Police Response and Home Invasions.

[PrincessKsMom]

Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

My doors and windows downstairs all stay locked. It is pretty likely that someone entering through these locked access points are going to make some noise. Our bedroom is upstairs, somewhat removed from the logical burgler entry points, giving me a bit of a buffer if someone breaks in. My weapon is in my nightstand. I guarantee that I can be out of bed, weapon in hand, and safety off in about five seconds. This puts my chances of having the weapon at the ready before it is needed somewhere close to 100%.

BTW, you will note that my weapon is neither in a safe or unloaded. We have no children in our home, so that is not an issue. When our daughter becomes a walker, I'll use a locking device such as a trigger lock or a lifejacket the weapon. This will add another few seconds to my times, but not so many as to negate my advantage.Many LEOs are required to have their weapon at all times.The bolded part is an urban myth.Again, many LEOs are required to have their weapon. I have little doubt that federal agents are within this group. They aren't going to make a big deal of their off-duty weapon, but it's part of the package.

My colleague's son-in-law is with the FBI & I believe this is a rule, not a choice.

My understanding is that when he flies, he informs the airline that he is with the FBI & is armed, shows them his ID etc. If the pilot has a problem flying a plane on which someone is armed, they get a new pilot who doesn't have a problem with it.

Truthfully, I have no problem with a gun in a home. My father was a cop and we always had guns in our home. Neither he nor my mother made a big deal out of it, so neither my brother nor I ever much cared about it either. We never went looking for the gun...we just weren't that interested. It was part of Dad's uniform, when his uniform came off, the gun got put away somewhere and that was that. I would have no problem having a gun in my home, but DH has a problem with it, so we don't have one. We live in a fairly safe neighborhood, as neighborhoods go, and our home is fairly secure, so I feel relatively safe.

Huh? How does it invade other peoples choices? I can't make sense of that. Someone has something on them, something that nobody else knows about, or sees yet it invades someones choice? Can you explain that a bit better?

I cannot answer for anyone else, but if it's my house, it's my rules. I don't care what the law says in regard to my house and weapons. If I felt that strongly about no guns, I would not invite certain people who are, by law, required to have their weapon on their person at all times, into my house.

As for Heidict's question, which was not direct toward me, what if a friend comes into your house with illegal drugs on their person and you don't know about it. Does this not invade on the homeowner's choice to not allow illegal drugs in their house, or is it okay because the homeowner doesn't know about it?

 

[sbell111]

If a bear farts in the forest and no one smells it, will anyone's rights be violated?

 

[JerseyMamaBear]

Of course if you're not home and you're burglarized, the chances of your gun ending up on the streets in the hands of a criminal is somewhere close to 100%.

 

[bumbershoot]

Wouldn't you feel more comfortable if you had a gun and was trained in how to use it?

Absolutely, positively, definitively NOT. Never.

WOW,where did you guys grow up that there was no need for locks? I wish I grew up there.

City folk and country folk have 2 very different lifestyles. Even though I'm no longer in a city you know what they say about taking the city out of the girl.

Me too! I grew up in rural-on-the-edge-of-city, on a dead-end street, and we locked our doors and windows.

Of course, we did have drug dealers across the street, who also dealt guns illegally (to my stepdad), so our street itself wasn't all that safe just b/c of those neighbors. But even before they moved in, we locked our doors.

Huh? How does it invade other peoples choices? I can't make sense of that. Someone has something on them, something that nobody else knows about, or sees yet it invades someones choice? Can you explain that a bit better?

If my husband's friend K forgets to disarm himself when he comes over (and he knows it's an absolute rule at our house), and my son bumps into him and notices his gun, or if my lightening-fast son GRABS his gun, and something happens, ya THINK that's invading our choices?

He knew before we had DS that his need to have a gun was overruled in our house, and now that we have DS, he agrees with it, and isn't armed if he's over here.

He's the only armed hold-out of hubby's friends who still feels naked without it. The other guys went more towards other ways of defending themselves, and hubby knows of some big stories where things escalated stupidly b/c someone had a gun and showed it to guys badder than the one...


If I had friends or family who refused to disarm, or pretended like they HAD TO be armed (what happens if they go in for surgery, eh? that 100% have to be armed "rule" kinda goes out the window), those people wouldn't be invited over, and social contact would be extremely limited.

 

[merryweather20]

There is a problem with your logic. You are assigning cause and effect where none have been proven. There is no evidence to suggest that having a gun increases your odds of being burglarized. A more logical assumption is that those who are at greater likelihood of being burglarized tend to be more likely to buy a gun for protection.

