Though experiment: If I were a criminal....

If by home invasion you mean a robbery then I agree the majority of these are drug houses being raided. The reasons are two-fold: 1 The tempting belief in the enormous wealth to be gained (in money or drugs or both) from robbing a dealer and 2. The belief that the drug dealer will not report he was robbed.

These also tend to be the most violent home invasion encounters. The dealer feels he has to arm up because he realizes his high volume cash business makes him a tempting target, and he feels he cannot go to the police for help recovering his property. The robber arms up because he believes he will meet a dealer who feels his only recourse is a violent response to the invader. The robber thinks he can get away before the police arrive, and the dealer thinks he can spend 15-20 minutes getting rid of his drugs/scales/money etc. before he calls 911 to report he killed a man trying to rob him.

 

How many of these mass shootings occur in heavy gun controlled liberal utopias like Chicago? You realize that the real data will never bear out the false narrative you are trying to create, don't you? The media has to become a credible entity before anyone here is going to take their 'arguments' seriously...

 

Great. If you inhabit some reality of sunshine, unicorns, and rainbows where the possibility of a gun being used as a murder weapon just doesn't exist then I don't want to ruin it for you.

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you would shoot us all in an ambush. After all that was the premise of the post and anything else is off topic. Can you explain exactly how you would do this?

 

The idea that a careful, intelligent, patient person can kill many people is not new - they are called serial killers. And few of them use firearms.

Ted Bundy was suspected of killing over 100 people over 26 years. As far as is known, he never killed with a firearm, he stabbed and strangled and beat people to death. But more importantly, he carefully selected his victims, he chose people he determined were vulnerable and easily subdued.

But they are rare. The reality of crime is that the huge majority of criminals are not going to practice and plan, they are often uneducated and impatient, most violent crimes are emotional with little planning or are even spur of the moment actions. Most criminals don't want to simply kill, they want to steal or rape, and the crime starts out with some opportunity for the victim to escape or defend him/herself.

And many crimes occur in public where there are people available to help.

That's why gun ownership does reduce crime - as the data clearly shows, and as you have been shown many times.

<>

Who is going to spend the time to target a person, select a place and time, plan everything from the infiltration to exfiltration, just to kill some essentially unknown person? Its such a remote event that its irrelevant.

 

98.4% of public mass shootings since 1950 have been in places where people were prohibited from having a firearm. That's in public, not shootings in a persons home.
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/mo...ty-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

 

That's been debunked.

The Everytown propaganda includes all mass shootings, and if it cannot be determined definitively assumes all shootings in a home or business were in a place in which firearms were allowed - even if the local or state govt prohibits firearms.

Everytown also includes shootings which were not mass shootings, such as the October 2013 shooting in Terrel Texas in which only 1 person was killed.

Everytown also claimed the 2013 DC Navy Yard shooting was not a gun free zone because it had armed police - but it was and is a gun free zone.

Mass shootings are technically shootings in which at least 4 are killed by gunfire. But that's not what people are afraid of - people consider mass killings to be performed in public in which a person randomly shoots strangers. Most "mass shootings" are in private homes and involve people that know each other and are in an emotional dispute (such as divorce).

People are afraid of a Sandy Hook or an Aurora, they are not afraid of Uncle Joe coming over and killing everyone.

 

There are literally thousands of accounts of law-abiding armed citizens defending themselves from criminal attack.

 

I'm still waiting on his plan about just how he is going to accomplish this, especially after "days" of planning. After all it is the original premise of his thread.

 

So I'll play your game...1) you would have to catch me on a street in public...my house is on 15 acres and you would never get close without us being aware. 2) I live in Texas, you may get me on the street, by suprise, but how many other gun owners do you think you would get past. 3) I'm an avid cyclist, so your chance of just walking up on me are slim. 4) Since I have several different routes I take to work, your chance of planning is slim. 5) I'm a regular Joe, nondescript, medium build and unless you work in my company, I doubt you would ever target me in the first place. 6) I carry while riding, if you don't kill me in the first shot, you better believe I will return fire, and my pistol carries 30 rounds plus one.

