Does having a gun in your house make you safer or not?

[Hugabear]

Gun lovers often claim that having a gun in their house makes them safer. The argument is that criminals are less likely to break into a house if they know the homeowner is armed.

But many of these gun lovers oppose making their names and addresses public record. Why? Because they're afraid it will make them more vulnerable to having their homes broken into.

So if a criminal knows there's a gun in the house, he's less likely to break into that house. But if he knows there's a gun in the house, then he's more likely to break into the house.

[Arctic Dave]

1. Circular logic at it's finest.

[Walk away]

2. It seems to me that the facts indicate that the less you have to do with guns...

in any way, the less likely that you will be shot or killed by one.

The only person I know who was ever shot and killed by a gun was sitting on a bed while being shown a gun by his best friend.

[L0oniX]

3. Do people have a right to have some fear of crime?

[Hugabear]

5. Does having a gun make you safer?

If having a gun makes you safer because criminals don't want to run the risk of being shot, then why wouldn't gun owners want ownership to be public record?

[L0oniX]

6. Thank for answering my question with a question. n/t

[Hugabear]

9. Actually YOU were the one who answered my question with a question

I merely restated my original question. Please answer it.

[L0oniX]

11. So you're saying we are a lot a like?

[The Straight Story]

12. Um because it is not about stopping them from breaking in

but about stopping them once they get in.

Why publish your data?

If I owned a gun and my little girl was in the house when someone broke in I would feel safer. Older, back and neck injury, etc.

I am sure some people would love to take a chance and let criminals choose whether they live or not based on the mercy of the criminal. Some of us would rather have an option to defend ourselves from a distance to protect those we love.

[L0oniX]

16. Maybe Brinks and ADT should publish who uses their systems.

I'm not against a gun in the home for protection but I sure wouldn't want to let a criminal know I have one in the house. We have no children and if any should come for a visit a gun would be the first thing I'd lock up. With me they'd have to go past the ADT signs and hear a loud alarm if they break in. If they should dare to keep going and don't announce that they are a police officer ...then...

[Iggo]

26. You have ADT signs?

Doesn't matter if they publish who uses it. You're already advertising it.

[Iggo]

4. It makes you deadlier.

[SheilaT]

7. The reality is, having a gun in the house

vastly increases the likelihood of someone being killed or wounded by that gun. "Accident", or suicide, or shooting a family member or visitor in the heat of the moment.

I am really crazed the the times a toddler or young child finds a loaded gun and shoots it. Could not possibly happen if there had been no gun in the first place.

The gun apologists love to talk about how often an intruder is deterred, but that seems to happen far less often than the above.

[HuckleB]

36. +1

[bitchinabluestreak]

63. What increases the likelihood of someone being killed or wounded

(This is my first post, so I fully expect the "usual treatment" reserved for dissenters. I actually joined to weigh in on the veterinary homeopathy thread, but as yet, there's no point.)

Respectfully, SheilaT, what increases the likelihood of someone being killed or wounded (by a responsible gun owner) is that a person (or persons) sought to commit a crime- burglary, rape, murder; terror, against a person (or persons, including children and pets) who should have been safe in their home or in their car- or even, just in their person; walking down the street, mtob. (Do we still have that "right"?)
If that person had never sought to victimize another person, that injury/ death ball would have never started rolling. Everybody could have just gone on with life. But from the moment that a predator decides to victimize another person, *someone* is going to be killed, harmed or at least, terrorized. Is it better to lose an innocent victim or better to lose/ "re-educate" a predator? That victim's life will never be the same again in any case, even if they live.

The problem isn't guns, knives, clubs, or any other item that can be used as a weapon. The problem is that there are people in this world (always have been and always will be) who are predators. Maybe they were damaged in some way, maybe they were born with a psychological problem, maybe they're just evil and malicious. Doesn't matter.
All anyone can do is everything possible to keep safe and be prepared to deal with that.
There's nothing anyone can do to pre-empt or prevent predators from existing. We can't control that. All we can control is what we, personally, do.

