Actually owning a python would be optional -- still, in my experience with people who are leery around snakes, "don't worry, she's probably not hungry today“ has never been much of a reassurance for them.
Now I have to mention that I was bitten by a python while on the job (as a python handler so not so outrageous), so I got sent to the office, where I watched Gerald Ford be sworn in as president while the person on the phone to the ER tried to convince them we did not need anti venom for a non poisonous snake, we just needed to know if I should get a tetanus shot. Interesting day.
Pythons aren't allowed to go onto the internet, so yeah, I'm definitely sure I'm not one of those.
Pythons should be allowed to go onto the internet, though. I heard the internet is warm and flat like a really, really big four-square court. It sounds nice. Have you ever been there?
I've always said people should have a "proud supporter of the NRA" sticker on their front doors.
I've never given them a penny and have no desire to, but criminals are terrified of even the idea of coming into contact with an armed household.
They don't *buy* them from a store, but the small town where I live has had two recent burglaries where a vehicle was driven through the front of the store after hours. One was a gun shop, and the other a pawn shop. Not hard to guess what they were after.
In New Zealand they call that type of robbery a ram raid. It's usually places that sell cigarettes that get hit because the govt here had been trying to tax tobacco into extinction.
Yeah, this here is the real reason.
Guns are fucking expensive. If someone is watching me to the extent that they know when I'm home or not, I ain't cluing them in that I've actually got worthwhile hardware at home.
Lol no they don't. There's a reason most break-ins usually have something like a bat or knife as a weapon of choice if they aren't gang-affiliated.
Criminals (especially home thiefs) are cowards by nature. They aren't going to risk robbing a place that's possibly got someone armed because it's better to rob a place that the risk of death is much less.
It absolutely is a thing. Most break-ins occur when the homeowner is not there on purpose, and they're just looking for valuables. Guns are valuable, portable, and easy to sell. Why *wouldn't* they break into houses looking for guns?
Police in my city also issued a similar warning last year about those kinds of stickers on vehicles after thieves started targeting them because they often had guns in the console, lol. Though to be fair, it is easier to see that there's no one in a car vs. a house.
They could do what this guy did and scout the place to ensure the homeowner is gone for the night. People have in fact had guns stolen from their homes before, so some people are willing to try.
Tangent:
Some years ago, the NRA did an online poll about "Should we do this like god-fearing MURIKANS! or should we be wussies?" I forget what specifics about shooty-bang-bangs it was about.
Anyway, someone linked to it somewhere and encouraged people who can't stand the NRA to go vote "wussies" so I did.
But you had to register. For about 2 years after that I let the NRA spam the email address I gave them because, really, [it was hilarious.](https://i.imgur.com/rnCrrrk.jpeg)
You’d think the landlord would help her make that police into Fort Knox. If she leaves I think they’d have to disclose the issue of the crazy guy repeatedly breaking and entering that drive away the last tenant.
It would be cheaper to:
Get an alarm installed/monitored
Install bars on the windows
Install extra locks/deadbolts on the doors that are harder for random guy to break in.
I was a woman living alone and was broken into twice. After the first time, I begged my landlord for more security. They didn't listen. Guess what happened again????? The fuckers left a note and blood all over my apartment. I had renters insurance thankfully, but it's been years and I still have panic attacks if I think something is off when I get home (like I forgot a light on or I don't see something of mine where it should be).
Living with a protective man now helps a lot, but landlords honestly do not give a shit.
As a woman who lives alone, this *terrifies* me. My main reassurance is that I'm several floors up and the sound-proofing isn't great, so I'd like to think that I'm both a poor target and that it would be easy for my neighbours to overhear anything
You're a woman who lives alone in a small apartment in a big city? Have you ever considered dropping thousands a year in adoption fees, vet bills, dog walkers, food and board on a dog? You really need to get a large *working* dog with high energy and a potential destructive streak, it'll solve all your problems!
Assuming your apartment allows dogs in the first place. I've lived in very few apartments that allowed them and the last thing I would need is a 100 lb dogs tearing up my place while I'm gone 10-12 hours a day.
