• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:2270] Does a Gun Make Your Home Safer?

This threads title poses a simple yes or no question, while the accompanying OP attempts to imply "no" to be the correct answer.
As a gun owner of the past 63 years, my answer to the OP question would be a resounding Yes.

My question is "Would a criminal likely feel safer confronting a home owner holding a gun or one without a gun in hand?"

Those who answer the thread question with "no", are free to exercise their Right to not keep a gun in their home.

Those who are convicted of committing a crime in which the life of another person is threatened or taken, IMO, should be permanently removed from society. All others should be considered innocent until such time they have been proven guilty. Period!
 
Stop lying. All these below do that. And you've continued to avoid answering the last sentence with anything but lies and accusations. Nothing remotely honest, including the fact that the premise you present about safety has been proven wrong also.

Admit they refute your uninformed accusations, even lies since you cant possibly know, or provide sources that "prove" them wrong for me.
You have proven nothing. All you do is give your opinion.
 
You were supposed to show that @Lursa specifically is more in danger from her gun. That was your claim. You said your link showed that. It didn't...unless you maintain that the general statistics are equally shared among all individuals. Of course, if you maintain that, your much ballyhooed safety rules are irrelevant.

You're skewered between your own arguments, have no where to turn, and so just spin madly in place. 😆
No I am not obliged to show she is in more danger. All I need do is point out that she can not back her claim with any safety rule and nor can she justify her ignoring safety rules.
No that is how you choose to interpret my claim. My claim is dealing with accidents so there is no need if you understand how accidents work for me to demonstrate she is in danger.

You are trying to create a strawman.
 
What? Seriously what planet are you on.

SO.. you think if someone breaks down your door to get to you.. the best move is to let them kill you?
Breonna Taylors boyfriend legitimately believed that the people breaking down the door meant to harm/kill him and Breonna.
So.. according to you. the best thing would be to let them kill you.. rather than attempt to defend yourself?
My point is that you are not likely to win in a gun fight with an intruder. Intruders are not invading your house to kill you - they only want to take your valuables, but if you shoot at them, then they will be likely win in the gun fight and kill you because they are better prepared. The person being invaded is being caught by surprise. It's a matter of which person shoots first, and the one who shoots first is the one most likely to get killed.
People do not break down doors to get at people - they break down doors to get things.
I have been robbed at gunpoint, and since I did not have a gun myself, I did not get killed or even injured.
I'll tell you where I do not live, and that is in the wild, wild West.
 
No I am not obliged to show she is in more danger. All I need do is point out that she can not back her claim with any safety rule and nor can she justify her ignoring safety rules.
No that is how you choose to interpret my claim. My claim is dealing with accidents so there is no need if you understand how accidents work for me to demonstrate she is in danger.

You are trying to create a strawman.
Isn't the OP itself a strawman?
If there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths.
If there were no knifes, there would be no knife deaths.
If there were both guns and knives and no humans there would be no gun or knife deaths.
Insert humans and with or without guns or knives there will be deaths resulting from human action.
How deeply divided, politically, are countries with the lowest crime rates?
Politicians trying to get elected/reelected tend to dwell more on issues that divide us rather than on how one candidate might solve a common goal better than another candidate.
 
No I am not obliged to show she is in more danger. All I need do is point out that she can not back her claim with any safety rule and nor can she justify her ignoring safety rules.
No that is how you choose to interpret my claim. My claim is dealing with accidents so there is no need if you understand how accidents work for me to demonstrate she is in danger.

You are trying to create a strawman.
You specifically claimed that Lursa was more likely to kill herself with her gun than defend herself against a home invader. All your rabbit holing is meant to distract from the fact you have no basis for that claim.

I do give you credit for being smart enough to discern the trap you laid for yourself.
 
