Are you equipped with a weapon?

[Laniakea]

Attackers advantage is a well documented phenomena.

So is Home Field Advantage in the case of a home invasion.

 

[Laniakea]

That's not it. The actual assumptions are these:

- getting into a shootout with an attacker poses an unacceptably high risk to me.

You "got into it" when the attacker targeted you. Defending yourself is how you "get out of it".

- getting into a shootout with an attacker has an unacceptably low chance of reliably stopping the attacker.

As if hitting an attacker with bullets from your gun are magically less effective than his bullets hitting you.

It isn't about who "wins" between you and them. When you frame winning in terms of getting out of the situation unscathed, pulling out a gun to stand and fight is generally going to work against your goal if you have absolutely any other option available.

Plenty of unarmed people die after a mass shooting. Did they win? Did they have good options available?

But that being said, an attacker will generally have the advantage, since - aside from violent episodes of mental illness - they get to choose all the parameters of the confrontation. If they feel like a situation doesn't give them good odds of success, they don't attack. You as the defender don't have this luxury, so you're at a disadvantage.

Yes, they choose what they believe are easy targets; ones they believe are unarmed. Be armed and willing to defend yourself, and then the attacker's advantage will be taken away.
Or just let him have the advantage. Your choice.

 

[metis]

So is Home Field Advantage in the case of a home invasion.

Not according to the police and the stats.

If one feels an intruder is in their house, call 911 but one doesn't even have to talk as the police will assume that if you cannot talk for some reason. If one keeps a loaded gun in their house, the danger of an innocent member of the house being killed is much higher.

Best is prevention, so making it difficult for an intruder to get into your home is far better. As the old saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As if hitting an attacker with bullets from your gun are magically less effective than his bullets hitting you.

Would you like me to respond as if you're being sincere?

Just checking, since talking to you as if you don't know why your comment is foolish might come off as insulting if you were just messing with us in your last post.

 

[Laniakea]

Not according to the police and the stats.

Nope! Gun Ownership Provides Effective Self-Defense (From Gun Control, P 142-149, 1992, Charles P Cozic, ed. -- See NCJ-160164) | Office of Justice Programs

If one feels an intruder is in their house, call 911 but one doesn't even have to talk as the police will assume that if you cannot talk for some reason. If one keeps a loaded gun in their house, the danger of an innocent member of the house being killed is much higher.

As if a cop a mile away is somehow more effective against a criminal in your house than the owner (who actually knows the layout of his own home).

Best is prevention, so making it difficult for an intruder to get into your home is far better. As the old saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure".

Sayings are useless when a criminal is in your home and willing to kill you.

 

[Laniakea]

Would you like me to respond as if you're being sincere?

Just checking, since talking to you as if you don't know why your comment is foolish might come off as insulting if you were just messing with us in your last post.

If you feel insulted by your point of view being proven wrong, I can't help you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not according to the police and the stats.

Which you conveniently don't cite.
But if so, would you encourage cops
to have no guns in their homes?

If one feels an intruder is in their house, call 911 but one doesn't even have to talk as the police will assume that if you cannot talk for some reason. If one keeps a loaded gun in their house, the danger of an innocent member of the house being killed is much higher.

Not for everyone.
Training changes the odds.

Best is prevention, so making it difficult for an intruder to get into your home is far better. As the old saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure".

Precautions are useful.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm suspicious of so much research on armed self defense.
Gary Kleck's finds the opposite of what you cite.
Going by people I know who've used guns in self defense,
there isn't a single case of adverse consequences. This
includes my own.
Among the problems I find with anti-gun statistics....
- Not including self defense where no shot was fired.
- Not separating the skilled from the un-skilled.
- Not separating safe storage from un-safe storage.

The claim made (that I responded to) was about the
assailant having an advantage....perhaps to negate
the value of self defense. That I found dubious.

Guns are dangerous. Very very dangerous.
Many people are untrained, poorly trained, or
even wrongly trained (eg, cops).
I favor strict regulation of training & storage
as a means of improving statistics. For those
unwilling to invest the time & money, there
are other options, eg...

Byrna | Best Non Lethal Self-Defense Products

One of the best defense products available is the Byrna SD, a legal, non-lethal self-defense weapon that fires pepper filled rounds up to 60 feet using CO2. Save lives without the risk of taking one. Empower yourself today!

byrna.com

I'm hardly in a position to argue this point, and especially being from the UK where I don't really need to bother, but from what I have come across weapons in the home are more a hindrance than the ultimate defence - in most cases. So we have:

A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use

Criminologist Gary Kleck revises his paper on the incidence of the use of firearms for self-protection.

reason.com

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

www.scientificamerican.com

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

PS The Gary Kleck stuff was from 1992 so possibly later material might be more accurate.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm hardly in a position to argue this point, and especially being from the UK where I don't really need to bother, but from what I have come across weapons in the home are more a hindrance than the ultimate defence - in most cases. So we have:

A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use

Criminologist Gary Kleck revises his paper on the incidence of the use of firearms for self-protection.

reason.com

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

www.scientificamerican.com

The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

PS The Gary Kleck stuff was from 1992 so possibly later material might be more accurate.

The difference statistical results stem from
assumptions rather than date. My demographic
is gun owners well trained, who store their guns
securely, lack an itchy trigger finger, & have no
risky mental health issues.

 

[ChristineM]

My demographic
is gun owners well trained, who store their guns
securely, lack an itchy trigger finger, & have no
risky mental health issues.

So half a dozen of you?

Anr thats data, not date

 

[Mock Turtle]

The difference statistical results stem from
assumptions rather than date. My demographic
is gun owners well trained, who store their guns
securely, lack an itchy trigger finger, & have no
risky mental health issues.

So, selective? Anecdotal evidence - tut, tut.

 

[Revoltingest]

So half a dozen of you?

Several more.
As a ferriner, you really wouldn't know
those of us in the community who take
gun ownership as a serious responsibility.
Froggy media likely portray USA with
agenda laden inaccuracy. Criminy, even
our own media do that.

Anr thats data, not date

I meant "date" in my response
to that specific post.

 

[ChristineM]

Several more.
As a ferriner, you really wouldn't know
those of us in the community who take
gun ownership as a serious responsibility.
Froggy media likely portray USA with
agenda laden inaccuracy. Criminy, even
our own media do that.

I meant "date" in my response
to that specific post.

Being a ferriner, you really wouldn't know how French media portrays gun nuts.

Date doesn't make sense but you wrote it so maybe

 

[Revoltingest]

Being a ferriner, you really wouldn't know how French media portrays gun nuts.

I base this on not only your views,
but primarily Eurostanians in general.

Date doesn't make sense but you wrote it so maybe

Read the post I responded to.
That should clarify.

 

[ChristineM]

I base this on not only your views,
but primarily Eurostanians in general

If you want

Read the post I responded to.
That should clarify.

I did

 

[Revoltingest]

If you want

I observe.
No desire.

I did

Good.
The different dates of research aren't
behind different apparent results.