Student shot at Tacoma, Wash., school

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

[garya505 2]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

The woman in your story would have been better served by a guard dog, as she was ill-prepared to defend herself or anyone else for that matter.

The number of cases of people successfully thwarting attacks with guns far outnumbers the number of cases like the killing of the 5-year-old, but cases of self-defense don't often get reported, and don't make good news stories either. The press likes the sensational stories, and the accidental killing of a 5-year-old makes great news.

Most burglars will try to enter a home when nobody is there because it lessens their chance of getting caught or killed. This is why the rate of success of arrest of burglars is low. Burglars who intentionally enter occupied homes are dangerous because they have no such fear, and should be treated as serious threats to the lives of anyone in the home.

People have a right to self-defense, especially in their own homes. It's not up to you to decide how or when they can defend themselves against a threat to the their lives or the lives of their loved ones. If you choose to not to defend yourself, or to defend yourself with some means other than deadly force, that's your decision, but it's not up to you to decide for others.

[rebeccajo 14]

As far as trying teenagers as adults - I don't think thats a solution - certainly won't be a deterrent. I'd rather see school programs that teach teenagers anger management and conflict resolution.

Uh Steven ... no .... as a parent I disagree.

Sure anger management and conflict resolution is all well and good.

But if you really want to get an impressionable young man's attention, drive him up to the local jail and MAKE him take a peek inside.

I once had a customer who worked at the local juvenile detention center. I stopped by to make a delivery and I had my son with me. His eyeballs were literally the size of saucers as we drove up the drive. But that was nothing compared to the interesting shade of gray taken on by his complexion when he stepped into the lobby and saw the narrow hallways with bars on the doors.

Sometimes the best positive reinforcement is a healthy dose of fear.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

The woman in your story would have been better served by a guard dog, as she was ill-prepared to defend herself or anyone else for that matter.

The number of cases of people successfully thwarting attacks with guns far outnumbers the number of cases like the killing of the 5-year-old, but cases of self-defense don't often get reported, and don't make good news stories either. The press likes the sensational stories, and the accidental killing of a 5-year-old makes great news.

Most burglars will try to enter a home when nobody is there because it lessens their chance of getting caught or killed. This is why the rate of success of arrest of burglars is low. Burglars who intentionally enter occupied homes are dangerous because they have no such fear, and should be treated as serious threats to the lives of anyone in the home.

People have a right to self-defense, especially in their own homes. It's not up to you to decide how or when they can defend themselves against a threat to the their lives or the lives of their loved ones. If you choose to not to defend yourself, or to defend yourself with some means other than deadly force, that's your decision, but it's not up to you to decide for others.

I think you've missed the point, Gary. Most people own handguns for protection, right? Then, if owning a handgun statistically raises the chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed by that very gun, then it defeats the purpose. I have NOT suggested that you can't own a handgun if that is your choice. However, don't pretend that while you may 'feel' safer from intruders, you have have just endangered your whole family unless you take precautionary steps to protect them from an accidental shooting by locking it up away from children. Even still, the statistics for people killed by a handgun by their very own spouse is staggering. So whose safety are you really concerned about? Yours or your loved ones?

Edited January 4, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[rebeccajo 14]

Just to clarify - in case anyone cares:

No, I don't own any guns. Although I've thought about getting a pistol.

I believe the Constitutional right to bear arms is pretty much widely misinterpreted.

Yes, I've whooped my kids butt. I've never smacked him in the head.

No I don't think we need any more laws tellling me what I need to lock up in my house. The government is already trying to regulate to much of my personal life. Even before immigration.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just to clarify - in case anyone cares:

No, I don't own any guns. Although I've thought about getting a pistol.

I believe the Constitutional right to bear arms is pretty much widely misinterpreted.

Yes, I've whooped my kids butt. I've never smacked him in the head.

No I don't think we need any more laws tellling me what I need to lock up in my house. The government is already trying to regulate to much of my personal life. Even before immigration.

Should we not hold parents legally culpible if they neglect to keep their children safe from harm?

[rebeccajo 14]

Steven, there are all sorts of things in a household kids can get hurt on.

Butcher knives. Lawnmowers. Box cutters. Food Processor blades. That bottle of Tylenol PM in your medicine chest. Hell, a kid can even swallow a balloon and suffocate.

I just don't think you can legislate smarts. Which is where most laws designed to protect us from ourselves come from. From somebody being stupid.

[garya505 2]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

The woman in your story would have been better served by a guard dog, as she was ill-prepared to defend herself or anyone else for that matter.

