We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[dgaddis]

maybe dallas is different, but around here all the home invasions happen when nobody is home...i guess because the people know that they are much more likely to get away with it that way. seems, these people aren't breaking into homes to do harm to people, but to grab a few appliances so they can head down to the pawn shop and get a little cash in their pockets.

I don't live in Dallas, but :: Deputies: Macon man critical after being shot during home invasion | WGXA <- This morning, ~6 miles from my house. Pro-tip - someone unexpectedly knocking on your door at 1am is never a good sign. Do not open the door!!!!

EDIT to add - wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be a drug deal or something that went south.

as far as home protection, seems a pistol would be ok, not sure why you'd need some kinda semi auto with a 20,30 or 100 round magazine.

I agree.

[Dallas Tex]

You are less safe with a gun in your house. You are less safe with a gun in your house.

Definitely not true.

Perhaps true for the mentally ill or folks that are suicidal or in an abusive relationship. Most folks don't fall into those categories.

[zachateseverything]

Definitely not true.

Perhaps true for the mentally ill or folks that are suicidal or in an abusive relationship. Most folks don't fall into those categories.

Nope. Having a gun in the house dramatically increase the chances that you're going to be shot by accident, involved in a fatal domestic dispute, or even killed by an intruder.

Statistics on Guns in the Home & Safe Storage | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

[monadnocky]

This, to me, is following a somewhat predictable and unfortunate trajectory - that of "guns for self-defense," which is a theme that really brings out strong opinions and further polarization. Not everyone who has guns keeps a Glock in the freezer and a Sig taped to the underside of their office desk.

I own guns (granted, mostly 22's) because I find shooting enjoyable (although I haven't been to the range in forever). They live in a safe in my basement. If you want to make the argument that I shouldn't own these for the social good, well, ok, I can see the argument. But not all firearms owners are the same in terms of equipment owned, how guns are used, and so forth.

The self-defense part of the firearms ownership debate is definitely the most salient, but those who own firearms are hardly homogeneous in terms of their rationale for ownership.

Edit: FWIW, no kids, maybe some loose ammo (that's in a separate safe)... can I still own my target shooters?

[Dallas Tex]

Nope. Having a gun in the house dramatically increase the chances that you're going to be shot by accident, involved in a fatal domestic dispute, or even killed by an intruder.

Statistics on Guns in the Home & Safe Storage | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

As soon as you scrub out the data related to mentally ill folks, folks in physically abusive relationships, and drug users i would consider looking at that data. Until then its meaningless disguised as meaningful.

[moondog-sparky]

Nope. Having a gun in the house dramatically increase the chances that you're going to be shot by accident, involved in a fatal domestic dispute, or even killed by an intruder.

Statistics on Guns in the Home & Safe Storage | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

yes, i can see how having a gun in the house does increase your chances of being shot, even if by accident. proximity to firearms does increase risk, albeit a risk that can be mitigated if managed properly. i can't say that every firearm owner does this...thus part of the problem, of course.

but, following your logic, i seem to recall in Freakonomics that for children <10 the risk of death by gun was ~1 in 1,000,000, whereas death by accidental drowning in a pool was ~1 in 11,000 (someone can Google Fu this if they'd like, but i believe the #'s i put here are close to what they published). pool death was roughly 100x riskier than gun death for small children.

as my wife often reminds me of the things we accept on a daily basis with nary a second thought... asprin and NSAID's are attributed to nearly 7,000 deaths annually. of course, none of the victims in either the pool or pill scenario were chased down by a 100% nutter, malicious pill-wielding swimming pool - i get the difference. which is why the emphasis on the nutter is more critical to me than the weapon used.

as has been said many times, the stat game can be played forever and be played to advantage for either side. it comes down to personal choice and personal risk when discussing self defense.