In the case of a gun or a crossbow- or even bear spray or a high lumen LED flashlight, those come with a responsibility to be educated; practiced, in using them properly and safely. ALL weapons, especially in a chaotic situation, have the potential to harm innocent bystanders- including the victim. Does it matter if a person dies from a punch to the head or a gunshot? They're still dead and the person who applied it still killed them.
Why doesn't it matter if the victim of a predator is dead or maimed, when it could have been prevented? How can anyone justify rendering a victim defenseless (or place them at such a disadvantage that for all intents and purposes, they are)?

Having recently acquired a handgun (nothing fancy, just adequate- I'm poor and guns aren't my thing) to protect my elderly and special needs (blind) pets and myself, I am watching these discussions with great interest and concern.
I *agree* with you, SheilaT wrt to children (or anyone but the owner) getting ahold of guns. I have yet to see a single discussion, anywhere, regarding the consequences of irresponsibility on the part of a gun owner- or on the part of minors or dependents of a gun owner. Imho, that's the conversation we need to be having. Those consequences should be *severe*. Columbine *ticked me off*. All of these incidents are outrageous. No one held the parents responsible, even when the kids lived at home.
I don't see any outrage about drug dealers, gangbangers, home invaders, "knockout gamers" or lowlifes of any other stripe, either. (See the recent DoJ report) What's up with that?

Toughs**t for the victim does not work for me- *especially* if it's my dogs. (Considering the number of dogs killed by LE this year, just for merely existing, I gotta say that I'm not feeling real good about calling the cops these days.) Predators, like any bully, are usually chickens**ts. If they know someone is going to fight back, they'll run or victimize someone else. *Nobody* gets injured or killed, then. And if it makes other would be predators think twice (however unlikely), all the better.
If Y'All want to be profiling somebody, looking at responsible gun owners is looking in the opposite direction; *away* from the problem. *That we really can't fix anyway*. Or at least, nothing that we've tried so far has worked. In fact, it's worse.

One thing I know: All the laws in the world don't deter predators. It would be great if they (still) did, but that becomes less effective as each day passes. If some way to deter/ inhibit predators cannot be found, then obstructing self defense is the wrong thing to do.

(aside: Wow. Y'All have a really great system. I've been revising this tome for over an hour on my original log in)

[Progressive dog]

78. Who gets to decide who the predator is?

Give me a gun and I can be jury, judge, and executioner. Do I get to decide who is responsible before or after some gun nut assaults me?

[Hugabear]

10. I guess you're another one who doesn't want to address the circular logic employed by the NRA

It's okay, we all understand that you folks don't have an answer to this.

[cleanhippie]

14. Lets start with your circular logic first.

I love me some concern-tolling posts. They are what makes DU suck less!

[Hugabear]

15. The circular logic is coming from the NRA and gun lovers

It's the gun lovers who claim that having a gun in their house makes them safer, that they are less likely to be victimized if criminals know they are armed.

But then they claim that if criminals know they have guns, they're more vulnerable to crime.

It's not my circular logic.

[cleanhippie]

17. But the concern trolling is not.

To borrow from Smokey the Bear; "Only YOU can prevent concern trolling."

[Hugabear]

18. My concern is that there are too many damned guns in this country

And one of the primary reasons people give for owning guns is that it makes them safer.

[bongbong]

32. Accusing Liberals of rhetorical missteps like "circular logic"

is one of the key "tactics" that the NRA orders its acolytes to do on chatboards.

I had that happen to me regularly in the gungeon before I got banned there (my posts about how fear-filled & cowardly Delicate Flowers are was making them a bit too nervous)

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. I'd bet your need to be insulting with each and every post was more the reason than anyone's nerves.

That and a total and complete lack of an original thought. You use the words Delicate Flower(s) and/or Precious in every single post.

Is that all you have? My experience in the RKBA Forum is that anyone with a willingness to discuss/debate (which you so obviously lack) is not only more than welcome, but an integral part of what goes on there. No surprise that you got banned. That's what constant insults and little else will get ya.

Now, you can respond to this with as much insult as you can muster, but it really doesn't matter. You've heard the phrase "like water off a duck's back"? Your insults amount to nothing more, nor do they add to the discussion. So go right ahead...

