Comments on: ordinary americans with guns

By: Phyreblade

Phyreblade — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:47:51 +0000

@Corinth
I’m sorry, but I’ve lived in too many places where violence was frequent, unpredictable and illogical, and I think your contention is based on a rather optimistic view of the average armed robber.
That is not to say that any armed robber is automatically going to kill his victims, however the robber who has made the conscious decision to not kill or harm his victims will usually *not* bring a weapon along… Think about it.
And to answer your question, *I* do not believe that any material possession is worth killing for, however *many* do, and others will kill to get them.
I DO believe in killing (where necessary) in self defense, be it to save my life or the life of a loved one in defense against an aggressor, though if it can be avoided, I will usually take that option.
But if I kill someone in that scenario, it will not be to punish death with death. It will be a last ditch effort to defend myself against an armed aggressor who gave me no other options.

@Caio
My opinion comes from experience, not a lab. Some robbers, of both the armed and unarmed variety, will flee if they hear a bullet whiz past their head. The more determined might shoot back. The ones on the fence might be persuaded to leave quietly or may panic and shoot.
I think that is all besides the point. You cannot determine statistically what will happen in any specific scenario.
What is for sure is that if they break in intending to do you harm right from the start, your chances of survival are better if you are armed than if you are not. If they are undecided about shooting you, a cool head will be more important than a weapon, but the weapon can still give you an edge.

Dagnabbit Caio, your excessive writing syndrome is contagious… Quit it…

By: schulzbrianr

schulzbrianr — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:14:34 +0000

*you’re

And, yes. If it’s six armed people who have every intention of killing me for my property, yes, I have a right to defend my property, myself, and, if I were married or had children, to protect their lives.

By: Corinth

Corinth — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:02:07 +0000

so in a way your for punishing stealing with death?

By: schulzbrianr

schulzbrianr — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:20:54 +0000

Ciao:
What if you were home, but not armed, and got your ass shot, even if you didn’t have a gun, because they came armed for a reason? Then wouldn’t you at least want to take one with you?

Also, just because you don’t know how to use a gun, or wouldn’t use one, doesn’t mean I don’t/won’t. Yes, my things are worth killing for, if you think they’re worth stealing. I worked hard to earn money to buy things for myself, some piece of shit isn’t going to just take them away from me without my strong protest.

By: Corinth

Corinth — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:42:15 +0000

what would you do then?

By: tiki god

tiki god — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:32:39 +0000

6 guys? were they having a rave in the middle of your apartment?

By: Caio

Caio — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:11:20 +0000

Some thoughts:
.
1) The robbers didn’t break through the door, they climbed up the fire escape. After sneaking into the garage somehow. They only hit the appartments where no one was home (most people weren’t: it was the middle of the day). According to people in the building who heard the glass shatter and an old lady accross the street watching, the whole thing lasted about fifteen minutes. If I was home and they walk in on me by accident, I probably would have been taken by surprise, but they would already have guns in their hand, not me.
…
2) There are two kinds of break-and-enter-type robbers: Crackheads and pros. Crackheads have nothing to lose and none of their wits. Pros will have thought every possible situation out and are prepared for it. Your formulas might work in the lab, but there’s no accounting for desperation/expertese. Even if I had a gun in every room in the appartment, they would have the strategic advantage, and they would be more willing to shoot and likely more experience. Plus, they’d have guns in hand and I’d have guns in dresser. This isn’t Die Hard.
.
3) Physical altercations of any kind aren’t statistically even or measurable in terms of probability. Let me put this to you: If I walked into the middle of the highway, I’d have a 1/1 chance of getting hit by a car. If I walked over the pedestrian overpass, that chance would drop to nearly zero. Robbers prepare, and they are willing to take calculated risks, as are any people with little to loose. Most with enough money/comfort to have the net just don’t have the state of mind to understand that.
.
5) The cops told my father to his face that most break-ins in San Francisco don’t get solved. That’s probably a better indicator of probabilities than anything you guys just thought up sitting there.

By: Corinth

Corinth — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:05:16 +0000

the most realistic scenario in a situation where 6 armed robbers enters your building and you draw a gun is that you die. I think you’d be more likely to survive if you werent armed. Also you could ask the question, is someone taking your stuff/money worth killing for?.

I think that any safety you get by owning a gun is false safety, and that when its easy for everyone to get guns you just get a bad circle where more and more people feel they need guns. and soon they’re everywhere.

But maybe im just naive, i live in a small rich country in europe where every adult can choose to buy a gun if they want to, but i dont know anyone owning anything else than hunting rifles and i’ve only seen hand guns when i was in the army.(mandatory military service of 12 months)

In my country if people knew you owned a non hunting weapon people would think you were weird/dangerous.

I know that the situation is not the same in America where guns are common, but i cant think that guns beeing common does anyone any good.

If it were up to me the only ones allowed to own/carry non hunting weapons would be the police/military. And the punishment for owning a weapon would be so high that no one would dare to own one.

By: Phyreblade

Phyreblade — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:50:25 +0000

@Caio
Unfortunately I also disagree with you. I think reboot has the right idea. Being armed is as much a deterrent as it is a defensive advantage.

In the scenario you describe, if the first person to walk through the door were to get a round between the eyes, what do you think that would that do for the motivation of the other 5?

And how much better are your odds in a more realistic scenarios, like confronting an opportunistic burglar? Or a mugger on the street? These happen waaaaay more often that the scenario you described, and having a weapon in those scenarios gives you a distinct advantage.

Don’t you think people would think twice about mugging as a career option, if they knew there was a good chance they might get shot by the salty old lady they were trying to rob?

I will concede that having a gun does not guarantee one’s defense, as one’s ability to use it when necessary requires just as much mental awareness and preparedness to do so as actual physical weapons training.

However it makes no sense to prevent those who can use it from doing so, on account of those who can’t, or are too afraid to do so. The criminals don’t really care. Either way they’ll be able to get a weapon if they want one. No point in tilting the odds in their favor…

By: reboot

reboot — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:24:49 +0000

“When my apartment complex was robbed, police estimated there were at least 6 armed robbers involved. Even if I was there, and armed, do you think I would have done some amazing Clint Eastwood thing and taken out all six?”
Or you could evaluate the risk from the other side of the equation. If the robbers know that no one has guns, then six armed guys clearly have the upper hand and there is little to no risk. But if a significant percentage of the population is armed, then there is a 1/6 chance of getting their head blown off before they even know it. Even a crack head is going to think twice about that.
Crime is a complicated, multi-variable function and gun ownership is just one small component. So until someone can empirically demonstrate that outlawing guns lowers crime rates, the best policy is to give law-abiding citizen the CHOICE to own a gun or not.