It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by CeeRZ
I get what you are saying, but it seems to me that the burglars didn't ignore you because you had a gun (they didn't know that, and who knows, they may have had 2 machines guns on them?) but because you were home. Had you not been home, having a gun would have made no difference.
I have a number of weapons in my house (but no gun) - but no-one knows that so it's not a deterrent to burglars. It just means I can kill them in the very unlikely event they walk through my unlocked door with the intend on struggling very hard to find anything worth stealing
(note: not that I would kill them, obviously! )
I don't have a gun, a friend of mine has several. There's one in his car, one at the desk he spends 99% of his time at, and one in his bedroom, all handguns. In addition to that he has a shotgun and a rifle, though he doesn't expect to use those for defense due to their placement (he's in a wheelchair so quick mobility is an issue).
I've had this discussion with him before that while those guns make him feel safer, they actually put him in a more dangerous position. I'll go back to the OP's example for this. Lets say the door wasn't locked and the burglar came in. There's a few scenarios that could have played out:
Scenario A: The burglar is armed, knows you are there and proceeds to prevent you from interfering first. The vast majority of these cases don't involve murder. Not only do most people (even criminals) shy away from it, but whether or not you're murdered they're intent on taking your stuff. Most criminals also know that there's a chance they'll be caught. When their expected outcome is the same either way, why take the higher risk path to that outcome? You would be tied up, frightened, and lose some stuff, but you probably wouldn't be killed. The burglar wins.
Scenario B: You're both armed. The burglar is going to come in with a weapon drawn looking for you. You on the other hand are reading a book. You have to react to get your gun, then locate the person, and then fire. The burglar is either going to have a gun on you before you can make a move, or is going to be forced to shoot you to defend himself. Possibly shooting you just due to threat escalation. Here you're harmed/killed, and the burglar gets what they want. The burglar wins 95% of the time.
Scenario C: The burglar isn't armed and you are. A confrontation occurs. They run for it. Do you shoot a fleeing burglar knowing the law isn't on your side (threat of harm has passed)? Either you do and no one wins, or you don't and you each win, the burglar got away and you were protected. Here you tie 50% of the time, and you win 50% of the time.
Scenario D: Neither of you are armed. The burglar comes in, finds you, and a confrontation occurs. Someone wins a fight. I imagine this usually goes to the burglar but I'll say it's 50/50 because a burglar stupid enough to go into a dwelling with lights on probably isn't a talented enough criminal to know they need the ability to win a fight.
So the results:
Burglar - Wins 2.45/4 = 62%
You - Win 1.05/4 = 26%
Tie - 12%
They're more than twice as likely as you to win that outcome. In the scenarios where you're armed the bad guy wins 48% of the time while you win 27.5% of the time. In outcomes where you win, the bad guy gets away. In scenarios where the bad guy wins you die. When weighing the value of events it seems like a losing outcome to get into these situations. You're winning just over 1/4 of the time, and 2/3 of the time you don't win, end up with you being dead.
However in the scenarios where you aren't armed, the burglar wins 75% of the time, and you win 25% of the time. In the scenarios where you win the burglar actually ends up being captured and prosecuted, while in the scenarios where you lose you end up unharmed (physically atleast). The win/loss rate is similar when armed or unarmed, but when unarmed not only is the payoff higher when you do win, but the outcome of losing isn't nearly as bad.
This doesn't take into account scenarios like gang violence, rapists, or so on. Just burglary. It also doesn't account for things like three strikes laws which make the punishment for low level theft and murder equal. Which means they have nothing to lose by killing you on strike 3 (infact it becomes safer for them to do so).
That aside, no condemnation here for you choosing to own a weapon, as I believe you're entitled to defend yourself in any way you see fit (note: this actually goes beyond the scope of just the Second Amendment). I just happen to think that when evaluating the possible outcomes, this is a situation where it's better to be unarmed, escalating a situation isn't doing you any good, the best defense here for your person (though not your property) is to not resist. It's also worth pointing out that locking your door is what kept you safe, not the gun.edit on 11-1-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)
reply to post by CeeRZ
I feel sad for you if you feel the need to carry a gun/weapon in order to feel safe.
It is your right but.....whatever. Some people are thick.
If the USA is going that paranoid i'm amazed they can take a shower or any other activity that involves water or both hand without one hand being on a gun sometimes and i have this vision of bubba on the can with a 12 bore pointing at the door