[Yo_Mama]

13. Surely it would depend on your situation?

Such as local risks, whether you have restraining order on your violent ex who has already threatened to kill you, whether you are an idiot who does not know how to properly use/store them safely, etc.

In areas where a lot of people shoot (have guns), criminals are way less likely to break in when they think someone's home.

Just having a gun in an area where people think people don't have guns won't give you the same type of protection against a burglary. Outside lights, audible alarms and so forth would be more protective.

I think most people who have guns in the house for the purpose of self-defense have them because they are afraid of a home invasion when they are home!

[jmg257]

19. Sshhh...Gun Owners are crafty...like stealthy Ninjas.

Crafty : Skilled in or marked by underhandedness, deviousness, or deception.

[CreekDog]

20. *IF* a gun is accessible enough to be useful to you in some situations, then probably not

*IF* a gun is accessible enough to be useful to you in some situations

it's probably making you and others less safe in most others.

[cthulu2016]

21. This OP is rather intellectually dishonest

I doubt you are genuinely unaware that guns are typically stolen from homes while nobody is home, and that claims of utility of guns as self-defense refer to when people are home.


So the OP is just flame-bait.

As to whether having a gun makes one safer -- statistically it surely does not. It greatly increases the statistical risk of being shot.

[zappaman]

23. +1 n/t

[bongbong]

33. LOL

So you're saying that Delicate Flowers leave their Precious where anybody can get at it - a burglar, a relative, a child? No gun safes?

Your words, not mine. At least you agree that having a gun around is very dangerous.

[11 Bravo]

49. Well, this Delicate Flower (you really love that term, don't you?) keeps his "Precious" (never ...

heard that one before, but your pathology belongs to you) in a gun safe, along with its "Friends" (Hey, this is fun!). I keep the ammunition (got a cutesy word for that, as well?) in a separate safe. We have fairly sturdy doors on our suburban home, and I'm pretty sure that I would have at least a minute or two prior to someone being able to force entry into my home. I already know that in that time I can retrieve and load my handgun, so I would have to say, yeah, on balance, I'm safer with a gun in the home.
Now, please get back to your puerile name-calling.

[bongbong]

53. Delicate Flowers

There are some very good reasons for that name!

First, the super-sensitive nature of gun-nutz. They get offended if you say that guns aren't like gold-plated unicorns, and even get offended in the way in which you state your objections to their object of worship. Tom Tomorrow came up with that term to reflect the fact that one's words must be VERY carefully chosen around them.

Secondly, even though they are super-sensitive concerning the words about their gunz, they are super-tough in the Rambo sense. Very, very tough with all those guns.

Finally, in reality they aren't tough at all, but are just scared. They need guns to face the world. For all three reasons, they are Delicate Flowers.

[11 Bravo]

55. Are you willing to admit that the term is over-used? Or is everyone who ...

owns or defends the right to own a gun a member of the "gun-nutz"? Do they all get offended by people who misspell the word "guns"? Do they all consider their guns to be "gold-plated unicorns"? Do they all "worship" a piece of utilitarian metal?
Finally, and most hysterically funny of all (at least to me) - I have met "Tom Tomorrow". I even know his real name. Hell, if I wanted to, I could lead you to his home in New Haven, ( But I would never do so. He is an intensely private man who has pissed off more than a few whack jobs over the years, and I respect his desire ... Hell, his NEED for anonymity). But I can tell you that he has an intellect, and while he (as am I) is in favor of restrictions on expanded magazines, assault weapons, gun show loopholes, etc; I can also assure you that we both giggle when people with silly internet user names post bullshit like yours.

[jeff47]

50. So...you don't lock up your guns when you're out of the house?

Wouldn't that be a better solution than trying to keep your gun ownership a secret?

[cthulu2016]

66. Who on Earth do you think you're talking to?

I've never owned a gun so I obviously don't lock up my non-guns when I leave the home. I don't like guns. Tend to avoid people who own guns.

Why do you assume that anybody offended by gibberish like this foolish OP must be a gun owner?

