw your cell phone at him, I'm going to fill him with .45 ACP full metal jacket bullets. A gun in hand is far better than having the police on the phone.

Let's say I have an M60 machine gun. The M60 is a general-purpose air-cooled belt-fed medium machine gun chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO. A very deadly war machine, no two ways about it. I have registered it and have proven to the proper authorities that I am competent to own and operate the weapon. I have access to a range where I can safely fire it. I have a secure location in my home where I can store it when not in use. I have no history of mental illness or criminal activity. Now, why can't I have that M60 (with whatever ammunition I want, including incendiary and armor piercing) if I have met the above criteria?

@MM

But by assuming the worst we force ourselves to believe that a gun fight is the only option and put our families at risk. Far better to work on the basis of the far more likely scenario that the criminal isn't going on a shooting spree for giggles but is thieving for profit. That way we can act in the way most likely to get our families out alive and not end up getting them killed in totally unnecessary action.

@Oct - assume the worst or, when the worst happens (your daughter/wife is raped and then killed right in front of you while you are tied up and tortured) you only have yourself to blame for not being prepared.

@ Gunfighter

Or he shoots you as you return from work, then enters the house and has his way with her at his leisure. You cannot win battles against the sort of evil criminal you're talking about, because to do so you would have to be ready 24/7, which is impossible, while they only have to be ready when they chose to attack. All you are doing is fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Fortunately this sort of criminal is very very rare.

Let's look at it from the insurance persepctive. The anti0gun crowd should also be anti-insurance because insurance is all about assuming the worst and preparing for it financially. Thanks, but I carry comprehensive coverage along with un/under-insured motorist coverage and my house has full coverage because I want to be prepared for the worst when it happens. But you anti-gun freaks go ahead and go without insurance. But don't try to take mine away from me or I will play kick ball with your nuts.

@Oct - Not as rare as you think. 20 out of every 100,000 residents in Chicago this year will be killed. Many of those will be the situation you described (walking in on an armed thief) and having a gun or not is irrelavent in that situation, so banning guns doesn't alter it. But how many more would be killed if the resident who was home when the armed robber busted in weren't armed themselves because *you* chose to take away their ability to defend their home? *You* taking away their ability means *you* are responsible for their death.

@ Draug

The armed thief and the nutter described by Gunfighter are very different creatures. The nutter out to do harm is extremely rare. The armed theif is found in significant numbers in the US, but that is largely because they feel the need to arm themselves out of fear of the householder having a gun. In countries with far fewer guns (such as the UK) the theif armed with a gun is highly unusual. One might say that by allowing people to keep guns *You* are forcing thieves to arm themselves and *You* are responsible for the resulting firearms deaths

I would disagree. Many of the armed thieves are also into drugs and are armed because the other criminals they associate with are also armed. Seeing as the drug dealers and their suppliers and customers aren't going away anytime soon, neither are their illegal guns.

@MichiganMan

The study classified the 13 as legally justifiable or (presumably "inclusive or") self defense. What is an example that does not fit that description but helps make your case? For example, what is an example of shooting in and around residences that does not fit the bill of legally justifiable or self defense, but that is a pro-widespread availability of firearms case?

@Willtor,

I am not quite sure what you're asking. Maybe I can make my position on this study a bit more clear.

What do the researchers mean by shootings that occurred "in and around a residence" and how do they draw the correlation between "guns in homes" and shooting "in and around residences?" For example, how do random shootings, like a gang related drive-by shooting in which rival gang member and innocent bystander are killed, classified by this study? Yes, this type of shooting may have occurred "in and around a residence" but it has nothing to do whatsoever with the concept of a "gun in a home" upon which the researcher's conclusion is based.

Further, what about a situation where an assailant brings a gun into a home and shoots someone? How does this correlate to a "gun in a home?" To make an accurate conclusion as to the dangers of "guns in homes," they should narrow their sample down to situations in which a resident discharged his own gun in or around his home. Without such a refinement, all they're really saying is that there are some very dangerous places to have residences in the cities they used in their study.

In terms of you last question, I gave you one above -- the gang-related drive-by shooting. The guns used by these gang members were most likely stolen from legal owners, or bought illegally on the black market. As I said, these shootings often occur in neighborhoods -- to which these are affiliated -- and therefore occur "in and around residences." But, as I said, they don't have anything whatsoever to do with a "gun in a home."

