Posted by buck460XVR: If and should are the two key words there, and the probability of it happening and the risk it COULD involve, needs to be compared to the probability of it not happening within each individual's situation/lifestyle.
The likelihood that a violent criminal actor will invade one's home while a resident is in it is remote at best, for most people.
Someone looking for jewelry or something else that can be readily fenced (copper pipe is the really big draw where I live these days--several incidents occur each week) would prefer to enter an unoccupied home than one in which the residents are home. That's why most break-ins occur in mid day when people are at work.
So--if the perps are in
that game, they will either opt for a different target if they realize that someone is at home; come back later if they are seeking something specific, for example if they have been tipped off by a repair man or have been in the house before and know what they are looking for; or, of course, they may not realize that someone is at home and come in. The last of these has happened to me.
That's not the only kind of criminal out there, however. If a couple of crooks need a great deal of money
right now, the best way to get it is to take one person to an ATM while holding another hostage.
And of course, if they are on the run and low on gas and there is no other house around....
I have a good friend that is a captain in the local PD. ... He replied that in our town of 11,000 there has never been a home invasion(by a complete stranger) that led to the death of a homeowner in the 30 years he has been a LEO.
That is true in my city of 24,000 people also. However, a number of criminals have been deterred here by homeowners with guns, including me.
He also told me that studies show, you are more likely to be killed in your home by your own gun, either by accident or someone you know, than by a home invasion by a complete stranger.
I really doubt that he can substantiate that.
Back when the notoriously ant-gun J. Edgar Hoover headed the FBI, the government published some findings that alleged that people were more likely to shoot a friend or family member than a burglar. The intended conclusion was that having a gun is more likely to make on less safe than more safe.
It was not until people started digging into the statistics that it became clear that that statistic included people who had known each other in any capacity at all before the shootings occurred--which just happens to include the victims in just about every drug related crime that has ever occurred!
The stats were later further distorted by those who publicized the number of children killed by guns. Guess what: that included anyone nineteen and under, and a lot of violent criminals shot by police officers fall into that category.
But the real fallacy in the argument is that if a gun is not used to shoot someone, it has not served its purpose. Enough said. For more, go
here.
In any kind of risk management, the likelihood of occurrence of risk is but one factor. The severity of the potential consequence is equally important. I consider the likelihood of my ever needing to even threaten to employ deadly force to be remote. However, I consider the consequence of being attacked to be very severe indeed.
So, the decision at hand is to either accept the risk or to try to mitigate it. That's true whether the analysis has to do with smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, surge protectors, or--you name it
It just tells me I need to be prudent and use good judgement. Just because one has lots of guns, does not make them more prepared than the man with one. There's a lot more to it than that.
Well said, and if one's firearm is one's first line of home protection, one has a lot of work to do!