Some people just don't care for gibberish.

[jeff47]

79. You really expect everyone to recognize you on the Internet?

Step away from the gigantic ego.

Why do you assume that anybody offended by gibberish like this foolish OP must be a gun owner?

Because your and their objections are monumentally stupid. If that gun is supposed to provide security, publishing it's location would enhance security.

If your objection to that publication is the gun might be stolen while the house is unoccupied, then you've demonstrated the owner is not a responsible gun owner - they've failed to properly secure their guns.

Either way, the problem is with the owner of the weapon, not the publication of their ownership.

[cthulu2016]

81. That's quite ironic, I do not expect people to recognize me on the internet...

I expect people who do not and cannot recognize me, precisely because we are on the fucking internet, to not think they know stuff about me they do not and couldn't possibly know.

That's why it is surprising (and comical, BTW) for some bozo on the internet to start lecturing me about things he or she *imagines* about me based one his or her pet collection of one dimensional stereotypes.

[jeff47]

82. Which is why you started with "do you know who you're talking to"?

Makes perfect sense.....oh wait, no it makes absolutely no sense.

Now, shall we move the conversation on to the various uses of "your" which includes what used to be "one's", as in "your gun" instead of "one's gun"?

Or shall we continue with how special you are?

[hack89]

22. We assume that criminals are smart enough to know when a house is empty.

A reasonable assumption considering the vast majority of burglaries are committed when the home owners are gone.

It is not really that hard when you actually think about it.

[Poiuyt]

24. Evidence shows that having guns does NOT make you safer

[GeorgeGist]

25. most gun deaths are suicides.

[dr.strangelove]

27. I do not know anyone who thinks gun ownership makes one safer because

criminals are less likely to break into a house if they know a homeowner is armed. I have honestly never heard that argument before. I have always thought the argument was that is an intruder is in your home, a gun will allow you to either kill the intruder, or cause them to flee. I never have heard someone suggest that it was a deterrent. I would think a sign on your lawn saying that there is a firearm in the house, or even one of those NRA bumper stickers, would be the deterrent.

Also, IMO the objections to government collection of such data, and the publication by a media entity of said data, is about freedom of choice and expression. If I choose to put a sign up that says I own firearms it is my choice. The objection is to someone else taking that choice away, by publishing the information as well. There are plenty of people who do not care if someone knows they own a gun, but they object to a newspaper telling people. I understand this completely.

Personally, I do not think having a gun makes you any safer. I also think the Court got it wrong when they ruled in favor of an individual right to own guns. But I also think the Journal News was wrong to publish their list/map.

[Hugabear]

30. I've heard several gun owners proudly make that claim

[TexasBushwhacker]

39. If someone actually posted one of these signs they'd be asking to be burglarized

Most burglaries happen during the day or when there is evidence that the home is unoccupied, like during the holidays. Guns are one of the things burglars steal because they're easy to sell along with jewelry, cash and drugs.

[trixie]

34. Except those intruders who want your guns.

You know the criminals that STEAL other's guns so they can't be traced to them.

Why would anyone advertise they have guns in their home?

If you do own a gun do you let parents of your children's friends know? It would piss me off to no end to find out an adult did not disclose that information before inviting my child over to their home.

[dr.strangelove]

44. of course they do

A gun is a valuable commodity. It has a high value and is easy to transport. I am not sure I understand what the point is that criminals might steal a gun. It seems to support my position that it was wrong of the Journal News to publish the map/list. If a person wants to take on that risk by putting a sign on their lawn or on their car about their gun ownership, its their choice and they get the risk that goes with such a choice. The Journal News took away that choice. That is the problem with their action IMO.

However there are many reasons why someone might advertise possession of firearms. First, its a hot political issue. Someone might believe that a public declaration of them choosing to be active in their right to own a gun is a valuable public statement. Many people feel it is worth the risk to declare they own firearms. I think the idea that it is a deterrent is crazy because, a gun must have the user with it for it to have any impact on an intruder. Otherwise it is just a commodity. But clearly there is a value to declaring gun ownership. I just think that choice should be left to the gun owner.

