Home Security... Please help.

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek, those unstable kids at Columbine wouldn't have killed as many if they had knives or baseball bats.



With great power comes great responsibility. That's all I'm asking for. Responsible gun ownership and responsible gun ownership laws.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Also, R Shek, you mentioned that:

The news media is always reporting on child deaths due to guns. LESS THAN 20 DEATHS OCCUR EACH YEAR DUE TO A CHILD FINDING A GUN IN THE HOUSE.

As I check the 2004 stats put out by the CDC, broken into different age groups, I see a much different set of stats:





Ages 5-9: 13 (tied with three others)

Ages 10-14: 35

Ages 15-19: 80

-------------------------

Total: 128 minors killed accidentally by firearms per year, 2004



Sure, that's not an epidemic; and yes, we can argue if more responsible gun ownership would have actually helped matters and decreased these numbers.



But let's at least quote credible sources and get the numbers straight.



Here is my source:

 

[Bill V]

TJR, I didn't look up the numbers myself to check your accuracy--but if your descriptions in your post are correct, then your numbers are too low. Why? Because it only tallies minors killed accidentally by firearms. That doesn't include all the firearms deaths--both homicides and suicides--caused by intentional firearm use by a minor. Granted, not all of those would have been prevented by not having a gun in the house--many obtained their weapons from other sources. But some of them would have been prevented.



I'm living proof. I can say with 100% confidence that if there had been a firearm in our house during my teenage years, I would have been one of the firearm-inflicted suicide statistics at the CDC. I count myself as one life saved by having a gun-free home.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yes, BillV, I was only looking at accidential deaths due to firearms. I did that because R Shek was talking about deaths due to "a child finding a gun in the house".



TJR

 

[TomT]

I would settle for stricter laws regarding gun use. Like an automatic death penalty for the use of a firearm while committing a crime and life in prison for parents when their kids use their weapon to harm themselves or others. But of course damn lawyers would never allow such a thing.

 

[Bill V]

Yes TJR--and "deaths due to a child finding a gun in the house" should include both murders and suicides using guns obtained in the home, not just accidents. On the other hand, not all accidental firearm deaths can be categorized as being "due to a child finding a gun in the house"--I would think that category would include deaths from guns found in other locations, hunting accidents, etc.



Let me be clear, though--I'm not buying R Shek's "20 deaths" statistic either. I highly suspect that the people who came up with this number didn't include murders or suicides--only accidental deaths. And whatever number would be accurate, I firmly believe that it's far lower than it would be if all households had guns. Again, I'm living proof, and I know I'm not the only case of this.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I agree, Bill V, there is no specific "deaths caused by accident when kids find a gun in the home" stat (that I could find). The best one I could find was for unintential firearm deaths for minors.



The fact that said stat is over 6 times what Shek quoted, and arguably both are rooted in the same base cause, I thought was worth "quoting".



When I say "same base cause", what I mean is that what Shek was describing (a child finding a gun in the home) and the more general statistic I quoted are both rooted in the same general cause, which is "kids killed unintentionally by guns". That general, base cause is the one I want to see responsible gun ownership attempt to lower.



But then, I guess that is too controversial a topic. I say that not sarcastically but objectively. It seems that whenever someone asks that gun owners be responsible so that kids can't kill themselves (or be killed) unintentionally with their guns the same backlash occurs. I guess this call for responsibility is something that cannot be asked for, lest people wave their Constitutional Rights in your face along with a bunch of general stats and rhetoric; all in what appears to be interference to stave off the original plea...PLEASE BE RESPONSIBLE!



I've read many surveys that says that if every home had a gun then violence, crime, and even gun related deaths would go down. Maybe they are factual and accurate, but the reality is they are a "what if" supposition set of surveys...they aren't cold hard facts. A cold hard fact is that a gun in the home is far more likely (as high as 43x) to be used to kill a family member than an intruder (see gun-advocate website link below that regurges this controversial stat).



