I want to create a large private community that requires gun ownership for residency.

That doesn’t alter the fact. People with guns are more likely to get shot.

 

How do you draw that conclusion from " crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves "

Notably, no study can capture the numbers of DGUs where a gun was use but not fired to stop an attack, and were never reported. Not accounting for these would vastly SKU the results of any study.

 

The article cited on the part of yourself is hidden behind a pay wall, meaning one must actually purchase it in order to discover what criteria was used in reaching such conclusions. Therefore the citation is invalid, and not conductive of an open, honest, or legitimate debate or discussion. Try again.

 

Only those who are predisposed to engaging in illegal activity.

 

Let’s assume you just have a gun in the home, it’s more likely simeone will get shot....regardless.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/

 

If you have ropes, bed sheets or belts in your house, you're harboring items that are used in the fastest growing method of suicide, growing almost 90% since 1999, and that results in the deaths of over 11,000 people every year.

If you use a car rather than take the bus, you're 60 times more likely to be killed.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/12/19/heres-how-much-safer-transit-is-compared-to-driving/

 

the studies cited and supported on the part of yourself are false, and are based on a false premise. The presence of a firearm within the home does not increase the likelihood of it being used for either homicidal or suicidal purposes, in an individual that is not already predisposed towards such inclinations.

 

Typical of Trump Humper gun nuts. You repeat BS over and over till it becomes factual n your own mind, seldom without any reference. That’s why you guys are so tedious.,
Moving on.....means, I really don’t care to discuss this with you anymore.

 

More accurately it means that it is not actually possible for yourself, or anyone else engaged in this discussion, to demonstrate the link between legal firearms ownership, and suicidal thoughts and/or tendencies that do not otherwise exist in the individual in question. Just as it is not possible to demonstrate a link between legal firearms ownership, and being a victim of a violent crime.

Ultimately the only reason the matter is not being addressed in depth by yourself is that those who are being addressed recognize the shortcomings being presented, and call them out immediately.

 

Some people deserve to be shot.

 

Sweet. You just made the case for gun control; Judge, jury and executioner. .

 

Does someone who has broken into your house with malice aforethought deserve to be shot?

 

That depends.

 

So you admit that there are circumstances where someone deserves to be shot, as was claimed?

 

640.00256 acres

 

Did I say that ? The average gun owner is not trained to be the judge, jury and executioner. I don’t assume you are anymore then average. My advice has been to anyone who wants to buy a gun for home defense, is to first make sure their home owners policy covers any negligence and train till,you’re sick of it in a place that mimics your home. Any kids around, lock up the firearm till they move out. Generally, if you fear break ins, it’s time to either move, or totally commit yourself to regular training especially living in a development with a nearby house only yards away.

. If you think I have not owned a plethora of firearms, have trained for many years and worked at jobs where I was mandated to carry daily, , you’d be wrong. People who live in fear and also Live in housing developments or apartments , you have some serious considerations to make. So no, I don’t think Many people who have guns, should., nor do I think the average gun owner should be making that judgement.

Personally, I’d get a dog with the loudest bark and give him free reign of the House.

 

With everyone armed, as long as you mandate the houses are all, cement block, have at it.

 

I wrote "Does someone who has broken into your house with malice aforethought deserve to be shot?". You responded "That depends". The only logical inference is that you believe that there are circumstances where someone does deserve to be shot, else your answer would have been "no".

Care to explain "it depends"?

 

I just made the case for self defense and security for the innocent.

 

No, I already did. Your obviously not interested in hearing anything you’re not ready to argue about.
Moving on.

 

Congratulations.

 

How much training does one realistically need for determining that one who has broken into their home poses a credible threat to their well being?

Again. How much training does one realistically need for determining that one who has broken into their home poses a credible threat to their well being? What can be taught in a classroom environment that is not already known?

For what legitimate purpose?

Such is not a viable option for consideration.

Pray tell, what are the statistics for neighbors who have been injured or killed by another neighbor engaged in an act of legitimate self defense? Such a position would obviously not be established unless there was ample evidence to demonstrate that such is a significant, overwhelming problem in need of being addressed. So where is the evidence?

See above.

Not everyone has the legal option of getting a dog, especially one that is both large and loud. Even if it was a viable option, dogs are quite expensive, quite destructive, and have a tendency to die. The same does not apply to owning a firearm.

 

Self defense is not being judge, jury, and executioner. I don't know the law of all the states, but Texas law is clear when deadly force is justified. Among other reasons, deadly force can be used to prevent rape, arson, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and to stop forced entry into a legally occupied vehicle or building. I'm not required to use that deadly force, but I am justified in it's use and will not face prosecution.

My kids have never handled my guns without my supervision and they have never had access to my guns (or their guns) until they were legally able to. They all shoot proficiently. My oldest is AD military. My youngest is 17 and now has the combination to my gun safe . That is the age of consent in Texas for secured firearms.



I have dogs, but I have had aggression issues with dogs and my 87 year old MIL lives with us and we watch our 4 year old great niece. Dogs aren't always a perfect solution.

Texas has 1.3 million people licensed to carry a firearm, including my wife and I, and these people are far less than 10 times less likely to commit a crime as the average Texan, based on all conviction records tabulated by the state annually. This is the type of person who I would select to recruit into this community we are discussing.

 

You wrote a response that didn't explain under what circumstances shooting someone it your home "depended" upon. Either such circumstances exist, or they don't.

Are there people who deserve to be shot under some circumstances?

 

Speaking for myself only. If an intruder is a threat to life and limb I would consider him/her fair game. Now, what does that mean? It doesn't mean just being present in your home. I could mean he is moving towards you with aggressive intentions. It could mean he's armed. I would suggest you know if someone is a threat. Thousands of years of evolution has given us the skill to read peoples intentions.