Robbed last night/Becoming a target

[Kamban]

AlexxT wrote:

I think he just meant that this guy is out there every day, all day,and making some noise so criminals scouting the neighborhood will notice him due to the music playing, and be deterred by his presence there. But I agree he won’t me that much deterrence for criminals scouting at night.

Click to expand...

That is what I meant. He is out on the driveway on many days, especially in summer, till 9 PM since it is still dusk. We do have motion sensing flood lights and when we go out for a few days we keep some lights on. But his presence right across us ( and other neighbors close by in the front ) makes scouting such a hassle that the thief finds easier targets

 

As they say - you don't have to outrun a bear. only outrun.....

[spiritrider]

I find it rather amusing that a supposedly intelligent well educated physician who is certainly well-versed in Epidemiology and probably uses the results of it every day whether they realize it or not.

Would allow their obvious biases to completely ignore the fundamental scientific requirements of validity, precision and bias, control groups, etc... missing in these so-called "studies" (thinly veiled propaganda).

In the numbers of "children" killed by gunfire, neglect to acknowledge that the vast majority are teenage gangbangers.

In the numbers of people killed by "someone they know", neglect to acknowledge that the criminals, drug dealers and gangbangers (often one in the same), wait for it... know each other.

An in this particular case, compare just the number of deaths of home owners vs. criminal perpetrators. First, with the classic Red Herring logical fallacy of including suicides. Then by ignoring the orders of magnitude of defensive gun uses that dwarfs the actual occurrences resulting in the death of the perpetrator.

[uptoolate]

The White Coat Investor wrote:

It makes me feel a little better when I have something stolen that that person needed it far more than I did. I’d hate to be at a place in life where I would consider taking someone else’s stuff. That’s especially true if you believe in some sort of after-death punishment for bad behavior during your life or even in simple karma. It also helps to know that if someone stole my car, purse, computer, bike etc that I could walk down to the store today and buy another one with cash.

Of course, I’d still shoot someone coming through the backdoor and not think twice about it. And I’d empty the clip to make sure I was the only eyewitness to the incident testifying in court. Sometimes people need to be shot. This is a kid I grew up with (now a cop) who shot a patient in radiology. The patient needed shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTglItSFXbo

The good stuff starts at 4:15. The video is from his body camera. He was obviously exonerated.

 

Click to expand...

I identify with the former much more than the latter.  We don't really have a much of a gun culture and the only guns I have ever held are police weapons.  Two of my best friends are cops.  I have never fired a round.  There were a few antique rifles in a museum.  I do have a pellet gun to scare crows/starlings/grackles.  We don't lock our doors nor do most of our neighbours and the chance of a local burglar having a gun (or a weapon of any kind) is very low.

[The White Coat Investor]

Rogue Dad, M.D. wrote:

guns have a single purpose: injure/kill.

 

Click to expand...

1. Provide food


2. Shoot clay pigeons


3. Shoot targets


4. Protect from bears, wolves etc


5. Signal for a rescue


6. Show of force


7. Blow things up


8. Competition


9. Comradery


10. Collectible

Should I keep going or have I convinced you yet? I know not everyone grows up shooting and so gets their ideas of what a firearm is used for primarily from the news and what comes into the ED, but a firearm is a tool like many others. Can it be dangerous? Absolutely. But its only purpose to injure/kill? Not even close to being true.

[The White Coat Investor]

hospitalist md wrote:

As a new home owner, this issue resonates with me.  I have never fired a gun in my life so that is out of option.  Do not have a dog right now .  Maybe in the future

What kind of security systems do you guys have at home to prevent burglary.  I am closing on my new home in a week and would like to have a security system in place before removing.  Would appreciate any recommendations.

Click to expand...

I think the signs do more good than the actual system.

[The White Coat Investor]

AlexxT wrote:

I am of the opinion that shotguns are too unwieldy for indoor use, and too loud.  Too easy to be disarmed, too long to search house safely and unobtrusively.   Also, the spread makes it unsafe to use if other family members are home.  At the same time, the spread is not so great as to obviate the need to aim.  They hold few rounds, and are slow to cycle and slow to get back on target.

Handguns are better for indoor use, in my opinion.I worry about kids in the house too.  My kids have been taught to never touch a gun, even a toy gun.  My accessible guns are in bedside safes, with magazine inserted but none in the chamber.  That is a small compromise for safety.

Click to expand...

The spread isn't the unsafe thing. The unsafe thing is when the bullet penetrates walls, which a shotgun is much less likely to do. The spread is probably a good thing if you're trying to hit a moving target.

What I can't figure out is why you think a shotgun is slow to cycle. Mine is semi-automatic. The law doesn't allow it to cycle any faster. Yes, it doesn't hold many rounds, but if I can't hit them in three shots, they probably deserve to get away.