The number of cases of people successfully thwarting attacks with guns far outnumbers the number of cases like the killing of the 5-year-old, but cases of self-defense don't often get reported, and don't make good news stories either. The press likes the sensational stories, and the accidental killing of a 5-year-old makes great news.

Most burglars will try to enter a home when nobody is there because it lessens their chance of getting caught or killed. This is why the rate of success of arrest of burglars is low. Burglars who intentionally enter occupied homes are dangerous because they have no such fear, and should be treated as serious threats to the lives of anyone in the home.

People have a right to self-defense, especially in their own homes. It's not up to you to decide how or when they can defend themselves against a threat to the their lives or the lives of their loved ones. If you choose to not to defend yourself, or to defend yourself with some means other than deadly force, that's your decision, but it's not up to you to decide for others.

I think you've missed the point, Gary. Most people own handguns for protection, right? Then, if owning a handgun statistically raises the chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed by that very gun, then it defeats the purpose. I have NOT suggested that you can't own a handgun if that is your choice. However, don't pretend that while you may 'feel' safer from intruders, you have have just endangered your whole family unless you take precautionary steps to protect them from an accidental shooting by locking it up away from children. Even still, the statistics for people killed by a handgun by their very own spouse is staggering. So whose safety are you really concerned about? Yours or your loved ones?

Yes, if you assume that the stats are complete and valid that would be logical and true. However, the stats are based on actual accidental shootings, while cases of successful self-defense (where the gun was never fired) are rarely recorded or tracked, so nobody can say for sure if owning a gun statistically raises or lower the overall chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed. Statistics can be misleading. Did you know that statistically speaking, chances of getting killed by a gun are much greater for those living in an apartment rather than a house? Does that mean of you move to an apartment YOU will be more likely to be shot? Probably not. It's just that drug dealers and other assorted scumbags who are more likely to live in apartments tend to shoot each other a lot more often.

And, you are assuming that gun owners are bascially irresponsible and won't observe safety precautions. Think about the thousands of police officers, security personnel, sportsmen, and others (such as myself) who are responsible gun owners and who do observe proper gun safety. The press and the anti-gun crowd loves cases like the woman who killed her nephew, and these are the cases that make the news and lead people such as yourself into believing that gun owners such as this woman are the norm rather than the exception.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, there are all sorts of things in a household kids can get hurt on.

Butcher knives. Lawnmowers. Box cutters. Food Processor blades. That bottle of Tylenol PM in your medicine chest. Hell, a kid can even swallow a balloon and suffocate.

I just don't think you can legislate smarts. Which is where most laws designed to protect us from ourselves come from. From somebody being stupid.

Good point... and that's why Tylenol and other medicine have child safety lids.

Several years ago, while I lived in Arizona, we went through a whole slew of children drowning in the family pools until legislation was passed that required pool owners to have a fence around the pool with a self-latching door. Accidental drownings have decreased dramatically.

While I agree we can't legislate smarts, sometimes it takes legislation for people to be more careful, especially with children.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

The woman in your story would have been better served by a guard dog, as she was ill-prepared to defend herself or anyone else for that matter.

The number of cases of people successfully thwarting attacks with guns far outnumbers the number of cases like the killing of the 5-year-old, but cases of self-defense don't often get reported, and don't make good news stories either. The press likes the sensational stories, and the accidental killing of a 5-year-old makes great news.

Most burglars will try to enter a home when nobody is there because it lessens their chance of getting caught or killed. This is why the rate of success of arrest of burglars is low. Burglars who intentionally enter occupied homes are dangerous because they have no such fear, and should be treated as serious threats to the lives of anyone in the home.

People have a right to self-defense, especially in their own homes. It's not up to you to decide how or when they can defend themselves against a threat to the their lives or the lives of their loved ones. If you choose to not to defend yourself, or to defend yourself with some means other than deadly force, that's your decision, but it's not up to you to decide for others.

I think you've missed the point, Gary. Most people own handguns for protection, right? Then, if owning a handgun statistically raises the chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed by that very gun, then it defeats the purpose. I have NOT suggested that you can't own a handgun if that is your choice. However, don't pretend that while you may 'feel' safer from intruders, you have have just endangered your whole family unless you take precautionary steps to protect them from an accidental shooting by locking it up away from children. Even still, the statistics for people killed by a handgun by their very own spouse is staggering. So whose safety are you really concerned about? Yours or your loved ones?

