Have I been wrong in opposing guns?I have said that the owner of a gun was in danger because an intruder would

Question

have the benefit of surprise and would shoot the owner if he reached for a gun. None of the answers that I got on the internet gave me reason to think otherwise.
However, I was talking to a friend today, and he suggested there is a battle going on between rich and poor in the United States. He says that when a poor criminal enters the house of a richer person, the criminal is usually on drugs and is going to shoot the house owner even the house owner does not own a gun.
Now that makes more sense than any replies that I received on the internet. If you are going to be shot anyway, you might as well have a gun and maybe you will be lucky enough to get the drop on the intruder sometimes
I am disappointed that I didn't get a single sensible answer on Yahoo answers, and had to turn to someone else.
But I still need further convincing. Is this the way it is?Are most intruding criminals apt to be poor people hopped up on drugs
and determined to shoot you even if you do not have a gun?

Answer 1

No body knows what an intruder will do. I own guns but to keep one handy and be able to kill someone that kicks the front door in is almost impossible. Although people do it sometimes.
I say at least have a gun and if possible use it. Otherwise just try and cooperate and hope for the best.

Answer 2

All you have to do is campare us to countries that ban gun ownership, or even just handgun ownership. After all, a handgun is the homeowner's defensive weapon, not a rifle or shotgun. This comparison has been done. We in the U.S. have fewer break-ins of occupied homes and jailed burglars have admitted in surveys that the chance of getting shot is a definite consideration. They have passed by a target if they were unsure of being confronted by an armed homeowner. So their decisions are a lot more rational and deliberate than you might think.

There was a rash of evening armed robberies at an apartment complex some of my friends lived at. I went over one weekend and since it was a nice day, we took guns out to the edge of the field right behind their apartment and had some fun. A .25 auto, a .38 special, a blackpowder revolver, a .45 semiauto Thompson and there might have been one or two others. There was no lack of eager shooters among us; we each tried them all. Bounce a tin can back through the field until you can't see it right or can't hit it any more. Who can hit a lit cigarette stuck in a beer can and put it out without knocking over the can? How much smoke can that blackpowder revolver make if you fire all shots as fast as you can? We had a ball.

More importantly, the armed break-ins from then on only occurred on the OTHER side of the apartment complex.

This is the real issue, and the real danger of anti-gun laws. Not whether you have a gun in the rare event that you might have to shoot your way out of a situation, but that all criminals have that doubt in their minds. It works. Can you imagine what it would be like if you removed that doubt? You don't have to. Washington, D.C., is a classic example of what you get with such laws.

I think your friend is nuts. That's no reason. The fact is, armed resistance offers you the best chance of escaping unharmed. It's even better than trying to flee which doesn't work well anyway with some criminal intent, such as rape. And for how many times armed resistance is offered, there are remarkably few criminals shot and even fewer killed. But the one facing you doesn't want to be one of them.

Answer 3

I own many guns. I sleep with one on the night stand. Most of the time when some one breaks into your home you won't be there at all. They watch the place and make sure that you are gone. They don't want the chance to get shot as much as the next guy. If you can go into an empty house and not really have to worry about then that is where they want to go. Not go to a house where people are home and have the chance to get shot. I take mine when I leave the house that way if my house is broken into they don't have my gun when I come home to shoot me with. The others are locked away in a safe.

Answer 4

In a society where guns are allowed, it is the question in the would-be intruder's mind as to whether the owner of the home that is about to be broken into has a gun that is good. It can be a powerful deterrent. Wouldn't you think twice about breaking into someone's home or jacking their car if the question were in your mind as to whether or not you will be looking down the barrel of a gun they're not afraid to use if you try it?