As for your last point, with respect to my children, I assume everyone has a gun in their home. I live in rural putnam county, north of westchester county (where the Journal News published the map/list). While obviously not 100% of the citizens own guns, I would be surprised if close to a majority do not own some firearm. (If not handguns, at least a shotgun or rifle in the home.) As such, I feel its safer to just assume everyone has one. I have had talks with my children about firearms and how they are not safe. But I likewise assume everyone where I live has a chainsaw, a pneumatic gun and a set of knives. We have bows in our house. I teach my children about safety around all these items. I do not have a firearm in my home, but if I did I would not let anyone else know. I don't see why anyone would be fool enough to assume a house does not have a weapon in it and not teach their children about firearm safety. To me the more logical, and safer, approach is to assume all homes have a weapon and to educate children accordingly. If anyone wants to know if I own a gun, I would tell them no, but I have a shed and workshop full of tools far more dangerous and that their kids should be educated according to their wishes. I lock the door to the shed and the workshop, but if someone wants in, they are getting in.

[trixie]

83. Where we live no one we know has guns in their homes.

Gun lockers at gun clubs yes but in the home no. We always ask the parents of our children's friends and have had some anxious moments. One guy reached up on a shelf in the garage (wide open with kids running in and out) and pulled out 2 handguns. YIKES! He told us, whilst holding a beer, that when he comes home late at night (no mention of the family) he uses one of these guns to go through the house with before settling into bed...........ummmmmmmm NO to that house.

Not all gun owners have the sense a five year old would have.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. It's complicated

If you live in a very high-crime neighborhood, there's probably some sense in keeping a gun in your house. If you live in a low-crime neighborhood, the lack of crime makes it less likely that it will be used in self-defense, and more likely that it will be used for something else.

With regard to your OP, it's true that if a thief knows there's something of value in the house (like a cache of firearms) they're more likely to attempt a break-in at a time when the owner isn't home. Which is why owners should keep their firearms in a locked (and heavy) gun safe.

Most of the people who fall into that scenario, by the way, probably live in low-crime neighborhoods. Lots of guns = Lots of disposable income. That typically means a wealthier and lower-crime neighborhood.

[Hoyt]

29. Gun lovers talk out of both sides of their mouth, and rear, trying to keep pipeline to guns open.

They feel safer with their guns tucked close by, and care nothing about the impact of their bad habits/addictions on society.

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. So when you were happily stealing things that weren't yours, did you carry a weapon of any kind?

Ever encounter an armed person while you were thuggin'? If so, what did you do?

I remember you posting something about locking the door behind you so as not to be surprised... what if you locked someone inside who was armed? Would you have continued with your crime, or would you have given up?

[Hoyt]

69. Cher, you remember incorrectly. But gun cultists aren't known for perception.

[trixie]

31. No!

[cbrer]

35. If you use statistics to determine your personal threat level,

You may get the wrong amount of protection. It requires analysis on a local level.

If you are someone who lumps all gun owners into a group called "gun lovers", or "gun nuts", then you 're making a false assumption, and injecting emotionally charged rhetoric into an already charged situation. I would LOVE to live in a society where guns are never necessary. I will try, as best I can, to not deny reality to my own detriment.

The reason I object to publishing my name, address, and the # of weapons I possess is that it gives inside information to those who could misuse it.

[Cosmocat]

37. I prefer a dog ...

a much more visible/audible deterrent and less chance it sleeps through something ...

[RebelOne]

61. I had a Rototiller, but unfortunately, I had to send

her to doggie heaven because she had incurable cancer. She was almost 13 years old. She was a deterrent for anyone even thinking of invading my house. I now how have a Chihuahua that barks a lot, but any one who invaded my house would make short work of her with one kick. I would feel safer if I had a gun since I am a single female who lives alone.

[Cosmocat]

72. My advice to anyone who fears for their safety

is to enroll in some form of martial arts or other class that helps you believe in/be able to use your body to protect yourself.

