Domestic Defense
BadKarma
The Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7 Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8260Members
The Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7 Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8260Members
Right. This thread is basically to discuss your ability to defend yourself in the event of a home invasion. Firearms are most likely going to be the tool of defense, only for the reason of ease of use and effectiveness. I live in Canada, and any firearms in your house must be locked away in a approved case or safe, with ammunition elsewhere. In America, its not the difficult. If your house was broken into, and said individual threatened you or your family with a knife, gun, blunt object ect. and you shot him dead, you are most likely going to be in a world of ****. If you are not found guilty of any crime, you will still be mired in the system for quite a while and the late criminals family will most likely sue. So, do you belive that an person should be allowed to defend his or her life, using deadly force if nesscecary?
Post Scriptum: I am slightly biased, my home was recently broken into. I was not home, fortunate for the perp.
P.P.S: My sig is malfunctioning, mayday mayday.
Post Scriptum: I am slightly biased, my home was recently broken into. I was not home, fortunate for the perp.
P.P.S: My sig is malfunctioning, mayday mayday.
Comments
But you're right... We live in a society where a crook can break into a house, trip/fall on some toys that are just laying out on the steps, hurt himself, sue and win... So troubling.
The probability of injury/fatalities goes up in leaps and bounds when you decide to take matters into your own hands.
The moral of the story is next time - think about your family and loved ones before you think about testicle size and attack an intruder.
Chances of an intruder coming with the simple intention to kill is incredibly low. Most of the time they just want material possesions.
Go Colorado! I love this state, really, I don't think anyone here has any bearing or cares what's going on outside this state, we're like... Montana, I suppose <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The law passed when some guy blew away a burgler with a pump action shotgun (I believe so). So we're pretty well covered. I'm interested though, if home invasion has gone down since it's passed (a little too soon to tell, it passed a few months ago)
For my part, the usual. Dog outside, locking windows and doors, which I check before I go to sleep, outside lights on, flashlight on the computer desk, and my beretta in the drawer of same desk.
(EDIT: Sweet jeebus forum admins, please watch over this thread with a finger on the shiny red button.)
GRATUITOUS ICON: <!--emo&::lerk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/lerk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lerk.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Do not make the mistake of believeing the police can, will, or are obligated to protect you. They simply don't have the manpower to promise such things.
Bottom line is, when someone breaks into my home, I don't know what their intentions are. I'm going to assume the worst for my safety, and the safety of my family.
Firstly, get some security lighting. The ones that light up when they detect any motion. That alone will deter most intruders.
Secondly, get a dog. It doesn't have to be an attack dog, or even one that will bite. All it has to do is bark. One bark and an intruder will go elsewhere.
Thirdly, grab some good security mesh for your windows and/or doors. Backed up with a solid lock and an intruder will have to be pretty committed, and make a heap of noise, to break in.
Intruders may want to commit a crime, but they do not want to get caught. They want to remain as inconspicious as possible, and at the first sign of detection, they'll run. A criminal who walks into your front yard in full light, kills your dog and then bashes down your front door is so rare as to not be a threat, unless you've annoyed the Mafia <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Theprevention measures I've described arn't costly. Better still, they'll help prevent breakins when you're not home, which is when most of them happen. My family's house has been robbed 3 times; we were out of the house, so even if we owned a gun it wouldn't have made any differance.
Thus I don't really see why a gun is needed. You can prevent crimes quite easily without the need for firepower, even when you're not around and a gun would be of zero use.
@Fluffy, you live in Texas?
You're still allowed to shoot those sifty Scots with a longbow however, so it evens out.
Personally I'm going to say yes. If someone broke into my house and even remotely dared to threaten my wife in ANY way I would probably kill them. If that meant putting some 30-06 straight through their skull then so be it.
Interestingly, in New Zealand right now we have a case where a farmer shot and wounded a man stealing something from his farm. The thieves have been jailed, there is just a lot of debate surrounding if the farmer should go to trial or not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, get a dog. It doesn't have to be an attack dog, or even one that will bite. All it has to do is bark. One bark and an intruder will go elsewhere. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That reminds me of a case where someone broke into a house and encountered their german shepard. On his way out he sustained very bad injuries to his rear end (you can guess why for yourselves <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->). What did he do? Successfully sue the house owner for a dangerous animal, had it put down AND he got ACC. Bloody retarded.
Firstly, get some security lighting. The ones that light up when they detect any motion. That alone will deter most intruders.
