Ask Your Question
if someone has broken in your house with a gun (with the intention of killing you) are you safer with a gun or without a gun
(With the intention of killing you) changes the question a lot in that case I don’t see how you’re safer without a gun unless you can flee successfully,you kinda have an advantage over them since it’s your home and you can quickly take cover and then start shooting when it’s convenient also interiors walls doors etc don’t really stop bullets so that could be an advantage or a disadvantage
This is a no brainer. Without a gun you are just gonna call the police to send guys with guns. But they will take too long to get there.
A number of studies have been done: If someone is in your house - you can respond faster than you can call the police and explain what the situation is.
If they are intending to kill you... you'll likely be dead if you go for the phone. Things move very fast in most situations.
If you have a gun, know how to use it, and am willing to show real intent to use it to them - and then if they don't immediately flee when they see you with intent (most will) - use it to defend yourself: You have a good chance of surviving. Note I did not say of not being injured - just surviving. You may well get shot when in a gunfight; however, individual gunshot wounds are not usually deadly unless they hit several very small key spots on your body.
May I suggest a shotgun with birdshot is likely the best home defense gun (12 ga if you can handle it). People often think twice when staring at the wrong end of a shotgun pointed at them.
You’d actually be surprised how few studies have been done since the NRA banned the CDC from funding any gun related studies. That’s a pretty big clue right there. But it’s interesting that you brought up studies, because I understand how people can logically believe that having a gun makes you safer. I get that logic based feeling. But the studies? They’re pretty much universal. You’re significantly less safe with a gun in your house, even during a home invasion. Sure, you can study the time it takes to either respond yourself or call the police, but that doesn’t show you the outcome of those two things: responding yourself with a gun is much more dangerous than calling the police. (Unless you’re a person of color, then calling the police becomes a lot more complicated.)
I know numbers and facts pale in comparison to logic and feelings for most people, but I’ve always thought it was good to be educated. Like I said, I get it. You FEEL safer with a gun. That’s why I own one. There may be a situation in the future where I’d need a gun, and it’s there. But I still recognize that my house is actually less safe the other 99.999% of the time when I don’t need the gun.
Please exclude all the various factors related to gun ownership. This specific case is a home invasion with intent to kill.
Several good studies were indeed done on this exact situation in the past; and only the people with guns and a willingness to use them generally survived (not all of them), and most (not all) avoided major life altering injuries.
Those that tried to call the police or got through and called the police almost universally were dead or critically injured by the time the police got there (even if they had a gun handy).
Reaction time is important in a case like this.
Now I will admit that the general case of guns in the house is not so clear cut and has real issues that should be addressed. In my opinion its more a matter of training, mental fitness, and attitudes. It's rarely about money for appropriate gun safes, etc. I don't know of a simple fix although I'd be willing to discuss some kind of certification of training and emotional stability as a requirement to acquire guns (with regular certification every "X" years).
I don't believe that taking guns away from all is not a fix - as the criminals don't follow laws; not to mention that most adults are part of the inactive militia, and need to bring their own guns and ammo should they ever be called up.
Please note that I have actually had an attempt on my life by someone with a gun when I was the Superintendent of a plant by one of the employees; and was stalked for several years about 100 miles away by the person who wanted to kill me (Police & DA's knew about the case and did what they could for me; which was before the current laws about threatening people and taking guns away at least temporarily, etc). The police told me it was up to me to defend myself until they got there if something went down.
Tough time in my life; and I avoided having a gun fight by having my household in storage and moving with minimal supplies a lot (very expensive to do that) for several years, until it died down.
You become aware of a lot of things in life under those situations; and think through lots of scenarios (and I did a lot of training as this went on).
Even if you do call the police that person will still kill you before they get there because calling the police doesnt make the threat suddenly disappear. With a gun, your chance of dying or being shot goes from 99 percent (his gun could fail) to a much lower percent. Either way you two will engage and when that happens, having a gun is better and safer than not.
Here is a real life situation of a man with a machete kicking in a mans door. This guy was safer with that gun. Imagine he didnt have a gun he would have been seriously injured. There was no time to call police. This is how these situations play out FAST.
In trying not to be bias. I can not fathom how you are less safe with a gun when someone else has a gun and theyre in your house to kill you. Where I live it takes police 30-45 minutes to get there
Please get it over with & stick your thin kickstand shaped penis in a gun barrel & stop posting these masturbatory gun posts...enough.
People break into houses to steal things, not kill people.