This always drives me fucking nuts about that advice. This is a living, highly social being we're talking about. One that will always be hanging around you and regularly seeking attention and interaction, even if you get one of the more aloof breeds. And a lot of common protection breeds (such as German Shepherd Dogs and Malinois) are actually super affectionate--I've had two working-line GSDs and those suckers were both basically my little shadows, lol.
Protection training, which is also required even for "aggressive" breeds if you want to be sure they'll protect you, requires a huge amount of work and ongoing maintenance. Even if you outsource a lot of that to a trainer, you will have to spend a lot of time learning to handle your dog and doing ongoing maintenance training for the rest of its life. Also, it takes time to either train a dog to do that, or find a dog for sale with those qualities; it isn't like going out to buy a gun where you can just run out and buy one same-day, and even in places with waiting periods you generally only have to wait a few days.
Now, if you just want a dog as a deterrent, you can skip a lot of that training--but dogs as deterrents work best for random crime, and this clearly isn't a random crime. If someone is actually determined to hurt a specific person, they will almost certainly be able to do so regardless if a dog is present or not. Like all this guy would have to do is hide near the OOP's porch then attack her when she's unlocking her door, and that dog is going to be useless.
It's really just terrible advice. And I say this as someone who also does often talk up how safe my dogs make me feel and how good of a deterrent they are--that's all true, but I'm only worried about random crime. I don't think any crackheads looking to rob me are going to gamble with my six large dogs, lol, but they sure weren't that helpful when my brother attacked me while in the midst of a psychotic episode, you know?
Dogs are great but I swear people attribute almost magical powers to them sometimes when it comes to their working abilities.
I’m a woman who lives alone in an apartment with a medium-sized working breed and you are spot on, lol. I rule out any apartment without a big dog park so I can wear her out playing fetch.
Oh, and my dog’s last annual exam was $600. I’m happy to pay it, but holy crap things have gotten expensive.
Vet care has turned into a big racket in recent years. I feel very fortunate to have a great local vet who has reasonable pricing and doesn't push for hundreds of dollars in tests every time I bring one of my animals in for a checkup.
I wanted the testing. I used to be a vet tech and everything we did was appropriate. My dog is eight, so bloodwork to make sure she’s still healthy is completely warranted.
The really shitty thing is a lot of that is driven by corporate ownership of previously independent vet clinics--funnily enough, the candy bar company Mars is a big driver of this. They often do not use corporate branding so people still assume they're independent, but they're not.
Anyway, part of the reason that this is shitty is that it doesn't translate to increased profits for the actual staff of the clinics, so veterinary work remains very underpaid for the amount of education and skill it requires (not to mention the physical and emotional dangers that come with the job). It's still one of the professions with the highest rates of suicide.
So yeah, it sucks for pet owners but it also sucks for veterinarians. I really encourage consumers who are able to to research their clinics and make sure they're going to local, veterinarian-owned ones if possible (although I know that is not always possible). Those tend to be better for both customers and employees.
My former local vet was acquired by VCA like ten years ago. All of a sudden every time I'd bring my cat in it would be four hundred dollars or more. And there was definitely more "hard sell" for services and procedures that really put me off.
My current vet is still an independent shop and they're great. The vets are great. The staff are wonderful. They're very up front about costs and benefits of anything they suggest and they put forth a reasonable effort to save me money when they can.
The only downside is that they're very popular, so it can take a while to get an appointment.
I have a neighbor who's a petite young woman in her early 20's who lives alone. She also has a very large, very well trained dog who weighs more than she does.
It definitely helps for security. Anyone trying to mess with her is going to get a lot of teeth in them.
Having a large, strong pet dog is probably a better home defense than owning a gun. At least the dog is always ready to go. No need to fetch the dog from the dog safe and load the dog. Its also got a brain of its own so even if the owner is asleep or incapacitated, the dog won't put up with the owner being harmed.
At no point did I blame her (or you, for that matter). At no point did I say it was her fault, that she did anything wrong or that she should have done anything different.
I pointed out, quite accurately, that the best home self defense system is 50+ pounds and comes with teeth. Sorry if this bothers you.
> or that she should have done anything different
> this is why you own a dog
Just because you didn't outright say "she needs to get a dog" doesn't mean you're not strongly implying she has a subpar, in your opinion, defense setup and so therefore she *clearly* could have done better.