Secondly, get a dog. It doesn't have to be an attack dog, or even one that will bite. All it has to do is bark. One bark and an intruder will go elsewhere.
Thirdly, grab some good security mesh for your windows and/or doors. Backed up with a solid lock and an intruder will have to be pretty committed, and make a heap of noise, to break in.
Intruders may want to commit a crime, but they do not want to get caught. They want to remain as inconspicious as possible, and at the first sign of detection, they'll run. A criminal who walks into your front yard in full light, kills your dog and then bashes down your front door is so rare as to not be a threat, unless you've annoyed the Mafia <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Theprevention measures I've described arn't costly. Better still, they'll help prevent breakins when you're not home, which is when most of them happen. My family's house has been robbed 3 times; we were out of the house, so even if we owned a gun it wouldn't have made any differance.
Thus I don't really see why a gun is needed. You can prevent crimes quite easily without the need for firepower, even when you're not around and a gun would be of zero use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:white'>This is your chance to read through the <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>rules</a>, specfically, item #1 and #3.</span>
1. Get and Learn to use a gun
2. Make sure it's loaded
3. Put it in a safe place
Not only is the effectiveness guarenteed against any small time threats, but it's also inexpensive.
Firstly, get some security lighting. The ones that light up when they detect any motion. That alone will deter most intruders.
Secondly, get a dog. It doesn't have to be an attack dog, or even one that will bite. All it has to do is bark. One bark and an intruder will go elsewhere.
Thirdly, grab some good security mesh for your windows and/or doors. Backed up with a solid lock and an intruder will have to be pretty committed, and make a heap of noise, to break in.
Intruders may want to commit a crime, but they do not want to get caught. They want to remain as inconspicious as possible, and at the first sign of detection, they'll run. A criminal who walks into your front yard in full light, kills your dog and then bashes down your front door is so rare as to not be a threat, unless you've annoyed the Mafia <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Theprevention measures I've described arn't costly. Better still, they'll help prevent breakins when you're not home, which is when most of them happen. My family's house has been robbed 3 times; we were out of the house, so even if we owned a gun it wouldn't have made any differance.
Thus I don't really see why a gun is needed. You can prevent crimes quite easily without the need for firepower, even when you're not around and a gun would be of zero use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, instead of doing all of that useless crap, you:
1. Get and Learn to use a gun
2. Make sure it's loaded
3. Put it in a safe place
Not only is the effectiveness guarenteed against any small time threats, but it's also inexpensive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, that kinda flamey right there Forlorn, but i agree with you somewhat. Preventative measures such as those mentioned are great, if you dont live in an apartment or condo. A firearm that you can use reliably and skillfully is also good, allowing that you wont kill your neihbor with it and legal. Im in Canada, a weapon (not even talking about pistols, you shoot someone with a pistol in Canada, i dont care if the guy was foaming at the mouth running at you with a bloody machete, chances are your gonna get hooped one way or another) has to be securly locked up, out of sight and far away from ammo, kinda making it useless.
If someone wants to kill you, he will just do that. You will never reach the gun from your safe place. Or even if you have one in your house, he will just shoot you in while you're getting out of your car or getting a pizza or whatnot. The chance of someone getting in to your house in intent of robbing you and then going berserk and attacking you is not very likely.
If someone wants to rob you, he will run away if there's any chance of getting caught. He's not going to risk a life sentence just to get you back for being home at the wrong time. If you hear someone breaking in to your house, yelling "I just called the cops" is enough to scare the burglar away. Or do you think his going "OMG, that guy is such an a-hole. I think I'll just find him and shoot him in the face, while I the cops are coming and I have no idea how many of them there are, what kind of worldchamp kung-fu master he is and if they are packing a gun too" Imaginary weapon is just as good deterrant as a real one.
The problem is, it only takes once.
As for the rest, here's an article about an incident that took place 2 years ago a few miles from my home.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CEDAR SPRINGS, MICHIGAN -- A Cedar Springs homeowner will not face charges for killing a drunken intruder last month on his back porch.
Kent County Prosecutor William Forsyth said in an opinion issued this morning that Robert James Clarke, 48, acted in self-defense early Nov. 24 when he fatally shot Kevin Lee Salinas, 22.
Still, Forsyth called the death an unnecessary tragedy.
"It is human nature to second-guess how this drunken kid might still be alive if Mr. Clarke hadn't stepped outside to confront him," Forsyth said.