My point is that you are not likely to win in a gun fight with an intruder. Intruders are not invading your house to kill you - they only want to take your valuables, but if you shoot at them, then they will be likely win in the gun fight and kill you because they are better prepared. The person being invaded is being caught by surprise. It's a matter of which person shoots first, and the one who shoots first is the one most likely to get killed.
People do not break down doors to get at people - they break down doors to get things.
I have been robbed at gunpoint, and since I did not have a gun myself, I did not get killed or even injured.
I'll tell you where I do not live, and that is in the wild, wild West.
Um.. thats wrong on so many levels.
Intruders invade your house to get at you. They have most anytime to break into your house when you are not there. If they break in when you are there..its most likely they are there to hurt you or your loved ones. That's why by the way they come armed..as you said. They know you are home and specially braking in at that time and are armed.
As far as the one that shoots first is the one that gets killed?. Yeah..not so sure of that one. Frankly if my alarm..or dogs or sounds of a door getting kicked in alert me.. I am now ready..armed with a shotgun and behind cover..
While an intruder is trying to navigate in a house they likely don't know.
Let's put it this way. I like my odds a lot better behind cover and armed with a shotgun..
Than being at the mercy of an armed intruder that now is deciding whether to have fun with my wife before leaving no witnesses.
 
You have proven nothing. All you do is give your opinion.
And I dont see you refuting the links, and facts. The one that you kept demanding. Obviously, reality will never overcome your rigid and blind...and failed...biases. Just admit...if we write grass is green, you'd deny it.
 
My point is that you are not likely to win in a gun fight with an intruder. Intruders are not invading your house to kill you - they only want to take your valuables, but if you shoot at them, then they will be likely win in the gun fight and kill you because they are better prepared. The person being invaded is being caught by surprise. It's a matter of which person shoots first, and the one who shoots first is the one most likely to get killed.
People do not break down doors to get at people - they break down doors to get things.
I have been robbed at gunpoint, and since I did not have a gun myself, I did not get killed or even injured.
I'll tell you where I do not live, and that is in the wild, wild West.
I'll let the people that are killed, the women that are raped know. They'll sleep so much better.

I'm sure that this man, that broke in with an ax, meant no harm. And of course, the family should have just hung out and waited to see :rolleyes:


Even better, the apt owner didnt even need to fire...he drove the intruder out without doing so.
 
Um.. thats wrong on so many levels.
Intruders invade your house to get at you. They have most anytime to break into your house when you are not there. If they break in when you are there..its most likely they are there to hurt you or your loved ones. That's why by the way they come armed..as you said. They know you are home and specially braking in at that time and are armed.
As far as the one that shoots first is the one that gets killed?. Yeah..not so sure of that one. Frankly if my alarm..or dogs or sounds of a door getting kicked in alert me.. I am now ready..armed with a shotgun and behind cover..
While an intruder is trying to navigate in a house they likely don't know.
Let's put it this way. I like my odds a lot better behind cover and armed with a shotgun..
Than being at the mercy of an armed intruder that now is deciding whether to have fun with my wife before leaving no witnesses.
Exactly. If they know the family is home...they are prepared for that and dont care. If they werent prepared to 'neutralize' the family, they'd wait until the home was unoccupied.
 
You specifically claimed that Lursa was more likely to kill herself with her gun than defend herself against a home invader. All your rabbit holing is meant to distract from the fact you have no basis for that claim.

I do give you credit for being smart enough to discern the trap you laid for yourself.
He's carried on and on about gun storage safety rules but even after admitting they exist, refuses to further acknowledge that we follow the safety instructions for use. Dunno what else we can do...you cannot force someone to admit they're wrong.
 
How many people, concealed carrying legally, have committed gun crimes? Killed anyone. Very few. (exceptions: there are legal gun owners that have planned mass shootings. To me, that's different from a cc'er out, living life, all of a sudden engaging in violence. )

And there are millions of people legally ccing every day (I wanted to write permit holders, but several states no longer require it).

Even in WA St, there are, according to permits held, 1 in 9 adults could be carrying every day. Think about that, out walking or shopping. (And yes, cc guns are not illegal by law in public shops or establishments). Just federal.

There's no 'blood in the streets' due to legally carrying people.