[davids]

yes, i can see how having a gun in the house does increase your chances of being shot, even if by accident. proximity to firearms does increase risk, albeit a risk that can be mitigated if managed properly. i can't say that every firearm owner does this...thus part of the problem, of course.

but, following your logic, i seem to recall in Freakonomics that for children <10 the risk of death by gun was ~1 in 1,000,000, whereas death by accidental drowning in a pool was ~1 in 11,000 (someone can Google Fu this if they'd like, but i believe the #'s i put here are close to what they published). pool death was roughly 100x riskier than gun death for small children.

as my wife often reminds me of the things we accept on a daily basis with nary a second thought... asprin and NSAID's are attributed to nearly 7,000 deaths annually. of course, none of the victims in either the pool or pill scenario were chased down by a 100% nutter, malicious pill-wielding swimming pool - i get the difference. which is why the emphasis on the nutter is more critical to me than the weapon used.

as has been said many times, the stat game can be played forever and be played to advantage for either side. it comes down to personal choice and personal risk when discussing self defense.

Because children drown in pools we shouldn't regulate guns?

[Cookietruck]

yes, i can see how having a gun in the house does increase your chances of being shot, even if by accident. proximity to firearms does increase risk, albeit a risk that can be mitigated if managed properly. i can't say that every firearm owner does this...thus part of the problem, of course.

but, following your logic, i seem to recall in Freakonomics that for children <10 the risk of death by gun was ~1 in 1,000,000, whereas death by accidental drowning in a pool was ~1 in 11,000 (someone can Google Fu this if they'd like, but i believe the #'s i put here are close to what they published). pool death was roughly 100x riskier than gun death for small children.

as my wife often reminds me of the things we accept on a daily basis with nary a second thought... asprin and NSAID's are attributed to nearly 7,000 deaths annually. of course, none of the victims in either the pool or pill scenario were chased down by a 100% nutter, malicious pill-wielding swimming pool - i get the difference. which is why the emphasis on the nutter is more critical to me than the weapon used.

oh man i guess this might be off topic and kinda going back on topic, how ridiculous it would be if that most recent mass killer (the one in El Paso not the other one on the same day...wtf)...if that person decided they were gonna do some mass murder with some Aspirin or a swimming pool...how exactly would that even play out?!?! probably alot more complicated than just walking up to place and firing off 100 or 200 rounds in a few minutes. it would probably still have to involve a gun though because that's probably the only way (if that would even work) to get someone to swallow a whole bottle of aspirin...and then we'd have to wait, what half a day? a day? it would be crazy!!

and a swimming pool...i mean you're not carrying that to a place where alot of people are gathered. so that would probably involve some busses or something.

[Dallas Tex]

Because children drown in pools we shouldn't regulate guns?

I know you are better than that.

Think of the point he is making this way: The risk of you dying in an airplane related incident increases 100% if you choose to travel on airplanes.

You've got to think through these 'studies' a bit and not just accept the 'findings' as gospel.

[bcm119]

These discussions are always fascinating, espeically when people start parsing their own feelings about risk. As the insurance and financial industries know, risk is more about emotion than statistics. People will do what makes them feel safe. Personally, if faced with a 2am break-in, I would rather hand over my TV and laptop than get into a gun fight in my own house. But I can understand that if you are into shooting and practice regularly, having a pistol nearby might make you feel safer, but it’s not for me. Like any complex problem, gun violence is going to require a complex, long-term, multi-faceted solution that we’re not going to write the script for in a week. I actually think that the biggest problem, the one which causes most of the rest, is economic uncertainty/shareholder takeover of corporate decisions/money in government/employees as costs not assetts/gig economy etc. People are at the end of their ropes right now, despite the stock market, and they’re losing their sh!t left and right. I think we’re all pretty well fuck@d and I hate to say it but I’m glad I chose not to procreate and have an emotional attachment to another human who will have to be a pawn in whatever endgame this economy experiences.

[kdawg]

Isn't a bullet proof vest better defense against gunshots than another gun?

[Saab2000]

As the insurance and financial industries know, risk is more about emotion than statistics.

I wasn't going to say anything at all but I do think you've got it 100% reversed. Insurance and finance place heavy reliance on statistics. My mother's experience in the medical field made her an ideal underwriter for an insurance company as a second career. It was based solely on known risks where we have a large enough sample size to draw meaningful conclusions.

Anyway, I have no more to say on the subject at hand but I'm enjoying the discussion.