Although Robert and Valerie Clarke were awakened shortly before 3:30 a.m. by the sound of someone rattling windows and doors at their home, 153 Pine St., Forsyth said there was no evidence Salinas intended to commit a burglary or a crime of violence.
Salinas, whose blood-alcohol level was 21/2 times the legal limit, ran from police outside a Cedar Springs bar an hour earlier. Getting caught drunk would have resulted in Salinas being taken to jail because he was out on bond for a July charge of allegedly breaking into a home, assaulting his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, then fleeing from police and resisting arrest.
Forsyth theorized Salinas may have thought he would have been caught again by police when he reportedly said, "We've already been through this before," when Robert Clarke shined a flashlight on him stumbling around the Clarkes' back yard.
"But that doesn't change the perception in the minds of the Mr. and Mrs. Clarke," Forsyth said. "They were awakened early in the morning by someone at the windows and door. They had five kids in the house and there is a drunken, incoherent man in their back yard who keeps coming at them even when he (Robert Clarke) has a gun pointed at him.
"The tragedy is, had he not gone outside to confront him, this kid probably would have simply staggered away. But there is nothing illegal about going outside your house," Forsyth said.
Michigan law allows homeowners to use deadly force to defend themselves and their family from imminent danger in the home. A case decided last year by Michigan's Court of Appeals defined a porch as part of the home in self-defense cases.
Neither Clarke nor his attorney, Frank Hillary, could be reached for comment this morning. Relatives of Salinas also were not available for comment.
The ruling angered friends of Salinas. "That is not right, that is totally wrong," said Arlene Allred, 33, of Cedar Springs, a long-time friend with whom Salinas lived for four years.
It was Allred's house that Salinas broke into in July after his girlfriend broke up with him, Allred said.
"Kevin was harmless," she said. "He had no weapon. He was running from the police to begin with. He (Clarke) could have shot him in the foot or the leg. He didn't even fire a warning shot.
"Something has to be done with him. He's walking away from clean murder."
Forsyth said his review of the incident shows Robert Clarke confronted Salinas in the yard and told him to leave the property. Clarke then retreated into his house to arm himself with his registered 9-mm handgun when Salinas started walking toward him.
Robert Clarke stepped through an open sliding glass door from the bedroom to the deck with the gun.
Valerie Clarke dialed 911 and watched as Salinas walked onto an attached deck about 4 or 5 feet from her husband before Robert Clarke fired a single shot at Salinas' mid-section.
The sound of the shot is clearly heard on a tape recording of the dramatic nine-minute phone conversation Valerie Clarke had with a Kent County Sheriff's Department emergency dispatcher.
Forsyth said he spent five hours listening to the tape before making his decision to not charge Robert Clarke. He said it is clear the Clarkes felt threatened.
"All you have to do is listen to that tape and you can hear the impact on the Clarkes. She is terrified," Forsyth said.
In the final seconds before the fatal shot, Robert Clarke backed so close to the bedroom's sliding door that his voice could be heard on the tape warning Salinas, "Son, you better sit down.
After the gunshot, Valerie Clarke told the dispatcher that her husband fired a shot at the intruder. The dispatcher advised the Clarkes to stay inside, lock the doors and put the gun away. Valerie Clarke told the dispatcher that her husband put the gun in a drawer.
During the next seven minutes, the dispatcher questioned Valerie Clarke, who cried and described how Salinas was bleeding from his side. She said he attempted to stand, then crawled from the deck to the back yard.
"Please, please, please hurry," Valerie Clarke pleaded.
Deputies arrived 71/2 minutes after the dispatcher received the call. Salinas was semi-conscious in the back yard.
A bloodstain was on the deck where Robert Clarke said he shot Salinas, who died eight hours later at Spectrum Health's Butterworth Campus. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here's a long list of articles that might add some fuel to this discussion:
<a href='http://www.keepandbeararms.org/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43' target='_blank'>Guns Save Lives Stories</a>
The basic argument behind the idea of violent home defense, be it in the form of firearms, physical violence, or anything of the likes goes, summarized, along the lines of this:
- Police forces are not capable of preventing the escalation of an already existing situation due to various reasons ranging from incompetence to simple distance.
- In case of a home invasion with violent intention, one should thus have every right at preventing the crime oneself.
- Violent intent might play a role in but a statistically insignificant portion of the actual amount of home invasions, but seeing the possibly gruesome outcome of such a crime, it is adviseable and understandeable to assume the worst.