Yes, firearms do get into illegal hands. What do you propose to stop that without penalizing the rest of us?
I propose nothing because nothing is going to change. You can look up my proposals, I've written them more than once on here. Let's face the truth just like I say to turtle, no proposal is acceptable to gun folks, everything is an attack on their beloved second amendment.
 
Exactly. If they know the family is home...they are prepared for that and dont care. If they werent prepared to 'neutralize' the family, they'd wait until the home was unoccupied.
How many stories do you hear about or read about on a daily basis where some family was slaughtered by home invaders? I swear some of you gun folks are scared of your own shadows and see boogeymen everywhere just waiting to attack you.
 
Well in the majority of mass shootings in the US, about half were handguns and (separate stat), no more than 2 were used (handgun or other). The LV shooter was an outlier in almost every way except sex.
Oh, well I feel better now. That's like saying, I had mercy on him, I only shot him five times when I could have shot him six.
 
arms includes ammunition. the second amendment is about what the government cannot do, not what citizens can own. Can you find a single word in the constitution that empowers the federal government to ban ammo? of course you cannot
So no, the constitution does not mention ammunition. If arms included ammunition, when you buy a firearm does it come with ammunition? When I buy a car, it comes with tires and an engine.
 
Yeah.. please define the " good reason" for carrying a " gun"? Who decides..? How do they make that decision?
Also.. why do you think the crime rate using a gun would drop? Using a gun during a crime already dramatically increases your jail time.
I see no good reason to take a gun for a stroll around the neighborhood.
 
My point is that you are not likely to win in a gun fight with an intruder. Intruders are not invading your house to kill you - they only want to take your valuables, but if you shoot at them, then they will be likely win in the gun fight and kill you because they are better prepared.
How are they going to kill me with a face full of 000 buckshot?
The person being invaded is being caught by surprise. It's a matter of which person shoots first, and the one who shoots first is the one most likely to get killed.
That's assuming I haven't been alerted to their presence before they know of mine.
People do not break down doors to get at people - they break down doors to get things.
meaning they might not even be armed
I have been robbed at gunpoint, and since I did not have a gun myself, I did not get killed or even injured.
Just carrying a gun means I'm less likely to be robbed. People like that go for easier targets. If you look like you can defend yourself they'll move to someone who doesn't. You assume events rubbing at gun point would be willing to commit capital murder?
I'll tell you where I do not live, and that is in the wild, wild West.
Simple question.

If you were going to steal a gold bar from someone would you be more or less willing to try and make off with it if they had a shotgun pointed at your face?
 
Some 'interesting' articles out there, articles that contradict the claims of many gun advocates.


The 'statistics' in this meme seem a bit high but research does show that guns in the house are more likely to harm a resident than an intruder.



Reconsidering Risks of Gun Ownership and Suicide in Unprecedented Times

Guns in Home, Greater Odds of Family Homicide

Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death

Yes guns can make your home safer. You can greatly reduced your odds of death by gun accident by following a few safety rules.

If you only abide by statistics you're probably much safer surrounded by guns than you are in vehicle traffic. I take that much greater risk every day.
 
How many stories do you hear about or read about on a daily basis where some family was slaughtered by home invaders? I swear some of you gun folks are scared of your own shadows and see boogeymen everywhere just waiting to attack you.
Even an injury from a home invader is unacceptable. Someone breaks into my house and stays on the ground floor, they just want "stuff", and they can have. Move upstairs towards my family and they lose the benefit of the doubt.

The DOJ released a report that showed 260,000 people per year were injured, some killed, during a home invasion. There is an actual threat out there. It's our right, and yours, to be prepared or unprepared.
 
So no, the constitution does not mention ammunition. If arms included ammunition, when you buy a firearm does it come with ammunition? When I buy a car, it comes with tires and an engine.
The Constitution defines the powers of government, and the Bill of Rights imposes further restrictions on the power of government. Not being mentioned in either indicates that the government wasn't granted any power over it.

Heller affirmed a right to use and posses a firearm which included self defense. Without ammo, that right can't be exercised.
 