But as I said, even if a gun in every home "helped" with the problems out there, that still wouldn't excuse people from being responsible gun owners. Again, that's all I and many others are asking for...and is even what the website below seems to be asking for. Before getting a gun in your home, make sure there is a need, and that it will do more good than harm.



TJR

 

[KentheREALone Z]

Like I said, before this became an NRA debate;

1) Motion sensing floodlights, the kind that have an alarm that plugs into a receptacle indoors and sounds when the infrared motion sensor activates. Available at Lowes/Home Depot. Can put four separate units in the house. Hell, I have one on my dock 200 ft. away and it still sounds an alarm in my house. Can't see the dock from the house, so this really helps.

2) Security cameras. Wireless work okay if your receiver is close and not many walls between that and the camera. Use a separate monitor or wire into your TV PIP. Inexpensive and available anywhere.

3) Motion sensing cameras with software. Leave a PC on and it will record any motion that you set the range to. Inexpensive units at Radio Shack/Sams/BJ's/Costco/Internet.

4) Signs, I forgot but somebody mentioned it. Buy some along with decals. Keeps the punks honest, without you going to jail. Use them on windows around the house, and put a sign in the front yard.

5) Forget the Smith & Wesson "pry it from my cold dead fingers" nonsense attitude. All that does is advertise you. Use your head, if you want firearm(s) to back yourself up, get educated. Take classes, make sure your family goes with you. Make sure they are ALL confortable. Be legal. Firearms are wonderful pieces of machinery, that deserve respect and knowledge, just like Formula One Cars, Space Shuttles, or even Sport Tracs.

6) A dog. If it fits in your life, can be a major help.

7) A professional alarm system.

8) Vote.

9) Move.

That's about it in my opinion. Good Luck.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Don't you mean a "Liberty debate"?



Or maybe a "personal responsibility debate"?



Automobiles cause a lot more deaths than firearms. With your logic, we should ban automobiles.

 

[TomT]

Automobiles cause a lot more deaths than firearms. With your logic, we should ban automobiles.

Sorry Gavin but trying to equate automobile deaths to gun deaths just doesn't cut it. Your going to have to do way better then that.

 

[Rich Stern]

Sorry Gavin but trying to equate automobile deaths to gun deaths just doesn't cut it. Your going to have to do way better then that.

Why? Every year in the US, about 25,000 people are killed by drunks using a car. A person using a machine to irresponsibly and illegally harm others. Why don't you hear of the car being blamed? When these stories are on the news, why don't we see pictures of people buying cars at car dealers? Or bottles of vodka at a liquor store? Why is it that with DUI deaths, people are the problem, but with gun deaths, it's the gun's fault?



Bill, I'm glad you are alive. To counter balance your surivival story, there are plenty of unarmed, innocent people who get killed by criminal predators in their own homes. Battered wives. Home invasions. Sexual predators. Who among those victims might be alive if they had ready access to a firearm for self-defense? Certainly, some would be.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Rich-- I like that: a newscast about all these senseless deaths, and the camera panning across the local Ford dealer showing all the "weapons" out in plain view, with no restrictions on people buying them-- no background checks, no personality tests, no approval from the local police sheriff-- nothing.



Yeah-- blaming the machine or tool for doing the killing is irrational. PEOPLE kill, not the tool or the machine. It is a people problem, not a problem with the tool or machine.



Time to start thinking about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY....

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

BillV - I may have missed what happened to you. Can you summarize it?



I appoligize for the 20 deaths a year statement. I was doing some research and came across that stat and now I can find it again to back it up. I don't know where they got their numbers but I will retract that until or unless I can find that information again.



What do the following have in common:



- Hammer

- Screwdriver

- Sledgehammer

- Tree chipper

- Firearm



If you said all tools, you are right, but more to the point all have been used to kill people. Let's use Handgun Control Inc.'s standard and force background checks on purchasing a hammer. Let's propose a 7-day waiting period to purchase a screwdriver. We should ban all sledgehammers for the disproportionate amount of damage they cause. Tree chippers are right up there with automatic weapons... few and far between. Not even law enforcement needs tree chippers.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I was waiting for the tired and nonsensical argument about banning and restricting other things, like hand tools, and cars, because they kill and injure more people than guns a year.