@ Octavius

Of course you can't be ready all of the time. But would you agree that some chance is better than no chance? I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have one.

@Octavious,

Whether or not a man entering my home is armed or not, or whether he intends to do me and my family harm or just steal my property, is totally irrelevant. He is in MY home which is in and of itself illegal. He's demonstrated that he has no respect for the law, and little to no fear of the legal and physical ramifications of his actions. At that point, I am under no obligation to try to get into the intruder's head. Whether armed or not, his physical presence is a direct threat to me and my family.

Your statement, "[o]ne might say that by allowing people to keep guns *You* are forcing thieves to arm themselves and *You* are responsible for the resulting firearms deaths..." is completely asinine. I am not FORCING a thief to be a thief, he is CHOOSING of his own free will to be one. After he takes steps to intentionally break the law, all resulting consequences rest squarely and completely upon HIM, not me. This is not only a logical conclusion, but the legal conclusion as well. So by your logic we should all just disarm so as to not make the would be thieves, murderers, and rapists scared and feel the need to arm themselves. Are you REALLY taking that stance?!?

"But by assuming the worst we force ourselves to believe that a gun fight is the only option and put our families at risk. Far better to work on the basis of the far more likely scenario that the criminal isn't going on a shooting spree for giggles but is thieving for profit. That way we can act in the way most likely to get our families out alive and not end up getting them killed in totally unnecessary action."

@ Oct, no, by assuming the worst you're prepared for that eventuality, however unlikely. If one does as you say, and simply assumes that the guys doesn't want anything to do with hurting you, he simply wants your stuff, you're not prepared if murder, kidnapping, or rape is his only intention. The former covers all the bases, while the latter leave a gaping hole in your contingency plan. Further, you're forgetting a very important point. What about the guy whose original intention is simply to steal property, but as the situation escalates, he panics and now become murderous? This doesn't even have to be due to the victims actions. What if a neighbor saw him climbing into the window and called the police. Now he's cornered, and he decides that he's not going back to prison, that he'll die first. What if he and his accomplice have a fight? There are any number of things that can go wrong during the stress of a burglary. One has to assume that one that is brazen enough to break into someone's home is brazen enough to kill -- to do otherwise is naive.

Moreover, you're assuming that all gun owners are going to simply come out blasting at the first sign of trouble. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In the tactical classes that I've taken we have learned a wide variety of techniques to keep the situation from escalating into a deadly confrontation. First and foremost is that under very limited circumstances, there is no reason to kill over property. If I were awoken a thief carrying away my TV, I wouldn't shoot him -- although, in Texas where I live, I probably could. They taught us to make our presence KNOWN to the intruder, to tell him very loudly, "I have a gun, I've called the police...leave the house now!" The way my house is arranged, I have a tactical advantage over anyone on the ground floor of the house. Again, if I were awoken by an intruder I would arm myself, announce my presence, call the police, and assume my tactical position between him and my family. For him to get to us, he would have to come up a flight of stairs and into the muzzled of 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot -- not likely. They also taught us to NEVER corner the intruder if at all possible -- give him an escape route and let him go. Now, there are certain circumstances in which that is not possible. But for the most part, hostilities can be avoided. I can tell you one thing, if you're just looking to steal a TV, and you hear someone rack a shotgun -- an unmistakable sound -- they're going to run like hell. But, if you corner them and make them go through you to get away, well, who knows?

@MichiganMan

Ah, I see what you are saying. Yeah, the abstract doesn't go into that. And, therefore, the abstract doesn't defend the conclusion. But it's a little quick to charge them with academic dishonesty or an anti-gun bias.

@Willtor,

Perhaps it is a bit too quick, please forgive me. But, this is a very politically charged subject, on both sides. As such, there is a lot of agenda driven funding of research going on. Pick any such charged issue, and you'll see each side trotting out their studies that prove their side of the coin. I don't know who these researchers are, nor from whom they derive the bulk of their funding. I do know, however, that social science studies are notoriously difficult to quantify as there is so much of human behavior and society that cannot actually be studied by simply looking at statistics -- it's just too complex. When I see "studies" that try to simplify human society and behavior, I am always a bit skeptical. This is no exception.