[AlexxT]

The White Coat Investor wrote:

The spread isn’t the unsafe thing. The unsafe thing is when the bullet penetrates walls, which a shotgun is much less likely to do. The spread is probably a good thing if you’re trying to hit a moving target.

Click to expand...

The spread is about 1 inch per yard of distance.  So at 8 yards, you have a spread of about 8 inches (Probably more like 12+ inches in my actual experience on paper) .  That will make it impossible to hit the bad guy without hitting a family member nearby, which you could do with a handgun equipped  with a laser, at least at the range.  In a real situation, who knows.  It's that lack of precision that I was alluding to.

You are correct about penetration, but hollow points in a handgun probably won't penetrate too far.  They might, but bullet selection can minimize that if you really worry about it.  It's a mixed bag.  Sometimes you need some penetration if someone has taken cover.  A handgun is better than a rifle in that respect, and in my not-so-expert opinion is a good compromise.  If you want to avoid penetration completely you can always use frangible rounds in a handgun.

The White Coat Investor wrote:

What I can’t figure out is why you think a shotgun is slow to cycle. Mine is semi-automatic.

Click to expand...

You are correct, but most shotguns are pump, which cycle slower, and I had those in mind.  I figured that someone would bring up the semi-autos.  But I also said they are slower to get back on target , due to the recoil, even with low-recoil rounds, even with a semi-auto.

The noise from an indoor shotgun blast will probably cause more hearing loss.  I keep electronic ear protectors near my bedside gun safe.  If I have time and remember I would put them on.  I'm not likely to remember.

My main objection is that someone can more easily grab the barrel and wrestle the gun away from you.

Most people run away after seeing a gun, almost all after hearing one, and few will want to stay, but I would rather have more than 3 rounds.  My 870 holds 5+1, but I would still  rather have a pistol with 15 rounds  ( sadly, only 10 allowed here in California.  Yet another reason not to live here.  But I still carry on)

[AR]

AlexxT wrote:

AR wrote:

Among their conclusions are the following: “Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.”

Click to expand…

Does having a gun in the home increase the risk of firearm suicide?  Of course.  You can’t kill yourself with a gun unless you have access to one. But you can still kill yourself using another method.

Ditto for firearm homicide.  If you don’t have a gun at home, you can’t commit homicide with a gun, but you can kill your spouse using other methods.  So of course the risk goes up.  But that statistic doesn’t address your overall risk.  To be meaningful, it should include the overall risk of assault in the home.  In my opinion, that statistic was published with the intent to mislead, perhaps unintentionally.

I don’t doubt that there are serious increased risks and responsibilities associated with owning a gun, as with owning a car.  Accidents can happen to anyone.  Before backup cameras, people would not uncommonly run over their own kids while backing up.  All injuries to kids are tragic.  But some people are at higher risk of accidents than others.  I took care of  a 5 year old whose parents gave him a large hunting knife for his birthday.  He immediately ( not  unexpectedly, at least to me )  proceeded to cut the nerves and tendons in all 4 fingers.  You can’t fix stupid.  And firearm accidents due to stupidity can happen to anyone;  the head of our local police SWAT team shot and killed a fellow officer during a training accident. The chief was playing the bad guy holding a fellow officer hostage.    He made about 5 fundamental errors in basic firearm handling that would have gotten a beginner kicked off the range.  You can’t fix stupid.  But the odds in your favor go up if you follow the rules and take reasonable precautions.

 

Click to expand...

Well, I was responding to a specific point and now you've raised some different ones, which also have no evidence to back them up that I am aware of.  But if you have some, I'd love to see it.

 

1.  The argument that people will just commit homicide or suicide some other way sounds plausible.  But there is a lot of evidence to show that access to a gun greatly increases the chance of completion of both homicide and suicide. If you have difficulty finding evidence on this point, I suppose I can find you some links when I've got a moment.  It's just harder to kill oneself or someone else by hanging or stabbing.

2. It sounds like what you're basically saying is that, "Yeah, accidents can happen to anyone, but I'm smarter and more responsible than those people".  Maybe.  But as I'm sure you're aware, everyone thinks that.  They're obviously not all correct.  But no one is every going to pursade them that they're wrong.  Heck, a lot of the ones who experience a gun accident still swear they were practicing responsible gun ownership, they just got unlucky.

 

[AR]

ENT Doc wrote:

Agree with AlexxT here. That study also doesn’t account for the environment. So if I live in a bad area I’m going to be more likely to own a gun and will also have a greater chance of being in an altercation, regardless of the storage method. They also relied on family/acquaintence reporting on the person to obtain facts such as how many guns they owned and how they stored them – even for people who lived alone. It also doesn’t answer the fundamental question of accidental deaths of kids depending on the storage method.