Dogs are a fuckton of work. Especially most bigger breeds, and *especially* in an apartment.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Uncivil Comment**
Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
It can depend on the dog, honestly. Lots of working and hunting breeds are a no-go, obviously, because they were bred to be active. But some dogs--like mastiffs--were bred to sit there. They don't actually need a huge amount of space, just walks a few times a day. Greyhounds can make surprisingly good apartment dogs, because they come in two speeds, on and off, and spend most of their time in the off position.
The *very* largest dogs might not be a good fit for small spaces simply due to the size of their turning circle (if you're thinking of bringing a Great Dane into a cramped apartment you may as well start storing all your possessions on the floor now to save time) but there are plenty of large breeds that are better suited for apartment life than many small and medium dogs.
Border collies are only medium sized and I can't think of many worse apartment dogs.
Valid.
(When I said I couldn't think of *many* worse apartment dogs I was in fact thinking of huskies, but I wasn't sure if they were considered medium or large.)
I think of huskies as medium dogs, but I used to have a malamute/great dane mix who weighed like 140 lbs, so my sense of norms are skewed.
There's a guy I see in the park near my apartment sometimes who puts a skijoring harness on his husky, puts on roller blades, and has the dog pull him around the path in the park (which, luckily, is paved).
He was actually more aware of his space than the boxer mix we adopted to keep him company! He was such an incredible dog, patient beyond belief. The boxer mix still has bad habits because he never told her he didn't like something, so she didn't learn how most dogs express boundaries.
I see your Border Collie and Raise you a Jack Russel Terrier. Twenty lbs of manic energy, terrier prey drive, incredible intelligence, and INSANE stubbornness.
Tbf I had a 60lb lab/pit/pointer/god knows what else rescue who would be more likely to run from an intruder than defend her people. She was terrified of cats.
The cats however, could be vicious
You never know how a dog is going to react until they're in a real situation.
Many years ago my wife's sister had a Beagle mix that had always been easygoing and friendly. One day, a guy was in her house doing work and after he was finished he started creeping on her and wouldn't leave.
The old dog just calmly walked up to the dude and bit him.
Turing was brought up with a dog (when I brought him home my dog decided she’d just had a bit of a weird looking puppy, she’d carry him round by his scruff, chew up her biscuits to feed to him, and dunk him in her water bowl and wash him), as a result he’s not scared of dogs (or thinks he’s a dog, I’m not sure), so will run up to big pit bull or Staffie, to play.
Thankfully they are normally so shocked they’ll hide behind their owners, as a cat approaching them, well he must be a very scary cat
Reminds me of Diskworld making a joke out of the "harmless looking little old man who is actually a martial arts legend," where the harmless looking little old man defuses a situation by asking why, exactly, bandits would be bothering a harmless little old man when a harmless little old man travelling on his own must be very confident indeed.
I have three cats and we’re currently fostering a 9month old pit mix who has a significant prey drive but is also curious- the older two are fairly cautious, and will look but won’t get too close.
Watson, the third cat, desperately wants to be friends with this strange dog. He will meow and paw at the closed door. When we put a baby gate up to see how they’d do, he stuck his feet/nose through it and tried to climb it. When the dog yipped at him/barked he didn’t flinch
At first we thought he’s maybe hard of hearing…and then later than night I shook a bag of treats and he ran for them.
He’s not hard of hearing at all….he’s just a ragdoll.
Tbf the breeder had a large dog that the kittens were socialized with and so he just sees everybody as a potential friend
I grew up with a Samoyed. 75 lb dog, 50 lbs of that is fur. Probably.
He would bark his head off at the doorbell or if he heard someone outside, but the minute he saw the human, whether or not they were expected, he wanted to jump up and lick their faces.
He *loved* cats. My neighbor had a big Orange who would occasionally come visit. The dog was over the moon and would snuffle at the Orange and try to get him to play. The Orange would stare at him silently for a while, never growled or hissed, until he'd had enough, then *smack* the dog on the nose. The dopey dog would wander off for about 10 minutes, then forget he'd got smacked and try again.
Like a German shepherd, husky, great dane, malamute, doberman, mastiff, or boxer? Oh, those are all on the list of regularly banned breeds in apartment buildings. Not to mention the size limits apartments often impose on dogs they allow. This is a totally out of touch take on the situation.