This sounds like a pro-gun trick to get around the fact that you’re less safe with a gun if someone breaks into your house. That’s just a simple fact, backed by statistics. People with guns are much more likely to die during a home invasion (with nothing said about their intent) than people without guns.
And even if it did make you more safe during any home invasion, that doesn’t make up for being less safe the 99.999% of the time when your home isn’t being invaded.
Perhaps it's because a lot of the people in those situations are stupid, feel empowered, and decide to confront the criminal. It does not make you less safe to have a gun. It just makes some people overly cocky, which makes them attack people they shouldn't be attacking, which results in them dying.
So lemme get this straight. If the guy intends to kill you, youll die anyway. Unless you shoot him first. You left out the intent to kill part there. In the case the guys just wanting to steal and the person surrenders and says dont shoot, they are more likely to survive. Intent to kill is the missing detail in your argument
Like the saying goes.... "it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it." If you own a gun, you never have to actually use it. Yes you could run out of your house without it, if you have the opportunity to escape that way. But there might be that one time when there is no other recourse than to save your self and your family and the gun will give you that opportunity.
I'd say safer (if this is some pro-gun trick argument though then it doesn't prove anything, you're still less safe when you're in a country full of guns).
If guns are against the law, the criminals who are using the guns for crime and harm arent gonna suddenly follow the law. That only results in the bad guys having guns and the people who want to defend themselves being at the mercy of the criminal
Well if America banned guns tomorrow then, in the short term after the ban, maybe that would be case for certain places. But in the long term it would help to make America much safer.
After all if that were the case in general, then countries with laws against guns would be the least safe. But that's just not true, the opposite is true.
Yeah, I guess so, but how many lives would have to be lost in the beginning? Also its impossible because we have the right to bear arms snd you cant just go back and change that. Thats why it works for the uk but not the us
Yeah but they could at least limit it to the type of guns that were available at the time that ammendment was made, single-shot guns. That's more than enough for home protection against a burglar but would prevent psychos from being able to clear an entire room in seconds.
The post just says that there is a criminal who broke into your house with a gun. It does mention how easy or hard it was for the criminal to obtain the gun, or even if it was legal. In this particular situation, there with a gun in your house and the only thing you have to answer is, "Would you be safer if you had a gun in that situation?" To use someone's response as answer to any other question would just be stupid; just as stupid as it would be to answer a question that wasn't asked in your response.
I know, but there are people who'll purposely ask a misleading question like this for no other reason than to feel better about their own beliefs. And I just wanted to point out that this was flawed. I did put that part in brackets at least to show that it was secondary to the actual answer though.
I dont see how its flawed. I have had my door kicked in before thankfully I wasnt home. and even IF the criminal had no access to a gun, say he had a machete, how should my wife fight off a man with a machete. I dont think its fair for citizens to have to bend over for criminals and just pray they dont have bad intentions. Violent crime does happen
Well like I said in my answer, I agree that it would be safer to have a gun in that situation. It's just that it doesn't mean it's safer for guns to be legalised across the whole country. The reason violent crime is so prevalent in the first place is because of weapons being so easily available.
Well unless you can throw a bullet really hard, you're safer with a gun providing you know how to use it. I've got my dog and a 9mm on my bedside. Sleep like a baby.
You're safer with a gun as long as you're not a dumb ass waving it around as if holding it is enough or shouting that you have it and revealing your location
Best bet is to get the drop on the intruder, tell him if he moves he's gonna have a bullet in his back, then call 911 on speaker
I work nights my wife's room is down a straight hallway and she puts a door stopper on her door has an AR15 and the way hallway is if she shoots through the door she shoots down the hallway. So even if someone is kicking through that door shes in a good position to shoot them through the door
"Heeeere's Johnny" - intruder
"Say hello to my little friend!" - your wife
You're safer fleeing from your house without a gun.
Impossible for my wife she's on the 2nd floor with a baby. She has to pass the invaders to flee.
That person will chase you out. Again, they are there to KILL you not break into your house for nothing. Intent to kill. If tou want to kill someone you chase them. Have you ever watches a horror movie?
If you are American.. And if the intruders are cops.. I can't tell, really
Unless you're retarded, or you store your guns where they broke in, then you're safer
a proper gun & chainsaw combo is the answer
Hatchet dawg, cause even in self defence you wanna make a proper mess.
Copyright 2020 isitnormal.com
All Rights Reserved
Pro bono lawyer needed