If you keep your firearm in your night stand, unless you happen to be reading book in bed, it will be useless to you if your home if invaded. What if you happen to be on the toilet, in the kitchen ... ect. Are you going to run for your bedroom to try to get your fire arm or try to get the heck out of your place?

If I was intent on doing someone harm in specific, I would wait until you were in the shower.

What good is that gun in the night stand going anyone then?

Your chihuahua is a good friend and a better deterrent than a gun would be. If it is a random act, what keeps the person from going after you, a gun they don't know about or a yapping mutt? The mutt, cause why deal with that when you go after someone with cats. If someone is set on doing you harm in specific, they are going to do so when you are somehow at a disadvantage.

And, if you know how to handle yourself a bit, that does you A LOT more good than a gun.

Walking around town, with the gun in your night stand, how does that help you if someone intends to rob you or do you harm.

If you know how and are prepared to do a hard short kick to someone's knee followed up by a strong blow to the neck area, that will do you a good bit more in most circumstances than even having a gun on your person.

If someone has a gun trained on you, are they going to wait for you to get your firearm unholstered?

Better investment of money to do some form of martial arts - overall improvement for your mind and body on the good chances you never need it, and infinitely more useful than a firearm.

[bitchinabluestreak]

68. Dogs are a great early warning system...

if they can hear or aren't sleeping soundly. If somebody broke in, however for me, they would be a liability. My first concern is protecting them.
The 3 that would be the best barkers (God, what am I saying?!) would be most in danger of being shot or poisoned. Plus, all 3 will bite. Of the other 3, two are very old (1 of those is disabled and can't get around without help); 1 deaf, 1 very nearly (we have to yell/ motion to her) and the other is blind. I'm pretty sure I could get out of here if anybody broke in (patio doors in every room but the bathrooms), but no way I'd leave the dogs. In fact, we don't leave the dogs without a sitter because of the risk of fire or burglary.

Maybe for some people, dogs are expendable. My dogs are my kids. I cringe every time I see a post about dogs as "protection".
I couldn't stand seeing one (or more) of them get shot while I stood there, helpless.

[Cosmocat]

70. Point being

chances of a home invasion are 1 in a 1,000,000.

chances that your having a gun alter those odds are about 0% unless you somehow really wear them in a manner that it is pretty obvious to the outside.

Chances of avoiding a home invasion with a dog are INFINITELY better, cause they bark. Even a little dog. Unless someone means you direct harm for a reason, that is going to be enough to have them move on to the next house. Maybe they are scared of the dog, maybe not. But, they don't want to have the noise arising suspicion.

We don't have our dog FOR this reason.

We have her because she is flat out a great pet and part of the family.

But, to whatever extent I fear for our safety, I feel A LOT safer with her in the house than I would a fire arm.

If you are asleep and have no dog, you have almost no chance if someone quitely breaks into your house. If someone home invades you and you don't happen to be where your guns are you have basically no chance. If you are smart, you are trying to leave by some other exit, cause by the time you get to where your firearm is and, supposedly unlock it (if you have children), fumble around with it, you are shot.

Unless you walk around your house with it in a holster, keep one by the shower/toilet ...

People watch too many damn movies ...

[Zoeisright]

38. Of course not.

It makes you more likely to be the victim of a gunshot. And gun bumpers are now afraid of crooks who will steal their guns. Of course, logical reasoning is not a strong point with them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

40. Perception is everything and it makes them FEEL safer.

Americans have no use for reality, it's just too uncomfortable and frequently icky. We'd much rather live in our fantasy world.

[nobodyspecial]

41. Mine does because it is owned by an LEO

who is expertly trained in how to use it. There are no unstable people or children who have access to it.

[Nye Bevan]

42. I read many more stories about family members and friends accidentally being shot

than stories about homeowners successfully using guns to neutralize intruders.

[BostonGuy]

43. What about the undercover DEA agents in NYC who's names and addresses were published?

This newspaper should be sued for jeopardizing the lives of people who would otherwise remain unnoticed. What about the undercover police officers that now have their names and addresses published?

These people likely had unlisted phone numbers, now anyone can get out of jail and go after them. Bravo, idiots!