Click to expand...

You may agree w/ AlexxT, but the point you make is a little different from his. I suppose you are correct that if your risk of being a victim of crime is very high, then the benefit would outweigh the risk.  If for example you lived in Syria, then sure, you probably would benefit from some guns. But if you look at the odds ratios in the article the odds ratios for murder and suicide were something like 2 and 10.  If you're living some where that your risk of death is that much higher than baseline, you really should consider moving before you get a gun.

Here's another study that shows that when a gun is the home, something bad is far more likely to happen than successfully using it for self-defense.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

Obviously, I'm sure you can find fault with this one too.  But there are many like it.  Each with it's own unique flaws. However, what is very hard to find, is some sort of study in a peer-reviewed journal that shows gun ownership actually has a benefit with respect to morbidity and mortality.  Now I haven't found any studies like that, but I'll admit it's been a while since I looked thoroughly.  Do you know of any?

I realize that even if there was a near perfect study that showed gun ownership negatively impacted mortality, you probably still wouldn't accept it.  Like AlexxT you probably believe that you're smarter and more responsible than other gun owners, so the data doesn't really apply to you.  It's even possible that you are correct.  But if you aren't there is no way anyone could persuade you otherwise.

[AR]

spiritrider wrote:

I find it rather amusing that a supposedly intelligent well educated physician who is certainly well-versed in Epidemiology and probably uses the results of it every day whether they realize it or not.

Would allow their obvious biases to completely ignore the fundamental scientific requirements of validity, precision and bias, control groups, etc… missing in these so-called “studies” (thinly veiled propaganda).

In the numbers of “children” killed by gunfire, neglect to acknowledge that the vast majority are teenage gangbangers.

In the numbers of people killed by “someone they know”, neglect to acknowledge that the criminals, drug dealers and gangbangers (often one in the same), wait for it… know each other.

An in this particular case, compare just the number of deaths of home owners vs. criminal perpetrators. First, with the classic Red Herring logical fallacy of including suicides. Then by ignoring the orders of magnitude of defensive gun uses that dwarfs the actual occurrences resulting in the death of the perpetrator.

Click to expand...

Great.  There should be peer-reviewed studies proving all of this obvious stuff.  Do you know of any?

[CordMcNally]

AlexxT wrote:

The White Coat Investor wrote:

The spread isn’t the unsafe thing. The unsafe thing is when the bullet penetrates walls, which a shotgun is much less likely to do. The spread is probably a good thing if you’re trying to hit a moving target. 

Click to expand…

The spread is about 1 inch per yard of distance.  So at 8 yards, you have a spread of about 8 inches (Probably more like 12+ inches in my actual experience on paper) .  That will make it impossible to hit the bad guy without hitting a family member nearby, which you could do with a handgun equipped  with a laser, at least at the range.  In a real situation, who knows.  It’s that lack of precision that I was alluding to.

Click to expand...

Impossible to hit the bad guy without hitting a family member nearby? Is this a hostage situation or something?

[portlandia]

AR wrote:

ENT Doc wrote:

Agree with AlexxT here. That study also doesn’t account for the environment. So if I live in a bad area I’m going to be more likely to own a gun and will also have a greater chance of being in an altercation, regardless of the storage method. They also relied on family/acquaintence reporting on the person to obtain facts such as how many guns they owned and how they stored them – even for people who lived alone. It also doesn’t answer the fundamental question of accidental deaths of kids depending on the storage method.

Click to expand…

You may agree w/ AlexxT, but the point you make is a little different from his. I suppose you are correct that if your risk of being a victim of crime is very high, then the benefit would outweigh the risk.  If for example you lived in Syria, then sure, you probably would benefit from some guns. But if you look at the odds ratios in the article the odds ratios for murder and suicide were something like 2 and 10.  If you’re living some where that your risk of death is that much higher than baseline, you really should consider moving before you get a gun.

Here’s another study that shows that when a gun is the home, something bad is far more likely to happen than successfully using it for self-defense.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

Obviously, I’m sure you can find fault with this one too.  But there are many like it.  Each with it’s own unique flaws. However, what is very hard to find, is some sort of study in a peer-reviewed journal that shows gun ownership actually has a benefit with respect to morbidity and mortality.  Now I haven’t found any studies like that, but I’ll admit it’s been a while since I looked thoroughly.  Do you know of any?

I realize that even if there was a near perfect study that showed gun ownership negatively impacted mortality, you probably still wouldn’t accept it.  Like AlexxT you probably believe that you’re smarter and more responsible than other gun owners, so the data doesn’t really apply to you.  It’s even possible that you are correct.  But if you aren’t there is no way anyone could persuade you otherwise.

Click to expand...