Answer 5

I don't know if all intruders are poor folks hopped up on drugs but I do know that their intentions aren't good and that if you are not able to arm yourself to protect your family; you may very likely lose your life. Better to know how to use a gun and have it ready in the event that you are given the choice. The criminals can always get a gun; why should the decent, law abiding citizen not be able to have the power to protect themselves? In Texas, where you can carry a weapon, you can shoot to kill if someone comes into your home and threatens your life. The crime rate is down because people can and do defend themselves. Guns do not kill people; people kill people and those who do are generally criminals who are out to do no good and who are armed. We need to be able to keep the rights to protect ourselves. I am sick of people trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens. There are reasons for owning a gun. Education is a must and everyone should be taught gun safety.

Answer 6

Rule 1 of engaging in any type of gun-fight... don't
Rule 2, if you MUST engage in a gun fight... have a gun.

Very rarely do people breaking into homes WANT to confront the homeowners (they'd rather just sneak in when you're not at home & take what they can) ... however, there are those brazen folk who'll come in while you ARE at home - or they'll come in & not realize you're at home.

In those last two scenarios ... you've got at least a CHANCE to engage the intruder. In which case, I'd like to make sure my odds are skewed as much in my own favor as I can. (Hence, having a gun for home-defense). It would take at least a few minutes for any intruder to get into my home -- security bars on the windows & doors... a dog in the yard... alarm system... etc., etc., -- if they can somehow get past all THAT ... well, then yes - odds are they could get the drop on me & the fact that I have a gun or not is moot.

...it's those early warning system & obstacles which will give me the time I need to ready myself and arm myself against a possible attack.

However, a gun isn't ONLY for home-defense... I like to target shoot & use guns in my theatrical performances as well. They're a useful tool to me. I like to consider myself a responsible gun owner and it's a good sport & bonding experience for me & my friends.

If you don't see a reason to own a gun ... then that's YOUR choice not to. And maybe all of us gun owners are being paranoid and crazy ... but that's our right to be so.

Answer 7

There is not really a "most people" classification to place burglars in. Some burglars are non confrontational, and would run if they discovered a homeowner was home. Some are not.

If a burglar broke into your house and found you inside, and he was carrying a gun. I think your safety is in pretty serious danger, whether or not you have a gun.

My opinion is a little one sided, being a veteran police officer and having seen many robberies, break-ins, and murders; I would really really really want a firearm in my hand if someone broke into my house. I wouldn't want to be empty handed and hope they just wanted to take property and leave. Even if they had no intentions of hurting me when they came into the house, they definitely don't want to get caught. If I am inside I am now a witness to their felony burglary. They then have to decide between a good witness and immediate 911 call against them for burglary, or a lot of time to get away and no witnesses for a murder.

Answer 8

Oh really? I had a client who when he was 17 was in his home alone and 4 guys started breaking in the basement window. He got on the phone and called 911. He told the people at 911 that he had his father's .44 caliber and he was talking to them all the time they were breaking in. He started yelling that he had a gun and he was going to shoot. Many times he repeated this while on the phone and as soon as the first guy got through the window, he shot the guy through the neck and killed him. The other three ran away. It was thrown out of court as self defense.

So yes, you were wrong. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. I own many guns.

Answer 9

There aren't to many rich people breaking into houses to steal property if that answers your question . Regardless , your benefit of suprise argument is flawed considering if a home owner has a gun for protection he/she will be the first to shoot

Answer 10

Put it this way... I would rather have a fighting chance.

Additionally, my dogs will alert me to an intruder before they can open the door. Then they will have to fight my dogs. By the time they got to me they would have chew marks and a nice leaky .357 (mag), .45 or .380 (from my wife) hole through their head and chest.

Train train train and location (of where you keep your weapon)

FYI My father raised 6 of us. He had weapons scattered throughout the house. All of us kids were raised to RESPECT, shoot and know guns. We never had 1 accident.

Criminals and ignorant people with guns kill, not the guns themselves. This argument is like saying air causes airplanes to crash or wheels make cars crash. It doesn’t make sense.

Edit:
The best security system is good exterior lighting and dogs.

itsyourworld_changei… - Maybe one day, you will be what we call a statistic.