You are no more logical. That is just your preferred explanation you have no more proof.

For someone to put together a stat like that they would look at the houses in the neighbourhood and which had registered gun owners, and what the burglars were taking from the house. Quick simple and logical.

Such statistics certainly ring true for me.
In my neighbourhood there were two families that were big on hunting and both got robbed only thing they took was the guns. One only had a couple of rifles and a pistol, the other had a huge collection ~$250,000 (way more than his house was worth). WHen the police finished their investigation one of their hunting buddies sold them out to a drug dealer for a couple hundred bucks.

It of course happened during the day while the families were at work so the guns weren't of any help in defending them, or their big dog that they strangled with his leash.

 

[JoanGirardi]

Other people have already answered the question, but I thought I should reply too--I think it can take away a person's choice not to have guns in their house if someone carries a gun in without permission. I don't think anyone can assume that everyone is okay with them carrying a weapon into their home. Some people feel very strongly about it, and in my opinion your guns belong in your own home, but they won't necessarily be welcomed in anyone else's.

 

[1PrincessMomma1]

Edited to say Dawn really shouldn't use the Petit family for her own political agenda on gun control. The other cases were of very different circumstances.

 

[Disney Doll]

I cannot answer for anyone else, but if it's my house, it's my rules. I don't care what the law says in regard to my house and weapons. If I felt that strongly about no guns, I would not invite certain people who are, by law, required to have their weapon on their person at all times, into my house.

Well, that's certainly one solution.

 

[Disney Doll]

See bolded

If I had friends or family who refused to disarm, or pretended like they HAD TO be armed (what happens if they go in for surgery, eh? that 100% have to be armed "rule" kinda goes out the window), well obviously if someone is in for surgery and presumably under sedation I am quite sure that they would not be required to be armed at that point. I guess I should have clarified that according to my freind's son-in-law, FBI agents are required to carry their firearm at all times except when they are going for surgery...I just kind of thought that most DISers would have assumed something like that was a given...shame on me for assuming anything. those people wouldn't be invited over, and social contact would be extremely limited.And I repeat...that's one way to handle it.

 

[Disney Doll]

No Dawn I wouldn't. The Petit's could have made sure all their doors were locked and perhaps prevented this from happening. I live here and I ALWAYS lock my doors and set my alarm. They chose to not lock their doors and unfortunetly this was a sad ending to that. That said I think our police officers should have shot to kill them when they tried to run & ram the cruiser. It would have saved alot of tax payers money and heartache for Dr. Petit and the Hawke & Petit family members.

I am sure that Dr.Petit is haunted by the fact that they didn't check to make sure all the doors were locked. It was an oversight (probably not a "choice") on their part with tragic consequences.

I agree with you about the police. Unfortunately, some lawyer would have found a way to blame the police had they shot and killed the suspects on the spot. So instead we get years of appeals and wasted time and money.

 

[Caradana]

I am all for our 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, however I am also a trained police officer and have seen what happens to those who carry the weapon and those who are exposed to the weapon. IF you are not properly trained on how to use your weapon in not only accuracy but in self defence situations, it can get very ugly very quick. The hours and hours and hours and....... you get the point, of training required to handle the weapon is more then most people understand. Not to mention the need to know the law inside and out. It is a lot for some people to handle and makes our jobs as law enforcement very difficult at times. Its also why many officers chose not to carry off duty because, at times, it's just not practical to intervien in a hold up or assault situation safely without the risk of injuring others. Its better sometimes to be a great witness then a hero that steps in over their heads.
Consider this, all home invasions are by suprise to the victim. If your sleeping or doing laundry or in the shower or in your pool or what have you, how will you be able to access your weapon from your safe? You cant. You may want to consider other proactive steps like installing and properly using a burglar alarm just to name one.
Now, if you are up for all the responsibilty that comes with it then I back that choice and right 100% just please be respons. about it so everyone stays safe.

Well put, by a poster with expertise on the issue.

The Petit deaths were a tragedy. Sometimes bad things happen to good people and there's no reason, and there would've been no mitigation. The two ex-cons who randomly selected and targeted the Petits were not going to be dissuaded; they wanted to rape and kill, period. The petite wife with two young daughters probably would not have survived even had she been holding a gun in her hand when they walked up (they were bigger, faster, stronger, there were two of them, they weren't disadvantaged by surprise, and they would've had no hesitation to kill her had she fought back. That much, we know.)