It's simply more "interference" and static to try to end the debate as I see it.



Cars, tools, etc, all have some useful purpose that we as a society need. Still, we have made them (cars and tools) saver, and we have put restrictions on them; restrictions and safety precautions that are in-line with their danger, but not so burdensome as to reduce their usefulness in any meaningful way.



Guns too have a use and a useful purpose. They too can be dangerous and require the appropriate level of restrictions. As long as those restrictions don't limit their usefulness in any meaningful way then I have no issue with said restrictions.



So, maybe the gun advocates should show how the restrictions being placed on them are limiting the usefulness of guns. I think that would be very hard to show. Waiting to buy a gun, having to get a permit for it, etc...I don't see as hardships or limiting the useful purpose of a gun in any real way.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

R Shek--Scan up through this thread, it's in the post I made which has two words bolded and underlined. (Will help you visually pick out the right post quickly.)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

XST,



Back to your issue.



You have to ask yourself the following questions:



1) Was this an isolated issue?



2) Might it simply have been a couple of drunk people stumbling home (it happens)?



3) Do you think you live in a good neighborhood?



4) What would the local police based on their knowledge of crime statistics in your neighborhood recommend (a security system; neighborhood watch; a gun)?



If you can answer those questions you might be able set your mind at ease, and/or plan accordingly.



TJR

 

[TomT]

To counter balance your survival story, there are plenty of unarmed, innocent people who get killed by criminal predators in their own homes. Battered wives. Home invasions. Sexual predators. Who among those victims might be alive if they had ready access to a firearm for self-defense? Certainly, some would be.

And that Rich is exactly why I have guns and always keep my Glock close by. Again, I don't want to ban guns or take them away from people. I just want to make it a little harder for irresponsible/dangerous people to obtain them. Will it make a difference? Probably not a whole lot but SOMETHING needs to be done.

Since you guys brought up the automobile correlation, I still remember people getting all irate when seatbelt laws went into effect and again when air-bags became mandatory. Both of those has saved countless lives that I can personally relate to. Have they done away with automobile deaths? Hell no. But I can assure you they would be worse without seat belts and air-bags.

I don't see why all NRA people become agitated whenever someone suggests even a subtle change in the gun laws. There is a definite problem in this country with guns. I may not have the solution but at least acknowledge and accept the fact that something needs to be done. Maybe if everyone saw as many people I have that have been shot with a gun then they would feel the same way. It's a lot worse then what you see on tv, trust me.



ps. Good answer Ken to OP. Sorry if I'm helping to hijack OT.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TomT,



Good post. Yes, I too can't understand the attitude.



TJR

 

[Todd Z]

Are Flair guns legal in Canada ????



I would hate to be hit by one of them !!!! :lol::lol:



I know IT is a PITA to get a hand gun in NY, waiting period, back round search, all the jazz...

It took a while to get mine....



BUT if you have a drivers license and are over 18, you can buy a rifle, shotgun at the local wall mart any day of the week...



Todd Z

 

[Bill V]

7) A professional alarm system.

Be wary of that. ADT is facing a big lawsuit in this area because they put a system in a house owned by a woman getting threats by a former boyfriend. They system was supposed to go off if any of the wires into the house were interupted (phone lines, etc.) or if anyone broke in any of the doors or windows. Both happened, the woman and her new boyfriend, sleeping inside, were killed, and the alarm didn't go off until the killer had left and the woman's children (who were also inside the house) were fleeing it to a neighbor's house to call for help. The new boyfriend had a gun in the bedroom, thinking that if the former boyfriend should break in, the alarm system would give him time to grab the gun and use it if necessary. It never happened.



Story about the whole situation at the link below.



FYI, the afterstory--the woman's four children were adopted by her sister and brother-in-law. They had one kid of their own at the time, and were pregnant with twins. So suddenly, their family of three became a family of nine nearly overnight. "Extreme Makeover--Home Edition" recently built them a new house--it was the largest house they ever built. It will be featured on a two-hour version of their show on November 25.