[Hugabear]

48. Were they identified as undercover agents?

Looking at a lengthy list of gun owners, how would anybody know which ones were undercover? I don't think there were any asterisks next to anyone's name.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. I'd bet most Criminal Types know the name(s) of the Law Enforcement Officers that put them away.

That fact alone makes not only the LEO's targets, but their families as well. You might get away with the argument that undercover officers are still undercover, but the large majority of crimestopping/punishment is done by people who either wear a uniform in the open, or a suit/robe in criminal court. Prison employees and Parole Officers are on the list as well, I'd bet on it.

There are unintended consequences to nearly every act and are magnified when that act is an emotional reaction to a catastrophic event.

[Skip Intro]

45. I don't think gun owners keep guns as deterrents.

I think they keep them to use, if need be.

[jmg257]

46. Seems this episode is a reinforcement of the perceived need for shall issue Concealed Carry,

And the wisdom of only owning gun(s) you can ALWAYS have with you.

(Of course laws would have to be adjusted for allowing CC wherever one wished to go.)


Although the names published were CCW holders, so now I am confused.

[ieoeja]

47. They need guns to protect them from friends and family. Not from criminals.

According to FBI statistics for 2011, only 23% of homicides with a known motive occur as the result of criminal activity against innocents. You are 3 times more likely to be killed by a friend or family member or during an argument with a stranger who, say, "was waiting for that parking spot".

On the plus side, less than 0.004% Americans were murdered last year.

[doc03]

51. If I am going to break into a house I am going to break

into one that has something worth stealing. Thanks for letting use know where the loot is and I will be sure when I break in that there is nobody home.

[HockeyMom]

52. Only when they are locked up in the combination safe

and unaccessable to ANYONE, including their owner (my husband).

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. Except that's not the argument.

"The argument is that criminals are less likely to break into a house if they know the homeowner is armed."

Except that's not the argument at all. In the large majority of cases, the criminal will have no idea whether the people in the house have guns or not. In such situations a gun would have neither deterrent nor attraction value.

If the criminal was aware that the household had guns, whether that was a deterrent or an attraction would depend on the criminal's assessment of whether there was anyone home or not: a strong deterrent if they were, a possible tempting target if they were not.

I know of no gun owner claiming that the presence of a firearm is in and of itself a deterrent to a break-in.

[slackmaster]

56. The answer to your question is "No"

The mere presence of a firearm makes a person neither safer nor less safe.

But many of these gun lovers oppose making their names and addresses public record. Why? Because they're afraid it will make them more vulnerable to having their homes broken into.

Yes, and for some people that is a PERFECTLY REASONABLE CONCERN.

Politicians condemn New York newspaper that published gun owner map
Source: Reuters

By Peter Rudegeair
NEW YORK | Fri Jan 4, 2013 6:49pm EST

(Reuters) - New York-area politicians denounced on Friday a local newspaper that has revealed the names and addresses of thousands of holders of gun permits, and they asked state legislators to make such information confidential.

The decision by the Journal News, which serves the suburbs just north of New York City in Westchester and Rockland counties, to publish the identities was "deplorable" and "reckless," Rockland County legislator Frank Sparaco told a news conference, adding that it "has posed a serious threat to the residents of Rockland."

Inmates in local prisons have approached guards to say they know their home addresses, Rockland County Sheriff Lou Falco told the news conference.

The newspaper, which is owned by the Gannett Co, published a map with the names and addresses of permit-holders in Westchester and Rockland counties on December 24. It did so in the aftermath of the December 14 massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut....

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/04/us-usa-guns-newspaper-idUSBRE9030Y820130104

[Rosa Luxemburg]

57. Basically, you would have to sleep with it under your pillow and carry it around at all times

in the shower you would prop it up on the soap rack.
in the kitchen you would have it strapped to your belt.
mowing the lawn you must have it so that you can stop the mower immediately and shoot.
if someone broke in brandishing an AKA you wouldn't stand a chance.

so much fear in this country.

[Autumn]

62. I have guns in my house. No, they do not make me feel safe.

My dogs however are a different story. THEY make me feel safe.