[moondog-sparky]

oh man i guess this might be off topic and kinda going back on topic, how ridiculous it would be if that most recent mass killer (the one in El Paso not the other one on the same day...wtf)...if that person decided they were gonna do some mass murder with some Aspirin or a swimming pool...how exactly would that even play out?!?! probably alot more complicated than just walking up to place and firing off 100 or 200 rounds in a few minutes. it would probably still have to involve a gun though because that's probably the only way (if that would even work) to get someone to swallow a whole bottle of aspirin...and then we'd have to wait, what half a day? a day? it would be crazy!!

and a swimming pool...i mean you're not carrying that to a place where alot of people are gathered. so that would probably involve some busses or something.

response for you and davids: no way can you truly read what i posted and go here...seriously?!?

please re-read my statement where i specifically say, "i get the difference". not playing what-aboutisms here or even justifying one vs the other. was simply pointing out that there are many risky things we accept (have accepted for decades) as a way of life. the benefit for the majority of these things (pills - pools - cars - booze, etc) vs the risk to a very small minority is tacitly understood and accepted by our society. does not mean i accept mass shootings as a way of life. it does mean i try and keep a bit of perspective when going through the decision process for legislation to control / restrict personal freedoms. the gist of my post was simply that we can't, nor should we expect, legislation to provide us with zero-death results.

but go ahead and continue to play the Moral Outrage Olympics game as you race to a podium spot. we're all human here. and we're all outraged. just because you are more outraged, does not make you more right.

[Blue Jays]

"...Personally, if faced with a 2am break-in, I would rather hand over my TV and laptop than get into a gun fight in my own house..."

My aforementioned 23 y.o. family member gave the home invader all the money she had on the morning of February 23, 1993.

Then he raped her, murdered her, and dismembered her body.
Criminals forcing their way past locked doors with sledgehammers are poor negotiators.
She lived alone. She was childless. She was in a healthy relationship with her guy.

[mzilliox]

we have stepped into the realm of disingenuous arguments. people are offering very poor straw men and other fallacies. cool

[mzilliox]

My aforementioned 23 y.o. family member gave the home invader all the money she had on the morning of February 23, 1993.

Then he raped her, murdered her, and dismembered her body.
Criminals forcing their way past locked doors with sledgehammers are poor negotiators.
She lived alone. She was childless. She was in a healthy relationship with her guy.

sucks dude, it would make me want to fight for tighter gun laws, and a better overall social structure

[Blue Jays]

"...it would make me want to fight for tighter gun laws, and a better overall social structure..."

Why? No firearm was used in the murder of my family member.
He used a sledgehammer to demolish her securely locked door.

He then used a large chef’s knife to stab her and dismember her after.
She was a savvy and educated Wall Street type. Much smaller than her killer.

[bcm119]

I wasn't going to say anything at all but I do think you've got it 100% reversed. Insurance and finance place heavy reliance on statistics. My mother's experience in the medical field made her an ideal underwriter for an insurance company as a second career. It was based solely on known risks where we have a large enough sample size to draw meaningful conclusions.

Anyway, I have no more to say on the subject at hand but I'm enjoying the discussion.

I think what I was getting at is these industries use emotion to sell their services. You're certainly correct that they use stats to run their businesses successfully though.

[bigbill]

I have a S&W 40 cal in the nightstand drawer. It has a loaded clip but not chambered. I also have a six D cell Maglite next to the bed. I live by myself unless my son is home from college so there's nothing to protect but me. My plan is this when I've gone to bed, loud or unexpected noise I'll use the flashlight and call out. If there is someone in the house I'll lock the bedroom door, chamber a round, and call the police. I keep a baseball bat near the front door for other times. I'm doing an online MA in the evening, my computer command center faces the front porch, I'll see someone approaching. Otherwise I'm not home during the day and most weekends, they can steal it all, everything is replaceable.

[colker]

Why? No firearm was used in the murder of my family member.
He used a sledgehammer to demolish her securely locked door.

He then used a large chef’s knife to stab her and dismember her after.
She was a savvy and educated Wall Street type. Much smaller than her killer.

Nothing against someone in her situation having a firearm in the house and knowing how to use it. Inside the house.