Sometimes, a violent case in the immediate vicinity of the speaker is cited to emphasize that what is being discussed here is not out of the world, but a very real threat.
Now, let me ask you two questions:
Do you fear being hit by lightning?
Do you take clear and constant precautions specifically geared at this possibility?
If you have answered both of these questions with "no", you can not continue using the argumentation I outlined above, because, cite as many 'guns have saved my life' stories as you wish, the fact remains that such a situation is about as likely to happen to you or your close ones as a - comparably lethal - lightning strike.
Yet, you advocate the use of a firearm, which almost inevitably produces an amount of accidental violence by far bigger than the eventuality you are trying to defend yourself against in the first place.
Additional to this, there is no guarantee that a firearm will safe you in a violent situation - one could even argue that it'll be more likely to escalate an otherwise relatively harmless situation <i>into</i> a violent situation using a gun than it is to actually resolve one -, and there are, as Ryo pointed out without of being argumentatively refuted so far, by far better and less risky precautions.
Concluding, while the gun / the otherwise violent resolution of the issue might appeal as the instinctively better choice, there appears to be no rational grounds on which to support this feeling.
I'm living twenty meters from a place where an escaped rapist molested and murdered a woman. Yet, my mother, my sister and myself barely bother to close the backdoor at night, knowing that nothing unreplaceable is in any real danger.
You should not face any penalty for physically defending yourself from an intruder in your own home or an attacker somewhere else. The only problem is, what if some nut lures someone into his house and shoots them. He could plant a firearm on them and walk... I've gotta see if there are any known cases like that in Colorado.
Reminds me of that ad in Max Payne 2, "America's Avenger, for when it's too late to save them."
I'm personally against murder (or killing, if you think "murder" is too extreme a term for self-defence scenarios) under any circumstances whatsoever, so I couldn't advocate the ownership of a firearm for that and also the above reason. That said, I feel that self defence under a situation where no other option presents itself is acceptable, with the provision that there is no intention to kill or maim (which includes causing brain damage) the intruder.
As Ryo-Ohki said, there's plenty a homeowner can do to increase the security of their home and deter the potential intruder from ever attempting to enter in the first place, and I'm of the opinion that that's a much better solution than keeping a lethal weapon in the house (which also offers no protection of your posessions if you have no other security measures).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. I advocate the use of a firearm only if you are comfortable and properly trained with it. By deadly force im talking about using sticks, knives, clubs, swords, bows whatever you feel most comfortable with. This isnt a discussion about firearms, its about the use of deadly force to defend yourself and loved ones.
It states that the only factor in preventing people from acting upon homocidal and kleptomaniac urges is the knowledge that there will be consequences for their actions.
It goes on to state that when a person decides to commit a crime they are at that point oblvious to any consequence their actions may have, the persons mind ceases to work in what our society deems a logical manner and therefore their actions are no longer predictible or limited to the scope of what we would consider normal.
Also it makes a clear point that murder is not preventable by law enforcement, only mass murder, what this means is that if a random person decided to kill another person there would be very little to stop him outside of the victim defending themselves. Law enforcement isn't a preventative measure, it is a supressive measure, and it doesn't stop a criminal from breaking into a home and harming/killing the people who live there, it only stops him from doing it to every home on the block.
When you're home is broken into you are already outside the scope of normal statistics, when a criminal doesn't flee at being confronted you can no longer safely guage their actions, and to put the safety of yourself and your family in the hope that someone who has already decided to go beyond rational thought and routine behaivor will not panic, overreact, become violent isn't a worthy risk.
In the end the only one who can save your life in a sitation when it is directly and presently threatened is you.
Hmm... Think they'd panic if they were looking down the barrel of one of these?
If you're pointing a gun at a complete stranger who has, broken past your basic door lock, prehaps an alarm has gone off, woken you up, has had you pointing a weapon at them, and still haven't fled, then I'd seriously worry about their mental stability.
I don't understand the anti-gun argument, if you want people to stop advocating the use of firearms in homes what is your ultimate goal, having civilians unable to own firearms? Criminals do and will get firearms illegally, if this country enforces laws banning the use of firearms by civilians criminals will get them from another.
And if you want everyone to stop owning guns I seriously recommend nationwide Tae Kwan Do classes.
PS my stance on home defense and firearms are two seperate issues, I am strongly for defending your home and your family, whether with a firearm or without one.
The point isn't to think someone is going to break into your home because statistically it <i>is</i> unlikely, the point is not to become the wrong side of the statistic when it happens.
