Thunk! Home Defense Revisited

[Thrawn]

lazs, you don't even know what you are arguing against.


"The thing is.. guns do indeed stop over one and a half million crimes a year. I am not sure what "other" weapon would have worked better or if there even is one besides fists, that is used as often. With that kind of numbers it would seem that the city boys are just hiding their head in the sand or... they live very sheltered lives."


A shorter way of saying this might be, "I don't have a darn clue what the statics for non-firearm weapon defense is, but I better ridicule people just in case.".


Kleck is pro-gun, but don't let that get in the way of your pigeon-holing.

[lazs2]

thrawn...  I am aware of the study and I still maintain that in most cases a gun is the best tool.   in some cases... nothing else will do at all.

Now... you can take your chances that screaming or driving away (u realize that was one of the "other weapons right?)  will be good enough.

If no one hears you... if you are not in a car.. if the attacker or attackers are a lot more powerful...  you simply will not be effective without a firearm... you may be able to run away but a gun won't stop you from running.

Point is..  all the "weapons" you talk about are available to someone who has a gun but... he can also have the gun if he needs it.

Real life shootings are rife with examples of people who have tried everything they could think of before they were forced to shoot.

I have been armed and simply drove away from a bad situation... in that respect.. you could say that the car was... if not more effective, at least as effective as... a gun.    That is not to say that the gun was uneeded.....If the car stalled say... if I couldn't get into it fast enough... I would still have the gun.   I would have more options.

If you are trying to imply that in most shootings there was a better way to handle the situation then I would disagree.

lazs

[SteveBailey]

Hardly, I believe that one has the right to have firearms. Not because we they are the most effective form of home defense, they just aren't.

Originally posted by Thrawn
Any other weapon.

Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:

"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)

"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Thrawn, can you tell me exactly where, in your quote above, that it says the gun isn't overall the most effective form of home defense, please?

[VOR]

I halfway agree with Thrawn. I think any weapon used in self-defense in the home is far less effective than deterrence. If you take the necessary measures to educate yourself and provide for your own physical security, you'll likely never have to defend yourself at home. That is the objective, right? To protect yourself without being forced to kill somebody in your own home?

Billy Badguy will always pass up a hard target for a soft one. If he chooses you instead of your neighbors, you used too much bait.

[Tac]

i read there's a tazer shotgun that fires a big spread of individual 1-minute duration taze 'darts'.

sounds like a good thing unless the crook is wearing something that prevents the darts from hooking him.


would be fun to watch someone with 5 of those things in their chest hehe.

[lazs2]

vor..  it depends...  I assume that you are a young male in decent shape (given your being in the service).

I believe that you have a narrow and distorted view of self defense because of that.   Imagine the things you would do (unarmed) against an assailant and then put yourself in the place of your mother or sister or grandmother or.. the hunchback out on dissability down the street.

I did not suggest that you picture yourself old or infirm because I know that young people are incapable of such thinking.

steve... thanks for digging that up.. I know a lot of people missread or missinterpret what keck says... I recall that he said once that more improvised weapons were used in the U.S. than guns...  I don't believe he ever said that they were more effective.  

lazs

[moot]

because I know that young people are incapable of such thinking.

Lazs, that's not true.  All it takes is taking care of just one elderly for a short while.
Unless you mean very young youngsters.

[SteveBailey]

Lazs, notice that when I ask Thrawn for an explanation of his position, based on his own information, he is nowhere to be found.  Typical.

[VOR]

I think you missed my point, lazs.

My point (in clearer words) was: it's more effective to invest more time and energy into making yourself an uninviting, hard target than it is deciding what kind of gun you'll shoot someone with. If it comes down to that, well, good luck.

There's an old saying: I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun YOU. Make your home more secure and less flashy than your neighbors.

[john9001]

Originally posted by VOR
Make your home more secure and less flashy than your neighbors.

so you want us to hide in our castles, raise the draw bridge, drive old cars so they wont get carjacked, how about if you dress like a bum so the bad guy will think your poor?

sorry ,you hide, i'm going to live like i want to.

[VOR]

Whatever.

[storch]

Originally posted by john9001
so you want us to hide in our castles, raise the draw bridge, drive old cars so they wont get carjacked, how about if you dress like a bum so the bad guy will think your poor?

sorry ,you hide, i'm going to live like i want to.

yup go ahead and polish up the old double wide.  I'll chip in for some new taillights.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by john9001
so you want us to hide in our castles, raise the draw bridge, drive old cars so they wont get carjacked, how about if you dress like a bum so the bad guy will think your poor?
 

Uh Oh! Does this mean I have to sell my extensive, designer Mr. T gold chain collection?

[lazs2]

vor... criminals are impulsive, lazy and stupid.

Your plan will not work.  they will steal anything that is easy...   the only thing a criminal understands is force.   that is all.

You can put yourself at less of a risk.. be less of an attractive target but even if you go through all those hoops and lifestyle adjustments and thinking... some dumb crook somewhere will figure you can't afford an alarm system like the more flashy neighbor..

worse.. they are backward and superstitious and prone to believe anything that sounds good to em... you don't know that some other dumb crook hasn't said that you have a stash of krugerands and that you don't have a gun in the house or some such...

lazs

[VOR]

If my plan ever fails, there's always plan B.

I don't think it will ever come to plan B, tho. Also, I think you might be underestimating the thought process of the average crook. They aren't all crackheads. Some, in fact, are quite smart and very good at what they do.