Yes, if you assume that the stats are complete and valid that would be logical and true. However, the stats are based on actual accidental shootings, while cases of successful self-defense (where the gun was never fired) are rarely recorded or tracked, so nobody can say for sure if owning a gun statistically raises or lower the overall chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed. Statistics can be misleading. Did you know that statistically speaking, chances of getting killed by a gun are much greater for those living in an apartment rather than a house? Does that mean of you move to an apartment YOU will be more likely to be shot? Probably not. It's just that drug dealers and other assorted scumbags who are more likely to live in apartments tend to shoot each other a lot more often.

And, you are assuming that gun owners are bascially irresponsible and won't observe safety precautions. Think about the thousands of police officers, security personnel, sportsmen, and others (such as myself) who are responsible gun owners and who do observe proper gun safety. The press and the anti-gun crowd loves cases like the woman who killed her nephew, and these are the cases that make the news and lead people such as yourself into believing that gun owners such as this woman are the norm rather than the exception.

That doesn't make sense. You're telling me if your house has an intruder, you point the gun at the intruder, there's no police report?

We have safety belt laws, speed limits and other laws which are designed for the safety. Having laws that help improve safety with regard to guns just makes perfect sense to me and it is not a threat to anyone's right to own a gun.

[garya505 2]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

The woman in your story would have been better served by a guard dog, as she was ill-prepared to defend herself or anyone else for that matter.

The number of cases of people successfully thwarting attacks with guns far outnumbers the number of cases like the killing of the 5-year-old, but cases of self-defense don't often get reported, and don't make good news stories either. The press likes the sensational stories, and the accidental killing of a 5-year-old makes great news.

Most burglars will try to enter a home when nobody is there because it lessens their chance of getting caught or killed. This is why the rate of success of arrest of burglars is low. Burglars who intentionally enter occupied homes are dangerous because they have no such fear, and should be treated as serious threats to the lives of anyone in the home.

People have a right to self-defense, especially in their own homes. It's not up to you to decide how or when they can defend themselves against a threat to the their lives or the lives of their loved ones. If you choose to not to defend yourself, or to defend yourself with some means other than deadly force, that's your decision, but it's not up to you to decide for others.

I think you've missed the point, Gary. Most people own handguns for protection, right? Then, if owning a handgun statistically raises the chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed by that very gun, then it defeats the purpose. I have NOT suggested that you can't own a handgun if that is your choice. However, don't pretend that while you may 'feel' safer from intruders, you have have just endangered your whole family unless you take precautionary steps to protect them from an accidental shooting by locking it up away from children. Even still, the statistics for people killed by a handgun by their very own spouse is staggering. So whose safety are you really concerned about? Yours or your loved ones?

Yes, if you assume that the stats are complete and valid that would be logical and true. However, the stats are based on actual accidental shootings, while cases of successful self-defense (where the gun was never fired) are rarely recorded or tracked, so nobody can say for sure if owning a gun statistically raises or lower the overall chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed. Statistics can be misleading. Did you know that statistically speaking, chances of getting killed by a gun are much greater for those living in an apartment rather than a house? Does that mean of you move to an apartment YOU will be more likely to be shot? Probably not. It's just that drug dealers and other assorted scumbags who are more likely to live in apartments tend to shoot each other a lot more often.

And, you are assuming that gun owners are bascially irresponsible and won't observe safety precautions. Think about the thousands of police officers, security personnel, sportsmen, and others (such as myself) who are responsible gun owners and who do observe proper gun safety. The press and the anti-gun crowd loves cases like the woman who killed her nephew, and these are the cases that make the news and lead people such as yourself into believing that gun owners such as this woman are the norm rather than the exception.

That doesn't make sense. You're telling me if your house has an intruder, you point the gun at the intruder, there's no police report?

We have safety belt laws, speed limits and other laws which are designed for the safety. Having laws that help improve safety with regard to guns just makes perfect sense to me and it is not a threat to anyone's right to own a gun.

Well, there may or may not be a police report in that case, but most likely there will be no stat recorded for a "successful self-defense". How could a police officer determine that this was in fact what happened when nobody was shot and the intruder is gone? Think about it. On the other hand, if it's an accidental shooting of a family member, you can be sure it will be reported, and the press will love it.

Sensible laws to protect children are a good idea, but too often the people behind such laws have another agenda, therefore the resistance from gun owners and the NRA.

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

You'd spank your 17 year old daughter? :oh:

yes

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

semi-jacketed hollow points and aiming center of mass prevents them from being able to sue.

key phrase - "i was in fear for my life"

[Fandango 1,439]

A good day at Disney never makes the news, if ya know what I mean

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

please provide a source for these statistics you speak of.

also of note - alarm systems, deadbolt locks, and so on (even a dog) won't stop someone from coming into your house.

steven, the statement that "my opposing laws that require guns be locked up" is false. i don't have any children living with me, so i'm free to have my guns anywhere in the house i wish. k?