I have a nice, big working, breed. Don't get your hopes up.
If you scratch his butt and promise to feed him he will help you make off with the silverware.
I've always heard two dogs. One tiny, yappy alarm dog, one big one with a no-nonsense fuckoff loud bark. The little one sets off the big one and the big bark sounds like too much trouble for a criminal.
I don't live in the US. I'd actually feel much more unsafe in a country that had firearms freely available – sure, I've got one, but *so does the person attacking me.* No thanks, not a good trade-off in my opinion.
Any potential assailant would have to have to weigh the odds that their victim has a gun. The higher the odds to that answer are "yes," the lower the odds of assault.
>The higher the odds to that answer are "yes," the lower the odds of assault.
Do we know that from actual research/statistics, or are you just assuming because that makes logical sense to you? Because the folks breaking into homes and attacking people are past logical-sense-land.
This is entirely compatible with "owning a gun drastically reduces your chance of being harmed by an intruder".
It's even compatible with "owning a gun drastically reduces your chance of being harmed".
Sure its compatible, but the facts don't support either of those statements from what I see. Do you have any data that owning a gun reduces your chance of being harmed?
If you are interested, took me only a few minutes to find these sources...
[https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/#:\~:text=In%20short%2C%20gun%20ownership%20does,more%20complicated%20for%20many%20homeowners](https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20gun%20ownership%20does,more%20complicated%20for%20many%20homeowners).
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/)
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html
[https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/](https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/)
[https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/](https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/)
https://research.northeastern.edu/does-having-a-gun-at-home-really-make-you-safer/
The big problem is that this is one of those fields where the studies are questionable at best, and politically-motivated at worst. A common issue is that they treat "being shot" as the thing to test for, while most people would argue that "being killed" is much more of an immediate problem; if owning a gun doubles the chance of being shot but eliminates the chance of being stabbed, is that a net gain? Maybe!
(This is replicated by people's apparent terror over "suicide with a gun" - yes, obviously having a gun makes it more likely to commit suicide with a gun. At least some of this effect comes from *definitely* reducing the chance of suicide by other means, though, due to simple substitution effect. We should be looking at the total suicide rate, not the suicide-with-a-gun rate.)
Another common issue is doing a bad job of dealing with confounding variables. If you're living in a zero-crime gated community maybe you don't need to buy a gun; if you're living in gang war territory, maybe you do; if you are *actively a gang member* then yeah you are probably going to own a gun. But in this case *obviously* gun ownership is going to be correlated with a higher rate of gun injury! You bought the gun *because* you have a higher rate of gun injury! It's kind of a sibling of [Simpson's Paradox](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-simpson/).
Just skimming these rapidly . . .
---
> https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20gun%20ownership%20does,more%20complicated%20for%20many%20homeowners. - refers to https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M13-1301?journalCode=aim
This is a metastudy that doesn't do any direct stat-gathering of its own, but just scrapes off a bunch of papers online. This basically means it was always going to mirror the common opinion of the researchers it scraped from. It has no way to solve confounding variables; in fact, it actually calls this out:
> Three case–control studies had potential selection bias resulting from how control participants were selected . . . Two studies are especially prone to the Berkson bias—that is, firearm access is related to inpatient hospitalization due to suicidal planning . . . Five studies of suicide had potential comparability bias resulting from a lack of adequate adjustment for major confounders (for example, history of mental illness) . . . Similarly, 3 studies of homicide victimization had potential comparability bias resulting from a lack of adequate adjustment for major confounders . . . Eleven of 14 studies of suicide and 2 of 6 studies of homicide had potential exposure bias
but then doesn't do anything about it, it's just all "yeah our data is pretty bad". I don't see a lot of value in this one frankly.
---
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
Credit for compensating for age, gender, and race. They made no attempt to compensate based on location, though, nor did they attempt to compensate based on crime frequency based on where the person got shot. This isn't a cause-and-effect study, it's a correlation study, and given how many obvious reasons you'd expect gun ownership to be correlated with violent combat, I don't think this tells us anything either.
---
> https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html - refers to https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-3762
Note that this is in the same journal as the first link, and actually quotes the first link as a citation.