The basic argument behind the idea of violent home defense, be it in the form of firearms, physical violence, or anything of the likes goes, summarized, along the lines of this:
- Police forces are not capable of preventing the escalation of an already existing situation due to various reasons ranging from incompetence to simple distance.
- In case of a home invasion with violent intention, one should thus have every right at preventing the crime oneself.
- Violent intent might play a role in but a statistically insignificant portion of the actual amount of home invasions, but seeing the possibly gruesome outcome of such a crime, it is adviseable and understandeable to assume the worst.
Sometimes, a violent case in the immediate vicinity of the speaker is cited to emphasize that what is being discussed here is not out of the world, but a very real threat.
Now, let me ask you two questions:
Do you fear being hit by lightning?
Do you take clear and constant precautions specifically geared at this possibility?
If you have answered both of these questions with "no", you can not continue using the argumentation I outlined above, because, cite as many 'guns have saved my life' stories as you wish, the fact remains that such a situation is about as likely to happen to you or your close ones as a - comparably lethal - lightning strike.
Yet, you advocate the use of a firearm, which almost inevitably produces an amount of accidental violence by far bigger than the eventuality you are trying to defend yourself against in the first place.
Additional to this, there is no guarantee that a firearm will safe you in a violent situation - one could even argue that it'll be more likely to escalate an otherwise relatively harmless situation <i>into</i> a violent situation using a gun than it is to actually resolve one -, and there are, as Ryo pointed out without of being argumentatively refuted so far, by far better and less risky precautions.
Concluding, while the gun / the otherwise violent resolution of the issue might appeal as the instinctively better choice, there appears to be no rational grounds on which to support this feeling.
I'm living twenty meters from a place where an escaped rapist molested and murdered a woman. Yet, my mother, my sister and myself barely bother to close the backdoor at night, knowing that nothing unreplaceable is in any real danger. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying it's unlikely a firearm will save you is a moot point, because how do we know legalizing firearms will promote crime? If someone wants to kill, he will do it, if he wants to get a gun, he will do it.
Next, I think we all fear lighting, unless someone wants to post a mpeg of themselves sitting out in the middle of a thunderstorm in a big grassy feild. For this reason I seek shelter at every lighting storm.
Say if ten thousand people a year starting wearing sheet metal and sitting in parks during lightning storms, the statistic for being hit by lightning would most likely dramatically increase.
If every criminal in the US knew that the residence of the home they were about to break into had no way to defend themselves, the statistic for home invasions might go up.
The argument that possessing a firearm or confronting an intruder only raises the risk of injury can be associated to an uneducated public, if gun safety and use was taught in high school as a required class and everyone who graduated was proficient in the safe proper handling of firearms we would have far fewer incidents of accidental injury or death, in many of the other threads I cited that there are hundreds of agencies in the united States that require their employees to use firearms in their daily routines, Police ATF etc.. the rate of accidental death or injury among those organizations is almost non existent because of a rigorous educational program involving gun safety.
Lastly as many people have mentioned above, law enforcement simply does not do enough to deter criminal activity, however in every state that has allowed the public to carry concealed weapons the rate of violent crimes has dropped.
Yet it won't stop a determined hacker. Just as such measures are no garuntee that your home will be rendered safe. The girl who was raped a few houses down was not consoled by the fact that the motion sensor floodlights (that their home DID have) warded off 99% of attackers. The bottom line is it didn't ward off THIS one. No matter how you roll the dice, some people will always believe a firearm is something worth investing in, and others will always continue to believe that there are other solutions, no matter what. And I hope, for their sake, that they're right.
I see a firearm as simply another measure of security. A continuation, if you will, on ryo's suggestions. Among the list of possible counter-measures are the aforementioned, floodlights, dogs, etc. But down the line, you also have firearms as a possibility.
Which security precautions you CHOOSE to take depends on your situation. And ideally, it will be a mix. A firearm is usually not be a good idea with children in the house. A firearm is usually not a good idea when you can't take the time and effort to practice regularly with it. A firearm is usually not a good idea when you live in housing such as apartments, where thin walls seperate you from an innocent bystander. I'm not saying they are the be-all end all tool for home defense. And as mentioned, in the end, there's no garuntee that it will help (we can find situations where it has, and has not).
A dog isn't always a possibility either, for example. For those who are allergic to them, for those who live in apartments that don't allow animals, and for those who simply can't take the time to give them the care they need. Dogs also have a mind of their own, which makes them potentially dangerous. Guns do not. They are only as dangerous as you are.
