> But if you have good reason to believe someone is after you, this is the only way to go.

What pray tell is this hypothetical threat? Who is this attacker who comes in your bedroom in the middle of the night to use lethal force against you, but gives you time to rouse, grab your weapon, and acquire target? Or they wake you by running in with full knowledge committed to memory of the layout of your house and your sleeping arrangements so that they can beat you to your gun safe? They’ve cased the joint but they’re not going to wait until you come out to get in your car in the morning?

If you believe someone is after you, your resources would be better spent getting support from others, or physically securing your living space, or getting the hell out of dodge.

▲

BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> What pray tell is this hypothetical threat?

I said "if you have good reason to believe someone is after you". That precludes hypothetical threats.

People sometimes make enemies who threaten to kill them. Some of them actually try to kill them. Some of them are people who know them and their house/apartment intimately. Start looking around. Lots and lots of cases of people who get out on bail and kill the person in the next few days.

> They’ve cased the joint but they’re not going to wait until you come out to get in your car in the morning?

If you're going to kill someone, are you going to do it that openly, when it may be easier to do it in the home?

> If you believe someone is after you, your resources would be better spent getting support from others, or physically securing your living space, or getting the hell out of dodge.

I actually agree, with the caveat that only the last one works, and is not feasible for many.

▲

relaxing 2 days ago | parent [-]

A lot is feasible if your life is at stake. Living through a wild west fantasy of beating your murderous ex to the draw is probably the least feasible.

If forced to choose between rampaging through someone’s house in close quarters combat, or waiting outside for them to come to me, I’d pick the latter.

▲

BeetleB 2 days ago | parent [-]

> If forced to choose between rampaging through someone’s house in close quarters combat, or waiting outside for them to come to me, I’d pick the latter.

And many wouldn't.

> A lot is feasible if your life is at stake.

I won't argue the point - people have different opinions on this, and it's not a topic you're going to get a "clear correct" answer for. The point still stands: Some people choose not to leave, and then their options become limited. They often have to live the rest of their life in fear, and not everyone can get a new identity.[0]

Also, as I and others have pointed out - just the mere fact that you have a gun, are trained to use it well, and keep it on/near you at all times will deter a significant percentage of problematic people.

The other thing to point out - this thread is filled with the extremes (including my examples). It's not always the case that someone has planned to kill someone. There is a continuum of threats.

BTW, try living in the rural[1] parts of my state, where everyone has a gun, and the police funding is low, and often the 911 operator will tell people "Sorry, we're out of resources and it'll take at least 30-60 minutes to get to you. Do what you can to defend yourself"[2] People routinely take advantage of the fact that the police will not get there in time, and not having a gun is inviting such folks.

[0] A coworker's father recently passed away. When it happened, he revealed to me that he had lived much of his life in fear that his father would show up at the door with a gun and shoot him. Even when he lived in a different state. Not exaggerating to say he was relieved when he died. Weirdly enough, he got a gun only after his father died.

[1] And by rural, I still mean a proper city where you have neighbors next to you, etc.

[2] Paraphrasing an actual 911 call.

	▲	relaxing 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> many people wouldn’t Yeah, many people are stupid and/or crazy or just hotheads making rash decisions in the heat of the moment which kind of blows apart your rational calculus of armed deterrence. I don’t know what your state is. I live in a rural part of my state, and the open warfare you’re describing doesn’t sound like anything I’ve heard about. I think it might be time to move, friend. Whatever’s holding you there can’t be worth your life.

▲

sugarplant 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

im curious where you live where home invasions dont happen. i live in one of the safest states in the US and home invasions happen here.

people actually do commit random violence in home invasions by the way. your having chosen not to look into it at all or read the news ever doesnt negate this. its to say that random violence in home invasions is common, but the point is that it does happen. and i think people should have a very effective means to defend themselves.

theres even been a serial killer that committed home invasions by claiming to be police upon breaking in. this also happened recently with those politicians that got assassinated.

if you dont want to have a firearm thats your choice. dont see why you think this is necessary for other people though.

▲

relaxing a day ago | parent [-]

of course home invasions happen, but they’re rare. and the number involving guns is much smaller. look up the statistics instead of getting scared watching the news.

so a police officer shows up at your door. you’re going to greet them with a gun drawn? that will get you killed.

i do own a firearm, but i don’t walk around with it like a cowboy. and i discourage others because of all the risks mentioned.

	▲	dmoy a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> look up the statistics https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt As of 2010, about a million home invasions per year in the US, 250k of which end up with the occupier (owner, renter) being a victim of some violent crime. Not a lot ending in death though. Also I think the numbers went down a bit from 2010.
	▲	sugarplant 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>and the number involving guns is much smaller. lol. a threat of violence can exist without the gun. im glad you are confident in your ability to beat any random, unknown stranger (especially tweakers) in a tussle. as someone with bjj and boxing experience i would say this is unbelievably arrogant though. >look up the statistics instead of getting scared watching the news. ive seen the same ones that the other guy replied to you with. this is almost not worth replying to because you are just being snide and dismissive. to reciprocate, do you realize that the statistics (which you havent actually read) aren't the governing force of what happens to you in your life? statistics are a model of reality. for example, what do you think the odds would say that between when i replied to your post yesterday and now, that i experienced a break in where someone was trying to climb into my son's room at 3 in the morning? do you think my first thought was about the statistical likelihood of it? for the record i live in one of the safest states in the US. life isn't a spreadsheet with numbers on it, genius. if you are comforted by those numbers, good for you. telling others to not be scared of bad things happening to them is peak dork arrogance.