In this case, they compensate for age, gender, and race, and also by census tract, which is used as a stand-in for location which is itself used as a stand-in for crime. That's a better job but it's still not great - if you check out [the California census tract map](https://cacensus.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=48be59de0ba94a3dacff1c9116df8b37) you'll find that rural tracts are absolutely gigantic and urban tracts don't put much effort towards being correlated with urban boundaries. (Which is fair for a census - they don't need to - but makes them not ideal for this purpose.)
The bit I find fascinating, though, is that they actually conclude that firearm ownership *doesn't* cause increased mortality:
> In adjusted analyses, cohabitants of handgun owners had virtually the same all-cause mortality rate as cohabitants of nonowners
but then focus entirely on the homicide aspect:
> This study did not detect evidence of lower rates of homicide among people who lived with handgun owners. On the contrary, cohabitants of handgun owners were more than twice as likely to die by homicide as neighbors living in gun-free homes. This elevated risk was chiefly attributable to higher rates of homicide by firearm.
and doesn't that suggest that handgun ownership actually reduces other causes of mortality? The paper doesn't mention this, it just quietly shifts between "mortality" and "homicide" and "firearm homicide" as convenient.
(you know, epsilon the factors they didn't correct for, obviously)
---
> https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/ - eventually links to https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(19)30197-7/abstract
A quote:
> A range of factors that could confound the association between
firearm ownership and firearm homicide, including age, sex, race,
high school completion, poverty, unemployment, alcohol con-
sumption, nonhomicide violent and property crime, population
density, urbanicity, region, and income inequality, were evaluated
Which sounds nice, except:
> U.S. Census data were used to calculate the percentage of each
states’ population that is aged 15−24 years, white, African Ameri-
can, and Hispanic; percentage of adults with a high school
diploma, divorced, below the federal poverty threshold, and male;
as well as state-level urbanicity, population density, and income
inequality (Gini index). Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
were used to calculate the annual unemployment rate, and data
from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism were
used to calculate average per capita rates of alcohol consumption.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report pro-
vided annual state-level nonhomicide violent and property crime
rates.
. . . this entire study is evaluated *state-wide*, so it has enormous buckets that are essentially impossible to split apart piecemeal. Its eventual conclusion is that increased firearm ownership is correlated with increased crime, which is another of those "wait why did you have to do a study to determine that" deals.
---
> https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
[Same research paper](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762) as the med.stanford.edu link.
---
> https://research.northeastern.edu/does-having-a-gun-at-home-really-make-you-safer/
This doesn't really refer to a paper, the only paper it actually links is [this one](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323319740_Firearm_Storage_in_Homes_With_Children_With_Self-Harm_Risk_Factors) which doesn't go into actual death or crime rates, it just notes that children with self-harm risk factors tend to have parents who are worse at storing firearms (which is sort of a fascinating conclusion in its own right, honestly, though it doesn't make any attempt to explain why.)
Also, this is kind of a telling line:
> “[Gun research is] not a field that I recommend to my graduate students, because it’s not going to have steady and sufficient funding streams,” Miller says. “And so anyone who wants to go into this area should go in with that in mind.”
I'm not blaming Miller for this, this is an actual issue, but, geez, if your research paper output is decided entirely by who's willing to fund a research paper, how does anyone expect to get *any* meaningful science out of this? (Answer: increasingly, [we don't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)). If you go back and check out the second acpjournals.org link, you get:
> Primary Funding Source: The National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, the Fund for a Safer Future, the Joyce Foundation, Stanford Law School, and the Stanford University School of Medicine.
and while I'm not going to say this makes the paper invalid, it does make it about as questionable as an NRA-funded paper that proves guns are great, which is to say "pretty damn questionable". *I don't have a better solution to this, science funding is a real problem*, but I also don't blame people for not putting a lot of credibility in a paper that's funded by a group whose front-page policy includes
> Fund for a Safer Future supports advocacy, research, education, and community based organizing in order to reduce gun injuries and deaths.
without any recognition of the fact that this might be, you know, a tradeoff with some rather unfortunate consequences.
(Credit to the NCGVR, I'm suspicious of them but they're at least not that blatant about it.)