Regardless, take the precautions that you feel are best, the precautions that are most suitable for your situation, and the precautions that you can. While I have a firearm, I also have an alarm system, a helpful sign outside _saying_ I have an alarm systme, a motion sensor floodlight, and a dog that barks at the slightest movement outside. No one's suggesting you ditch all other forms of protection and rely solely on a firearm and big balls.
While I respect those that believe there is always an alternative to firearms, I also believe that they are making the mistake of reasoning that criminals are sane or rational. They are not in many cases, otherwise they wouldnt be committing the crime. These people are un-predictable at best, so as nem said, it's advisable to prepare for the worst. I'd rather stop that guy dead in his tracks than back off and hope he has mercy on me, my sister, and my parents after he's through taking whatever he wants.
Nem: Granted, it's about as likely as getting struck by lightning, but on the other hand, you don't generally stand next to a tall tree in the middle of a field during a thunderstorm either. Have you ever bought a fire extinguisher? Had a fire drill? A major, life threatening fire may not ever happen in your lifetime either, but in those situations, a little preparation goes a looong way.
Again, situation determines all. If it is legal, and the firearm is the best tool for the job <b>with that particular person</b>, then by all means he should get one to add to whatever other measures he has taken. If children/laws/location/etc. rule that out, then obviously, he should do something different.
(Right on burncycle, took the words right out of my mouth.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason I prefer the non-gun security measures is that they help prevent a robbery when it's most likely to occur: when you're not inside the house. Having all the guns in the world won't stop a burglar if you're out of the house. That's why I'd rather spend my cash on measures such as the one's I described rather than get a gun. Even better, they help against attackers who plan to sneak into your house and slit your throat while you sleep. If an attacker has murderous intent he's extreamly unlikely to knock on the door and announce his pressence. He'll be as quiet as possible, slipping into your house and killing you before you even have a chance to reach for your 6 shooter. Screens, lights and dogs present a big obstacle to such an attacker, whereas a gun does not. Such criminals though are few and far between.
Now granted, there might be, or even are, criminals who won't be detered by security measures such as lights, dogs, locks and screens. But as Nem said, they are extreamly rare. Rare enough that you really don't have to worry about them. You might as well buy a Stinger missile because hey, what if a criminal steals a tank? It has happened after all.
By the way, if a dog isn't an option due to apartments for example, yelling "Fire" should do the trick. A potential attacker will be very worried about people coming to investigate, because naturally he doesn't want to get caught, and in an apartment block shouting "fire" will result in people showing up. Just don't shout "help", as that sadly doesn't usually work.
In america at least, you can legally own a bazooka. Yes. I'm serious. If you are willing to go through the proper paperwork, get yourself checked 7 ways to sunday, and pay through the nose, you can get one. Now personally I don't EXPECT any AFVs to come rolling up the driveway. That won't stop me from letting someone ELSE prepare for that eventuality if he feels (however misguided I think the opinion is) he should. As you said it has happened before, after all. (All provided of course, that I don't come home to a 6 inch hole in my garage door one day. Then he and I will have a very serious discussion.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason I prefer the non-gun security measures is that they help prevent a robbery when it's most likely to occur: when you're not inside the house. Having all the guns in the world won't stop a burglar if you're out of the house. That's why I'd rather spend my cash on measures such as the one's I described rather than get a gun. Even better, they help against attackers who plan to sneak into your house and slit your throat while you sleep. If an attacker has murderous intent he's extreamly unlikely to knock on the door and announce his pressence. He'll be as quiet as possible, slipping into your house and killing you before you even have a chance to reach for your 6 shooter. Screens, lights and dogs present a big obstacle to such an attacker, whereas a gun does not. Such criminals though are few and far between.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't remember anyone here saying that a firearm was the end-all-be-all-first-response to a home invasion? I also remember burncycle saying that it would ideally (in his view) be a mix. Lights, dogs, locks, and a firearm. Thus, not only does it give you a response to those 1% of criminals that go past the dogs, the locks, and the lights (not to mention above cited example - warning.), but also gives you a deterrent to the other 99% who don't, one that is much easier on you morally and legally I might add. An OBSTACLE? Well I guess that would depend. Obstacle to entering the home? Likely not. True. Obstacle for coming across that 20 feet between the corner you are backed into, and the doorway he and his machete are standing in? I think it's safe to assume that would be a very large obstacle, yes.