Sometimes bad things happen to good people and there's no reason. This can be really, really hard for strident conservatives to accept. There always has to be a REASON, a BECAUSE, because otherwise the world doesn't make sense and it can't be controlled, and control is everything. The Petits died BECAUSE she didn't have a gun. The economy collapsed BECAUSE rich conspiring bankers got greedy. Health care reform is a bad idea BECAUSE poor people are stupid and they don't buy insurance and they deserve to suffer. Abortion should be outlawed BECAUSE little sluts who sleep around deserve to be punished, and God wants women to have anacephalic babies who are born without brains to linger in agony for days before certain death. There always needs to be a BECAUSE, something to point to, something that can be controlled. The problem is ... life doesn't work that way.

With respect to guns, personally I find it a huge tragedy when kids accidentally slaughter themselves with guns they find in their parents' nightstand drawers.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

So was this whole thread a bate to get someone to go for the political aspects of gun ownership and gun control? My house, my rules -- that's how I'd handle it.

 

[JMD]

Of course if you're not home and you're burglarized, the chances of your gun ending up on the streets in the hands of a criminal is somewhere close to 100%.

Your making an awfully big assumption. The thief would have to first find the guns, then get access to them. My guns are VERY secure, it would take someone with alot of experience, the proper tools and alot of time to get at mine. Generally, gun owners don't leave the house with their guns sitting out on the coffee table.

 

[JMD]

So was this whole thread a bate to get someone to go for the political aspects of gun ownership and gun control? My house, my rules -- that's how I'd handle it.

Who's getting political? I think everyone has been pretty rational. Why are you trying to make this thread something that it's not?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I have to say, of course people who own guns are more likely to be shot by them compared to people who don't, just like people who fly in a plane are more likely to be in a plane crash that people who don't fly. I would think the statistics on the number of gun owners compared to the number of accidents would be more relevant. It's more logical.

As for guns being stolen from a home. The theft is no more the owners responsibility than a person whose car is stolen is responsible for the crash his/her stolen car causes. I don't get that leap at all.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Sometimes bad things happen to good people and there's no reason. This can be really, really hard for strident conservatives to accept. There always has to be a REASON, a BECAUSE, because otherwise the world doesn't make sense and it can't be controlled, and control is everything. The Petits died BECAUSE she didn't have a gun. The economy collapsed BECAUSE rich conspiring bankers got greedy. Health care reform is a bad idea BECAUSE poor people are stupid and they don't buy insurance and they deserve to suffer. Abortion should be outlawed BECAUSE little sluts who sleep around deserve to be punished, and God wants women to have anacephalic babies who are born without brains to linger in agony for days before certain death. There always needs to be a BECAUSE, something to point to, something that can be controlled. The problem is ... life doesn't work that way.

With respect to guns, personally I find it a huge tragedy when kids accidentally slaughter themselves with guns they find in their parents' nightstand drawers.

WOW, that is a harsh attempt to demonize other points of view. Where is the mouth on the floor smiley?

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Who's getting political? I think everyone has been pretty rational. Why are you trying to make this thread something that it's not?

Not trying to turn it into anything. Simply saying that, historically, Dems and Reps feel very differently about this topic, in general. Can't imagine that it's not going to go down those lines.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Not trying to turn it into anything. Simply saying that, historically, Dems and Reps feel very differently about this topic, in general. Can't imagine that it's not going to go down those lines.

No flames but I don't think that's at all true. I like to think people can think for themselves. I don't think an issue should be stricken out of conversation because one group or another has named itself a poster child for a point of view on any topic. That is an incredibly scary assumption if I follow it through to its end game IMO.

 

[GeorgeG]

This is a debate that will probably never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. For what it's worth (and for those who like statistics), far more people are killed in car crashes every year than by guns. You are expected to be trained, responsible and sober when you get behind the wheel of a car and the same goes for owning and handling guns, power tools, and many other items. Guns, car keys, sharp tools, toxic cleaners, etc., should be kept away from children. It's all part of being a responsible adult.

 

[merryweather20]

I have to say, of course people who own guns are more likely to be shot by them compared to people who don't, just like people who fly in a plane are more likely to be in a plane crash that people who don't fly. I would think the statistics on the number of gun owners compared to the number of accidents would be more relevant. It's more logical.

As for guns being stolen from a home. The theft is no more the owners responsibility than a person whose car is stolen is responsible for the crash his/her stolen car causes. I don't get that leap at all.

Wouldn't you rather that no one had broken into your house and killed your dog, much like you'd wish you hadn't lent your car that day.