Guns for home/self defense and the PA family bloodbath

[Kaleva]

In the news there was family shootout where the mother who answered the door was shot dead by her estranged daughter. A son at the home who police thought was trying to get a gun was shot dead by his brother-in-law. The father was able to get a handgun from the bedroom and first shot his daughter and then shot and killed his son-in-law.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-daughter-killed-pa-mom-shotgun-20413497

Something I've talked about before and do wonder what other members here think is that, IMO, if one believes that they need a gun for home/self defense, they ought to have that gun on their person or within easy reach at all times.

The mother probably had no chance even if she was armed but the son might have had he been so. The father was able to get to the bedroom to get his gun and save himself but he may have been able to save his son also had he been armed.

Years ago I read an article written by a retired LAPD homicide detective who said he kept his side arm on his person or within easy reach at all times. Even when taking a shower, the holstered gun was on a belt hanging on a hook just outside the shower door.

This would make a long gun as the primary weapon impractical. If I ever thought I needed a gun for home/self defense, I'd then go for a handgun and one small enough to be comfortable to have on my person all day long.

Do wonder if other DUers who have a gun for protection keep such on their person or within easy reach at all times?

[Loudly]

1. You hear a story like this and must wonder

what guns and ammunition are doing in the hands of the public at all?

[SoutherDem]

3. I guess you feel all guns should be banned

Just how do we get the criminals to give up their guns? By the way the shotgun was sawed off so it was illegal, also from another news source at least one of the guns had been stolen so the criminal had committed two felonies just by possessing the guns, no number of gun control laws would have stopped him. The man who had to defend himself used a 22 revolver, to the best of my knowledge no proposed gun control law has ever suggested banning such a gun without banning all pistols or all guns. So a full ban would have taken the gun from the man who had to defend himself but it is doubtful it would have taken the guns from the hands of the criminal.

[rl6214]

18. Just do a search for posts by Sharesunited

You'll find that he/she/loudly thinks no one should own a gun.

[bossy22]

4. because this specific type of incident is quite rare

[Eleanors38]

7. Wonder all you want. You're not in charge. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. thank the stars above.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. x2 n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. so you would prefer they be kept private?

is not all the public made up of all private individuals?

[Loudly]

12. Law enforcement until they are no longer at risk of getting shot. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

14. Because some find them the best tools for problem solving.

Not to mention the best toys for "family fun".

[gejohnston]

17. you don't grasp the difference between

"problem solving" vs defending yourself from a violent sociopath?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. If you have a problem that requires it, no other tool will suffice.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Developing improvisational skills trumps any particular tool.

But that takes complex brain functions, rather than a two dimensional mindset that only deals in absolutes like "requires' and "no other will suffice".

[ManiacJoe]

23. Proper planning by having the needed tools negates the need

to improvise in cases like this.

Being able to improvise is a good thing. Needing to improvise is not usually a good thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. It also allows a greater range of possible responses, perhaps eliminating the need to use it.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Proper planning for what? A professional hit?

Survival and self defense is not about "proper planning", but rather staying nimble. If you can't think on your feet, then a gun will probably do you more harm than good. Thinking that a gun is the best tool to carry, except in the most extreme circumstances, is beyond foolish.

[ManiacJoe]

44. You have the right idea.

Nimble is a good thing. Having the proper tools to make use of the nimbleness is even better. A gun is a good tool for dealing with lethal threats at a distance. You can make due with one up close if your lack of handy tools limits your options.

> Thinking that a gun is the best tool to carry, except in the most extreme circumstances, is beyond foolish.

Glad you agree. "Best" depends on the circumstances at hand. Many times other self defense tools are better than guns for a given situation. However, sometimes a gun is the correct tool for the job.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Some situations don't allow for a range of responses.

Exit a plane at altitude without a parachute, improvise all you like, you're going to wish you had a 'chute.

[Starboard Tack]

42. our analogy demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.

I gather you either never fly commercially, or you always wear a parachute. Or maybe, just maybe, you stay in your seat and enjoy the flight.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. I do, but I accept the risk.

There are certainly instances where people died in commercial air accidents that did so, wishing for a parachute, however.

[Starboard Tack]

45. OK, you accept the risk of flying without a chute

But you think walking around with a gun improves your chances of survivng an ordinary day? I agree that carrying a gun makes sense if you are expecting a gunfight, just as a chute would be appropriate if you are going sky diving. Otherwise, I think accepting the risks is the smarter thing to do.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. The risks across both categories is not equal.

[Starboard Tack]

47. True that. Chutes don't kill people, gravity does.

[Ranchemp.]

48. Gravity doesn't kill,

it's that sudden, abrupt stop at the bottom. LOL.

[rrneck]

49. Deceleration trauma sucks. ntt

[Ranchemp.]