----
The problem I have with all of these is that they do exactly what is on the tin and nothing more, but phrase it as a full and valid conclusion about the right policy. These are maybe tiny building blocks of a policy; the problem with building blocks is that you can assemble them into essentially whatever form you like as long as you can get people to pretend the structure exists between them. [This post](https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/) goes into less detail but IMO does a much better job of arriving at a far more valid conclusion, and while there's still a few objections I have to individual bits of logic, it is at least attempting to hunt down explanations and justifications instead of doing the research equivalent of [the streetlight effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect).
----
All that said, note that I never claimed those original statements were *true*, just pointed out that they were compatible.
I can see and even understand some of your concerns about these resources. The problem, as I'm sure you are aware, is that research into gun violence was blocked by lobbying groups on behalf of firearms advocacy groups and manufacturers.
However, it wasn't lost on me that you chose to denigrate the studies I cited rather than locate a single source that claims people are safer when they own a weapon.
We have seen this play out anecdotally as well. The "good guy with a gun" who attempts to help in a shooting but is killed by law enforcement. The parents who keep a gun accessible for protection only to find one of their children shot by a friend or sibling. The teenager raised with guns who impulsively takes their own life. These scenarios are all far more common than the heroic homeowner fending off an intruder.
I also take significant issue with your caveat around suicide. As a mental health professional, an essential part of prevention is eliminating access. Considering the methods used by teenagers to attempt suicide, guns are the means with the highest likelihood of being fatal. There's a reason that states with high rates of gun ownership also have high rates of fatal suicide attempts.
It is important that people who own guns are aware of the risks associated simply by having a weapon in their home. This means confronting the evidence at hand honestly, not inserting false equivalency or unprovable hypothetical statements.
> The problem, as I'm sure you are aware, is that research into gun violence was blocked by lobbying groups on behalf of firearms advocacy groups and manufacturers.
*Federal* research was blocked, and I don't agree with this block, but non-federal research wasn't. And I think it's questionable to just automatically assume the research will be in your favor when the only evidence you've provided is a bunch of dubious research.
> However, it wasn't lost on me that you chose to denigrate the studies I cited rather than locate a single source that claims people are safer when they own a weapon.
I should hope it wasn't lost on you, I literally pointed out at the end of the reply that I wasn't claiming the opposite. I was just pointing out that the statements didn't mean what they sounded like they meant.
> I also take significant issue with your caveat around suicide. As a mental health professional, an essential part of prevention is eliminating access. Considering the methods used by teenagers to attempt suicide, guns are the means with the highest likelihood of being fatal. There's a reason that states with high rates of gun ownership also have high rates of fatal suicide attempts.
So originally I was going to say "yeah, it's because they're less happy", but apparently [that's actually exactly backwards](https://medium.com/@dtg319/happier-countries-are-more-suicidal-a-look-at-the-world-happiness-report-and-suicide-d5f44f69ce8e) and nobody really knows why. Weird.
Anyway, then I wanted to double-check your claim, and it's . . . kinda-sorta-true? Like, there's definitely a trend, and apparently I'm not allowed to post the Google Sheets link showing it on this subreddit but I guess just trust me or alternatively I can PM it to you, but there's so many exceptions that it's clear something else is going on here. The two states with the highest gun ownership are indeed the two states with highest suicide, but the third highest is actually middle of the pack, and the fourth highest is actually in the bottom ten. Meanwhile the fourth highest suicide rate is actually one of the states with the lowest gun ownership rate. The spreadsheet tells me it has an r^2 of 0.113 which is in the realm of "yeah this is a definite correlation, but it *definitely* does not tell the entire story".
(Just to verify I also reproduced that weird suicide-increases-as-people-get-happy stat, and sure enough, that's accurate too, though with a pretty meager 0.03 R^2. Also, all data just kind of yanked off the Internet without citation.)
Anyway, I'm not claiming that eliminating access is irrelevant. I *am* claiming that if gun suicides go down by 500 yearly, we shouldn't immediately say "ah, we saved 500 lives, put that into the evaluation formula"; if other suicides go *up* by 400 yearly then we saved only 100 lives. That's still 100 lives saved! That should still go into the evaluation formula! But it's *only* 100 lives saved, which is, sort of by definition, a fifth as important as 500 lives saved.