[former-republican]

64. I have two shepherds

They are what would alert me to anyone approaching my property.

This is the way I look at it though. If someone or a group of people are crazy and dangerous enough to try
and break my door in while they are barking up a storm.
My dogs go in the safe room . I will protect them as I will my own family.

In a situation like that a gun in your hand is the best defense.
If anyone argues this point they are an idiot.

Not directed at you

[Autumn]

65. My dogs are my first line of defense, and I know from experience when my

dogs go after them they haul ass, my guns are secondary.

[former-republican]

67. I have yet to see anyone even try to enter my property when my dogs are out.

But in a home invasion type scenario where usually there are multiple perpetrators involved.

I can't see my self sending my dogs out to be shot while I lock my self and my wife in a room.


The perpetrators are almost always armed. This just happened 5 or 6 weeks ago in the next town over from me.
They beat the family badly , tied them up and ransacked the home. The home owner statement said the 2 involved
both had guns.


and just to note this was a very nice neighborhood this happened in..

[Honeycombe8]

71. 1. It's unethical to post private information publicly, even if the info

is available from public sources;

(2) It's a matter of surprise and preparedness, the criminal's most valuable tools. If he KNOWS there's a gun, and that the homeowner is a "law abiding citizen" (unlike a criminal, who you cannot tell has a gun since there's no app. for purchase), then he can prepare a gun-stealing job, which would be different from, say, a rape job, a burglary job of an elderly unarmed woman, etc.

You don't know much about crime, do you? I know a bit. That's why I have a gun.

[hobbit709]

73. My furry burglar alarm with sharp teeth makes me feel safer than the guns.

[sendero]

74. It depends...

... on a large number of contingencies of which I will not bore you with. If your question is "does having a gun in the house automatically make you safer" then the answer is clearly no.

However, I have a Mossberg 500 sitting in a gun rack in my bedroom. It is loaded, the first shell is birdshot, the second is buckshot. If I point the gun in your general direction and fire the buckshot, you are very unlikely to survive.

If you kick in my front door or I hear you in the great room in the wee hours, the first thing you will hear is the me chambering the birdshot shell. It is a distinctive chunk-chunk sound, and if you have a brain bigger than a pea you are going to leave at that instant. If you do not, well I'm coming after you.

I have no kids in the house. Could a burglar sneak past my bed and get the gun first? Perhaps. But I'm pretty sure my Heeler/Rottweiler Buckley would not let that happen.

To all of you who are going to insult my intelligence with numerous unlikely to ridiculous scenarios please save your breath. I am quite ok with your decision to not have a gun. You need to get over my decision to have one.

[IdaBriggs]

76. Burglar Alarm = Dog. Home Defense = Gun.

Do I understand your logic?

Out of curiosity, have you ever needed to "defend your home"?

A sensible burglar would steal when you weren't there. A clever one would bring treats for your alarm system.

[FarCenter]

75. About 15 seconds to break the patio door, 15 seconds more to shoot the dog

Homes are inherently insecure.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. Having a gun in your home is a public health issue.

http://www.firearmsresearch.org/content.cfm/article_summary?article_id=3516

This brief summarizes two of the author’s previously published case-control studies that combine data from the National Mortality Followback Survey and the National Health Interview Survey. Women with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be a victim of a homicide than women without a gun in the home. Guns in the home were also a strong risk factor for suicide (and specifically gun suicide) for both men and women, and also increased the risk of an unintentional shooting death. “One of the main contributions of these findings is their consistency with past results.”

[gulliver]

80. Should you torture bad guys to get the code to defuse the terrorist nuke?

You bet.

Do you buy a torture device in case you ever need to do that?

It's the same with guns and the lottery and every other case where people take action based on an imagined situation they will never be in.

Does anyone know where I can get one of those window-breaking hammers for my car in case I am ever trapped underwater?

[derby378]

84. Let's ask the woman who was raped in her own home while calling 911

Let's see how she would have felt about having something to keep that scumbag at bay instead of having to deal with psychological (and possibly physical) trauma for many years to come.