50. That it does.

[SoutherDem]

2. Now that you brought it up

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 11:48 AM - Edit history (2)

Yes, I have my Walther PPS 9mm with two extra magazines on me. It is usually either on my body (or close by in the bathroom), safely stored in a drawer by my bed while I sleep or locked in my glove box in my locked car if I must go into a business which doesn't allow guns (usually that is only the bank). Since I am sure I will receive grief from some of our friends who don't like guns I will go for broke, it is loaded with Hornady Critical Defense 115 gr FTX Bullets and it is locked and loaded.

My mom was once held up on her front porch, thank goodness the man only wanted money so I know just because you are safely in your home doesn't mean you need to be an easy target.

[Lurks Often]

5. It's finding the right balance

The mother in the story made a mistake in opening the door without seeing who was there first.

I recognize that the police will not get here in time to stop a home invasion, so I take the necessary precautions to give me a chance to get to a gun before they can get through the door.

The mindset is much the same as why we wear seat belts in a car. We don't get in the car expecting to get in a car accident, but we recognize it is a possibility so we take the precaution of putting the seatbelt on.

[jeepnstein]

6. Tragedies like this don't happen in some vacuum.

There's undoubtedly quite a bit that led up to the exchange of gunfire. And I'll venture to say it probably wasn't that much of a surprise when it happened. It's a rare enough kind of thing that it would make news.

Once a family falls apart to the point that the children are willing to murder their parents it's only a matter of what tools they choose. Firearm, arson, axe, poison, it all results in dead bodies in a needless tragedy. I've seen it happen before.

Having said that I'll answer the question about firearms within easy reach. No, most times my weapons are under lock and key unless it's securely holstered on my person. And I don't generally carry a weapon at home. Of course I have a few more options at my disposal than many. But I'm kind of the exception and not the rule in the fact that I'm pretty much as dangerous unarmed as armed. There are many people who are unable to learn what I've learned and those kinds of folks are quite often victimized. My choice isn't necessarily right for everyone else and I wouldn't want to limit their options.

I would prefer that my wife have her pistol available when I'm not home. She's not always on board with that because she feels that the risk of leaving it out outweighs the benefit. In the event of an intruder she's falling back to the safe room where the firearms are kept anyway. Her plan is reasonable and thought-out. And that matters most. Oh, and if she gets a hold of your arm or neck you're probably going to see stars at the least.

[Eleanors38]

8. One can always find flaws in a SD scheme, but when home...

I have a handgun ready beside the bed (most central location, and a "retreat room&quot . I don't answer the door blindly, but first check who is there, then inquire before opening. The front door is solid & difficult to "body blow" due to a decorative railing; the weaker back door has a hasp lock. Then, there is another interior door jammed by a bike.

I have only once opened a door with gun-in-hand, and even then propped my body against it with the revolver held well away from the door if it is forced.

[ileus]

9. Never answer your door at night without your HD firearm.

Technically you are correct we should always OC when at home, but out of convenience most of us don't.

I normally wait until the house gets quiet at night before I get out the 45.


From the story we can learn it pays to be prepared, or suffer the consequences.

[Starboard Tack]

13. "I normally wait until the house gets quiet at night before I get out the 45."

Sure you do

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. My situation:

My home would be very difficult to get into w/o some degree of audible warning (secure condo building, second floor, very sturdy door w/ a deadbolt). My protection handgun is the only one loaded and not in the safe when I'm home, and it's not going to be more than a few steps away (it's not a big place). I'm comfortable with that, and don't see the need to have the weapon on my actual person. Oh, and I live by myself, save for my cat...who has built in weapons.

I also generally advise against a long gun as a primary home defense weapon. Most rifles will have overpenetration problems, and shotguns can be unwieldy. If you have to use both hands on the weapon, how are you going to call for help, if you weren't able to previously? Handguns are the better choice.

[Kaleva]

16. I recently found out that a neighbor lady handles her gun pretty much the same as you do.

My ex actually found this out when talking to the woman one day and she then told me. This lady has a valid Michigan CPL and keeps the handgun on her person when she's out and about and keeps the gun near by when she is home.

[krispos42]

19. I've seen a picture floating around the inter-tubes...

...of the way a guy keeps his self-defense gun in his bathroom.

It was a pistol (a Glock, IIRC) that I presume was loaded with a regular 17-round magazine, and a 31-round magazine that I assume was the spare.

They were sealed in plastic, like from that food-saving vacuum-seal gizmo you see on TV, and hung from his showerhead.




Not sure how he planned to open up the plastic.

[SQUEE]

21. I keep a suppressed SBR in 300 BLK

near the only entry point of my home, which is a perfect fatal funnel, all else is locked away, and when I leave it goes in the safe, as required by law. I feel far more comfortable using a rifle in a home defense situation, and actually value it as a striking weapon as well as a very stable platform, not every intruder neads to be a fatality, I would far rather but stroke someone than to shoot them, and if given the choice would rather go with a less lethal method first.

[SheilaT]

27. Just another responsible gun owners.

Or gun owners, plural.

Since they were apparently all gun owners, I'd say this is an excellent example of the Darwin principle at work. Maybe we can nominate this entire family for a Darwin award.