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

My Husband has a concealed gun license, when we were talking about this subject I asked about burglers and such, being from England where we are not allowed guns it was an interesting subject to talk about.

Jon said "honey the law says if someone comes into the house with the intent to harm you or your family then you have the right to protect yourselves" but some burgulars have sued householders for shooting them, so what is the point.

Nowadays it seems the victim has no rights at all, just let these people do what they want because nothing is going to stop them short of shooting them dead!!!!!

Statistically speaking, a burglar breaks into a home to steal your stuff. What's the best way to protect your stuff? I remember a few years back, during the Christmas season, a woman in Chicago was awoken to the sound of rustling in her Christmas tree. She pointed her gun in the direction of the noise and called out to the supposed burglar but there was no answer, so she fired the gun. She fatally shot her 5 year old nephew who was staying with her. Certainly, guns are not the most reliable form of protection against intruders because they're safety and effectiveness relies on human judgment, which is prone to error. If the woman had a guard dog, her nephew would be still be alive. There's also alarm systems, deadbolt locks and locks for windows. There are a lot of safer methods to protect your home from intruders than relying solely on a gun, which goes back to my argument with Charles. He's opposes laws that require guns be locked away from children because it would prevent him from responding quickly enough to an intruder. I'd suggest he either carry the gun with him at all times then so the loaded gun is never accessible to the child. I think any parent with young children who would leave a loaded firearm accessible is being neglectful to their child's safety, which is ironic when the very reason they own the firearm is to protect their family...or is it to protect 'stuff'?

The woman in your story would have been better served by a guard dog, as she was ill-prepared to defend herself or anyone else for that matter.

The number of cases of people successfully thwarting attacks with guns far outnumbers the number of cases like the killing of the 5-year-old, but cases of self-defense don't often get reported, and don't make good news stories either. The press likes the sensational stories, and the accidental killing of a 5-year-old makes great news.

Most burglars will try to enter a home when nobody is there because it lessens their chance of getting caught or killed. This is why the rate of success of arrest of burglars is low. Burglars who intentionally enter occupied homes are dangerous because they have no such fear, and should be treated as serious threats to the lives of anyone in the home.

People have a right to self-defense, especially in their own homes. It's not up to you to decide how or when they can defend themselves against a threat to the their lives or the lives of their loved ones. If you choose to not to defend yourself, or to defend yourself with some means other than deadly force, that's your decision, but it's not up to you to decide for others.

I think you've missed the point, Gary. Most people own handguns for protection, right? Then, if owning a handgun statistically raises the chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed by that very gun, then it defeats the purpose. I have NOT suggested that you can't own a handgun if that is your choice. However, don't pretend that while you may 'feel' safer from intruders, you have have just endangered your whole family unless you take precautionary steps to protect them from an accidental shooting by locking it up away from children. Even still, the statistics for people killed by a handgun by their very own spouse is staggering. So whose safety are you really concerned about? Yours or your loved ones?

Yes, if you assume that the stats are complete and valid that would be logical and true. However, the stats are based on actual accidental shootings, while cases of successful self-defense (where the gun was never fired) are rarely recorded or tracked, so nobody can say for sure if owning a gun statistically raises or lower the overall chances of your loved ones being harmed or killed. Statistics can be misleading. Did you know that statistically speaking, chances of getting killed by a gun are much greater for those living in an apartment rather than a house? Does that mean of you move to an apartment YOU will be more likely to be shot? Probably not. It's just that drug dealers and other assorted scumbags who are more likely to live in apartments tend to shoot each other a lot more often.

And, you are assuming that gun owners are bascially irresponsible and won't observe safety precautions. Think about the thousands of police officers, security personnel, sportsmen, and others (such as myself) who are responsible gun owners and who do observe proper gun safety. The press and the anti-gun crowd loves cases like the woman who killed her nephew, and these are the cases that make the news and lead people such as yourself into believing that gun owners such as this woman are the norm rather than the exception.

That doesn't make sense. You're telling me if your house has an intruder, you point the gun at the intruder, there's no police report?

We have safety belt laws, speed limits and other laws which are designed for the safety. Having laws that help improve safety with regard to guns just makes perfect sense to me and it is not a threat to anyone's right to own a gun.

i think he's saying that anyone shooting an intruder in their house does not make good print like grandma capping her grandson.