Decius wrote:

The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

I know a lot of people who explain their gun ownership based on the theory that they are going to defend themselves from some sort of home invasion. I think of this a bit like I think of Ralphie Parker's dreams of fending off Black Bart with his BB gun. In general, your home is not going to be invaded while you are there, and you are not going to defend yourself this way if it does happen. Shooting can be a fun hobby, but you're not John Wayne.

A home invasion when you're not there is just called "a burglary".

As far as a home invasion when you are there is concerned, some us actually do go to the door armed when someone knocks/rings that we weren't expecting, so don't write that off so quickly. "Defending" isn't exactly the best word to use... We're probably just going to try to kill anyone who wants to force their way in, knowing they're damn well going to kill us first if they get the chance.

That is the point of being armed at home for self-defense purposes. As someone is kicking in your front door is a bit too late to run to the local gun shop to arm up. Most of those people in your study in Atlanta have probably gotten caught with their pants down because the mere presence of the gun made them feel safe enough to do things many of us don't do, like, go to meet a stranger at the door without it.

I bet those people go to the door with the gun in hand now. Let's see what a study on that scenario reveals.

RE: Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia. - washingtonpost.com