All of you who have guns, just keep firmly in mind the vastly greater chance of something like this happening than in a family where (gasp! Imagine this!) no one owns a gun.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. + about a million.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. Since the OP link doesn't seem to work...

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/29/police-daughter-killed-pa-mom-with-shotgun/

...here is another about the same story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/pa-family-feud-ends-blood-bath-cops-article-1.1471190

You seem to be suggesting that somehow this whole family could have been united in some kind of alliance to remain without firearms and that some material difference would have been the result. This family was estranged from the daughter and her husband. Had the family been unarmed, it seems likely the daughter and her husband would have survived after killing the parents and brother and burned the house. These two factions had hostilities going back decades. The story says the father didn't recognize his daughter. The DA states that the daughter and her husband planned and prepared to kill her family.

Just conjecture here on my part but this family seems heavily dysfunctional overall. I'm wondering if you have a suggestion as to how any "gunless" ideal would have been achieved in this circumstance. There are 600 million guns in private hands worldwide. Half of them are here in the US.

[SheilaT]

30. What horrifies me is that so many here

justify gun ownership and seem to accept the many thousands of gun deaths we have every year in this country as a trivial side effect of that gun ownership.

Simply put, if none of those people had guns this senseless tragedy wouldn't have happened. Since it did, I can only say I'm glad these people all killed each other, and not other unarmed innocents.

And doesn't it strike you as a little strange that fully half of the guns in private hands worldwide are in the U.S.?

Personally, I've become in favor of outright confiscation, which I know will never happen. But as long as gun apologists support the widespread ownership of guns, they they are hypocritical to express any surprise or outrage over gun deaths. I just wish that the only people who are killed or maimed by guns were only those who also owned them. Keep it the family, so to speak.

[oneshooter]

31. But you feel no empathy with those killed by automobiles.

Or drown in pools, or are killed by knives, or clubbed to death.

[SheilaT]

33. Let's see, automobiles are not specifically designed to kill living things.

And fewer people actually die in automobile accidents than by guns. The other means of death you name, while tragic, don't hold a candle to gun deaths.

I do find that most deaths, by gun, car, knife, whatever, to be tragic. But I have no sympathy for the oblivious gun owners. Which is why I say I wish those deaths were confined to the gun owners themselves, not the others. A family where they basically all kill each other with guns is Darwinism at its best.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. And yet those killed by automobiles are just as dead...

[SheilaT]

35. Oh, gosh. That's a comfort.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. Death is not something to take lightly...

...or to trivialize. Injuries and deaths by whatever means are important. Your proposition that "this senseless tragedy wouldn't have happened" doesn't follow from your premise, "if none of these people had guns". Claiming that someone who has premeditated an attack and murder would be prevented from his plans by a law against guns is a bit naive. I am all for action that will make a difference in such cases but the violence problem has numerous facets.

Confiscation will take lifetimes before criminals find it even twice as difficult to get a firearm. In the intervening years those who aren't criminals and pursue peaceful and lawful uses of firearms are hindered from hunting, competing and even defending themselves if they had wanted to prepare in that way. Being in favor of something you consider impossible isn't logical.


But seriously, "I'm glad these people all killed each other, and not other unarmed innocents." How could you be "glad" someone killed someone else? The daughter and her husband were criminals and planned to murder family members. I don't care what differences and issues you have with someone; deciding to become the aggressors in a deadly attack makes one a worthless criminal. Her parents and brother are not the bad guys here.

[gejohnston]

38. you realize of course,

that there is no evidence that any lives will be saved. Suicides will die of other means, and gang bangers will continue to shoot each other just like every other country. See Jamaica.
That said, the CDC and FBI estimates 100K people use guns to defend themselves every year. Some peer reviewed criminology studies, funded by the DoJ, put the estimates in the millions.

[Jenoch]

32. Your theory does not seem to apply in this case.

The daughter and her husband were intent on murdering her family. If there were no guns available, they would likely have found another way to kill her family. A fertilizer bomb comes to mind.

[SheilaT]

36. I just love the way the gun apologists

always say the murder would happen some other way. Because in countries that restrict guns, there are frequent mass stabbings, or home-made bombs to get rid of unwanted spouses.

Really?

[gejohnston]

39. Actually, yes

Unwanted spouses usually by stabbing. The last two mass murders in Australia since Port Author were by arson Both had very high death tolls.

[Jenoch]

40. Go back and re-read my post.

You probably should work on your reading comprehension as well.

Here, I'll post it again.

"Your theory does not seem to apply in this case."

The daughter was psychotic and her husband supported her. Do you really think that someone who is capable of blasting their own mother, brother and father with a gun in a pre-planned exeution style would not be willing to use another method to exeute her plan?

This shooting was not a heat of the moment situation where the only reason a death occured is because a gun happened to be nearby. You seem to have such a hatred of guns that you seemed to have lost some ability to reason things out.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Actually, they've been restricting, and considering banning pointy knives in the UK for some time.

You can't buy a knife set in the UK without ID.
Bans are considered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

So uh, thanks for proving the point.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Must you shit on the victims too?