You're basing this on a conjecture of a single person with no credentials in the field?
"According to Brandon Maddox, a South Dakota Federal Firearm License-holder who helps businesses – including kitchen-table dealers – obtain licenses, 60 percent of gun dealers in the country operate out of their homes."

Do you have any actual references to ATF reports about the percentages of FFLs who are home based?

Do you have any data that shows what percentages of home based FFLs fail to record sales and inventory properly?



The FBI did.




Why would this matter? If a gun is stolen, it doesn't matter where the buy legally purchased it.



the majority of sellers at gun shows are FFLs who are required by federal law to process these sales just like any sale in their normal place of business.




You should tell the FBI. Their data comes from interviews by professional interrogators of the criminals who acquired the guns. The 42% that came from the black market, the 6% stolen, etc; none of those were recorded either. Did you understand the FBI report?


The FBI noted that 0.8% of guns acquired by criminals came from gun shows. The number of actual sales at a gun show has nothing to do with the FBI data.


You should tell the FBI.


”Do you have any actual references to ATF reports about the percentages of FFLs who are home based?”

I guess you didn’t read the first paragraph, wherein it stated:

“In 1990, an ATF study of the top sellers of guns linked to Detroit crime scenes found that home-based sellers occupied six of the 10 top spots, including first and second. By 1993, 74 percent of all dealers operated out of their homes, the agency estimated.”

As for the entire country:

“Congress wrapped higher fees and stricter regulations into the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, raising license fees from $30 to $200. That change acted as a deterrent: Within five years, the ATF said, about half of dealers operated out of their homes.”

(see 20th para):
Home-Based Gun Dealers Fail ATF Inspections Nationwide (thetrace.org)

“Do you have any data that shows what percentages of home based FFLs fail to record sales and inventory properly?”

“Home-based gun sellers, who hold a majority of all gun shop licenses and regularly fail to record their sales and inventory properly, fail to perform background checks on buyers and sell off premises in places they, by law, should not, face some of the strictest penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and are often linked to incidences of mass gun violence, reports USA Today.”

“The FBI did”

“Why would this matter? If a gun is stolen, it doesn't matter where the buy legally purchased it.”


I already gave you the evidence to support the fact that you can’t tell the original source of the gun in question. That the dude in prison says he bought it from Joe Blow, a private sale, not from a gun show, does not mean Joe didn’t buy it from a gun show or stole it from a neighbor. I did give evidence that it could likely be just as not. The FBI cannot confirm origination.

At a gun show, you don’t know of illegally purchased guns. You only know the ones that were legally purchased.

“the majority of sellers at gun shows are FFLs who are required by federal law to process these sales just like any sale in their normal place of business.”

And the evidence shows that you don’t know what % are legal transaction. Evidence is that many of FFL sales at storefronts aren’t legal. Logic would be that it would be a higher % at gun shows.

“You should tell the FBI. Their data comes from interviews by professional interrogators of the criminals who acquired the guns. The 42% that came from the black market, the 6% stolen, etc; none of those were recorded either. Did you understand the FBI report?”

Again, the FBI cannot confirm origination. What ends up in the criminal’s hand originated from any number of sources than was given in answer in the study. Do you understand that?

“The FBI noted that 0.8% of guns acquired by criminals came from gun shows. The number of actual sales at a gun show has nothing to do with the FBI data.”

The fact of origination already calls into question the FBI data as explained. According to the rules, it is less likely a buyer will have a background check run at a gun show. In fact, you can find out from the seller if a check will be run. Use logic.

“You should tell the FBI.”

They already know. It was from advisory FBI statement they admitted to the unreliability of drawing opiniated conclusion based on FBI stats.
 
”Do you have any actual references to ATF reports about the percentages of FFLs who are home based?”

I guess you didn’t read the first paragraph, wherein it stated:

“In 1990, an ATF study of the top sellers of guns linked to Detroit crime scenes found that home-based sellers occupied six of the 10 top spots, including first and second. By 1993, 74 percent of all dealers operated out of their homes, the agency estimated.”
That's a reference with nothing to back it up. I'd like to see the actual ATF report.