So has this helped your thought experiment? Any questions?

 

If the "possibility" of an item being used a murder weapon is what causes your fear, you must really hate allowing friends and family access to kitchen knives, hammers, bats, and gasoline.

 

Never mind that firearms are used at least 8x more often in self-defense than to commit murder.

 

The OP message is just dumb. Just about anything could replace the word "gun" (brick, knife, hammer...) with then the same logic. Very few crimes are pre-planned assassinations.

 

I meant, for me, personally, to use a gun as a murder weapon. I guess I just don't have violent fantasies, which you seem to have (as evidenced by your OP).

 

Dropping the money on the floor is a very good idea. I know a woman who did that when mugged by two men with a knife. A mugger wants the money and will go for it, giving the person a chance to get away (or fight) as the mugger picks up the money.

 

The OPer is declaring, without saying it, that he absolutely does not want to be capable of coming to the rescue of anyone else. It is singularly only about himself.

There are members on the forum who state that having a firearm had protected them, usually merely by having it and never firing. However, firearm possession or usage can be used to defend someone else. Anti-gunners are making a statement that they would never defend anyone and only figure to runaway and hide.

 

The OP created a straw-man - he created a condition where it would be impossible, or nearly so, to use a firearm in self-defense, and then declared that because of this, firearms were useless for self-defense.

He did this because he knows he cannot present a sound argument against the right to keep and bear arms - like everyone else on the anti-gun side, he can only argue from fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

Years ago I read in a gun rag about a fellow that always carried a separate, weighted clip of money, ones wrapped in a twenty for a tactic he envisioned in the occasion of being held up, he would produce the money, briefly expose the $20 denomination and the cast the money, and then run as the bad guy moved to retrieve it. Don't remember him saying if he tried it. In martial arts and various force on force senarios, I am a big proponent of momentary distractions/diversions which usually, but not always work.
In the encounters I have had, once an aggressor has hat he figures is the upper hand, there is an expectation of compliance not resistance and and there in lies opportunity...resistance is often not expected. Indeed, many victims freeze at the unexpected...in the paraphrased words of J.B. Books, "some will hesitate, I won't".

 

Massad Ayoob wrote about that tactic; it is a way to get your assailant's attention focused elsewhere.

Otherwise, rapid action to seize the initiative forces your assailant to react to you, and that's how fights are won.

 

You ignored my questions like they didn't exist. Where do you draw the line? Law enforcement? Armored car guards? Off duty cops? Where do you stop disarming people?

 

Its like saying someone has stage four pancreatic, brain and lung cancer and since chemo won't save them, chemotherapy cannot save you from cancer

 

Or any of about a million other analogies.

 

Admittedly, with the advantage of surprise he might get the first shot in, but he might miss or only wound you, that'd give you time to pull your own gun and shoot back if you had one..

 

It could have been an article by Ayoob, I would be guessing fron 25 or more years ago. I don't remember the early evolution of my thinking on diversionary tactics, but I usually suggest them in principle, whether armed or not. With the few encounters I have had, the tactic I used in each was assembled in the instant, more I would retrospect out of an intuition developed from an early age on the level of threat I faced. I had always planned in my mind to feign fear and compliance and use something like pocket change flipped in the eyes, but never employed either. It seemed each encounter, several while quelling situations at a pub I owned, Out of something inside, I would just react quickly...time always seemed to slow for me...a strange thing.
Probably in the same timeframe of reading the article, I had a tenet, an older fellow, about 5'5", who was fearless, who also owned a pub. I saw him effectively deal with people twice his weight. While I studied martial arts, his skill was entirely self street taught. He told me when he decided to learn to fight when younger, he'd start fights to learn. After a few losses, he said he got better. LoL. But, I saw a fellow threaten him once... he said ok and took his hat off as if to prepare to fight, but flipped it in to his aggressor's face, followed by flurry of punches. It worked and I never forgot the lesson.

 

Stop lying. You're intentionally missing the point I'm trying to make because you can't address it.