Kleck and Gertz is one example of a study which contradicts the study above but there are many others. All of the studies on this topic, on both sides, have significant limitations and can rightly be criticized for issues such as bias, poor study design, etc.

The reality is that most gun owners become gun owners because of their worldview, not because of an impartial reading of the conflicting literature on the subject. The same is true of non gun owners. Both groups justify their position by referencing the supporting literature while ignoring the unflattering variety.  An appeal to the scientific literature on the subject is unlikely to sway many people.

[AR]

portlandia wrote:

Kleck and Gertz is one example of a study which contradicts the study above but there are many others. All of the studies on this topic, on both sides, have significant limitations and can rightly be criticized for issues such as bias, poor study design, etc. The reality is that most gun owners become gun owners because of their worldview, not because of an impartial reading of the conflicting literature on the subject. The same is true of non gun owners. Both groups justify their position by referencing the supporting literature while ignoring the unflattering variety.  An appeal to the scientific literature on the subject is not likely to sway many people.

Click to expand...

There is quite a bit published about the flaws in Kleck's survey by serious researchers.  Just read Gary Kleck's wikipedia page.   What are some of these "many others" that you refer to?

To say the evidence is "conflicting" is disingenuous at best.  Most of what is present in peer-reviewed journals falls squarely on one side.  You can say that the evidence is unpersuasive for one reason or another, but to make it sound like there's lots of good evidence on both sides seems to be at odds with reality.

You're absolutely right that an appeal to scientific literature will be unpersuasive to most people.   It's one of the many flaws that people have and it's not limited to gun ownership.  The vast majority of humans make all of their decisions because of their worldview and not because of some rational analysis.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better and incorporate evidence-based decision making as much as possible.

[AlexxT]

AR wrote:

1.  The argument that people will just commit homicide or suicide some other way sounds plausible.  But there is a lot of evidence to show that access to a gun greatly increases the chance of completion of both homicide and suicide. If you have difficulty finding evidence on this point, I suppose I can find you some links when I’ve got a moment.  It’s just harder to kill oneself or someone else by hanging or stabbing.

Click to expand...

I was responding to what was written.  You (?)  wrote that suicide or death by gunfire is more likely in a home with a gun.  That is different than what you just wrote.  You are changing your argument.

Yes, I've seen evidence that suicide is more likely to be completed in a home with a gun.  But no one in my household suffers from depression, and we don't have a history of domestic violence.  If someone has higher risk factors, they may choose not to have guns at home.  That's not my concern.  We all take risks all the time.  This is a very low risk for me.

AR wrote:

2. It sounds like what you’re basically saying is that, “Yeah, accidents can happen to anyone, but I’m smarter and more responsible than those people”.  Maybe.  But as I’m sure you’re aware, everyone thinks that.  They’re obviously not all correct.  But no one is every going to pursade them that they’re wrong.  Heck, a lot of the ones who experience a gun accident still swear they were practicing responsible gun ownership, they just got unlucky

Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  I'm smarter and I follow the rules very strictly.   We meet stupid people in the ER every day.   It's pretty clear that some people have accidents because they were unlucky, and others because they did something stupid or dangerous.   I follow the rules, double checked and triple checked.   A confluence of unusual circumstances could certainly result in a gun accident in any home, but if you go through all of the accidental child related shootings each year, I doubt that you would find many that involved kids breaking into locked safes, or people who routinely locked up their guns and forgot one time.  Instead, they will be because of people who left loaded guns out on a nightstand as a matter of routine.

I just found 2 articles that say that  1.7 to  4.6 million children live in homes where parents admit to routinely keeping guns loaded and unlocked.   So yes, I'm smarter than those several million parents, and I suspect much less likely to have an accidental shooting.

Accidental shooting by children total around 1200 per year.  If the 4.6 million figure is correct, that comes to an accidental shooting rate of 1/4000 per year, most likely entirely in homes with routinely unlocked guns.  Fewer than half of those are fatal.  While tragic and preventable, that's a very low incidence for a problem that gets talked about so much.

Don't make this problem seem greater than it is.  Lock up your guns and the accidental shootings will almost completely go away.

AR wrote:

Here’s another study that shows that when a gun is the home, something bad is far more likely to happen than successfully using it for self-defense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

Click to expand...

Did you read that article?  They only count the use of the gun successful when a perpetrator was shot.  So brandishing the gun or shooting and missing don't count, nor do incidents in which the perpetrator was shot but not later apprehended and connected with a crime.  This was poorly designed, I suspect intentionally so.

[AlexxT]

CordMcNally wrote:

Impossible to hit the bad guy without hitting a family member nearby? Is this a hostage situation or something?

Click to expand...

Home invaders will grab individual family members and beat them, tie them up, etc.