As for the entire country:

“Congress wrapped higher fees and stricter regulations into the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, raising license fees from $30 to $200. That change acted as a deterrent: Within five years, the ATF said, about half of dealers operated out of their homes.”

(see 20th para):
Home-Based Gun Dealers Fail ATF Inspections Nationwide (thetrace.org)

You're still quoting the Trace.
“Do you have any data that shows what percentages of home based FFLs fail to record sales and inventory properly?”

“Home-based gun sellers, who hold a majority of all gun shop licenses and regularly fail to record their sales and inventory properly, fail to perform background checks on buyers and sell off premises in places they, by law, should not, face some of the strictest penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and are often linked to incidences of mass gun violence, reports USA Today.”

So, no, you don't have any actual data.
“The FBI did”

“Why would this matter? If a gun is stolen, it doesn't matter where the buy legally purchased it.”


I already gave you the evidence to support the fact that you can’t tell the original source of the gun in question. That the dude in prison says he bought it from Joe Blow, a private sale, not from a gun show, does not mean Joe didn’t buy it from a gun show or stole it from a neighbor. I did give evidence that it could likely be just as not. The FBI cannot confirm origination.
the original source is the factory, but that doesn't matter. It's the last source that counts.

At a gun show, you don’t know of illegally purchased guns. You only know the ones that were legally purchased.

“the majority of sellers at gun shows are FFLs who are required by federal law to process these sales just like any sale in their normal place of business.”

And the evidence shows that you don’t know what % are legal transaction. Evidence is that many of FFL sales at storefronts aren’t legal. Logic would be that it would be a higher % at gun shows.
Why do you believe this, given that guns shows are frequented by police and federal law officers. Storefronts, not so much. "Many" is a word with no real definition.

“You should tell the FBI. Their data comes from interviews by professional interrogators of the criminals who acquired the guns. The 42% that came from the black market, the 6% stolen, etc; none of those were recorded either. Did you understand the FBI report?”

Again, the FBI cannot confirm origination. What ends up in the criminal’s hand originated from any number of sources than was given in answer in the study. Do you understand that?
Yes, do you understand that it's the last source that counts?

“The FBI noted that 0.8% of guns acquired by criminals came from gun shows. The number of actual sales at a gun show has nothing to do with the FBI data.”

The fact of origination already calls into question the FBI data as explained. According to the rules, it is less likely a buyer will have a background check run at a gun show. In fact, you can find out from the seller if a check will be run. Use logic.
What does a background check have to do with the source of the gun? A buyer has zero chance of a background check buying it from the black market.

“You should tell the FBI.”

They already know. It was from advisory FBI statement they admitted to the unreliability of drawing opiniated conclusion based on FBI stats.
Can you link to that statement?

It's still the best data we have.
 
That would almost assuredly result in more detailed background checks into the mental health of those would want to buy firearms. Are you advocating for more detailed background checks into potential firearms buyers, as a way to reduce 'suicide by firearms'?
No, what Im advocating is better treatment for mental illness, creating more jobs (since poverty can be a cause of suicide), and suicide hotlines.
 
Yes reducing the number of unlocked guns in the home is the best suicide prevention there is.
Nope the best suicide prevention is to have good treatment for mental illness, to create more jobs (since poverty can lead to suicide), and to have suicide hotlines.
 
Exactly. If they know the family is home...they are prepared for that and dont care. If they werent prepared to 'neutralize' the family, they'd wait until the home was unoccupied.
Bingo. And here is the real crazy intellectual disconnect. On one hand.. these anti gunners think you aren;t responsible enough to own a firearm without harming yourself. That somehow you are dangerous with a firearm as a law abiding citizen in your own home.

BUT.. they believe that you should put your very life and body in the hands of AN ARMED INTRUDER because while you.. the law abiding citizen.. are too dangerous with a firearm. The armed intruder, in there mind, is perfectly safe with a firearm, and is only there to take your valuables.
 
Back
Top Bottom