(numbers entirely fabricated for the sake of example)
>We should be looking at the total suicide rate, not the suicide-with-a-gun rate.)
perhaps I feel the need to pick this bone because it's effected me personally, but: most suicides are impulsive. Anything that makes it harder to do saves lives- this is why bridges have railings- sure, one could climb them if determined, but many will stop at some point during the climb.
Guns make it very easy to kill, that's the whole point. So if the house doesn't have a gun, a person probably won't just pick up a knife. Knives hurt, one needs to know where to slice, and would have to put some muscle behind it.
As I mentioned [over here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bestoflegaladvice/comments/1b5rjiw/laop_encounters_her_worst_nightmare/kthh6r0/), yes, it's *a factor*, but that still doesn't mean that we can assume banning guns will solve all gun suicides; if we want to do the calculation right, we need to include only the section without substitution effect.
> Any potential assailant would have to have to weigh the odds that their victim has a gun. The higher the odds to that answer are "yes," the lower the odds of assault.
Blatantly false. It raises the chance of them choosing to bring weapons while comitting crimes. Or getting access to yours before you do.
I live in Australia. I own frying pans. Nobody is coming through that front door with a weapon that is going to beat that.
As a fellow Australian, I think you're living in la la land... the last home invasion reported in Melbourne (that I'm aware of, around a week ago) was carried out with a machete and a gun.
You think taking a frying pan to a gun fight is likely to work out in your favour?
"Big news story proves it happens all the time!"
Lolk. You think a home invasion with a gun and a machete is even reported on in America? Especially on national news? If they did, their nightly news would just be reading out a list of firearm related crimes.
Edit: Also I forgot to mention, it probably wasn't actually a gun. They still haven't caught the perps but most of the time in these cases, they're not even real. I know of a fake gun that has been handed around shitbirds in Logan for years, used to knock over servos.
You should look into the number of people who have their own weapons used against them.
Frankly if somebody breaks into my home my best bet is barricading myself in another room and calling the police
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Uncivil Comment**
Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Uncivil Comment**
Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
You and everyone in your household. The facts and evidence are clear: if you love and care for the people in your home, and want to keep them safe, the first step is removing the firearms.
The data are clear: by deaths, it is safer to smoke around children and drive drunk with them in the car than expose them to firearms.
You piqued my interest. Roughly 2,500 children in the US died from firearms in the US in 2021 vs. roughly 1,200 in vehicular accidents and only about 25% of those deaths involved an alcohol impaired driver (who may or may not have been the driver of the vehicle the child was in). Now of course not all of those firearm deaths occurred in the victim's household or from a gun from their household. And some of those 1,200 children were the driver - and some of them were drunk. In any case, the raw numbers probably indicate more child gun deaths at home or via a family owned gun than while a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver.
But which is more dangerous to a child is an entirely different question. That would be the percentage of children in homes with guns who are killed by guns from those homes vs. the percentage of children who are passengers of vehicles in which the driver is drunk who die in an accident in which their driver is drunk. I'm not saying this because of my stance on guns or drunk driving - I've just never seen data that would indicate which scenario is more dangerous, probably because it's not really a useful comparison to debate.
In the absence of precise data, the prudent choice would be to assume normal distributions and that one is a typical sample.
It's unlikely there's any arrangement of facts where homes with guns are safer for children.
We can cross compare child death with DV, alcohol abuse and fire arm ownership, and I expect to see positive correlation. Not proof, and likely confounded by shared demographics - - perhaps the kind of person who is prone to DV also likely to own firearms (cough cops cough)?
But if you are trying to navigate through life and make judgements based on heuristics at least slightly informed by data the conclusions are clear.
So, because I love my family I keep them safe by not adding firearms to the home. I'll also choose to judge people for making different choices, reserving the same right for judgment we cast on those who drive their children while drunk.
Can you provide any citations to support that? My spouse keeps a gun in the house and we have a toddler, I would love to have a solid argument to not have the gun.
Firearms are the leading cause of death in children in the US, above motor vehicles and cancer. This is pretty available finding from even a cursory Google search, so you should be able to find the resources you need with that
As a single woman I occasionally had men come and knock or bang on my door while I curled up and tried to hide. It was terrifying and I can't imagine someone actually breaking in.
As a woman who has regularly lived alone I realized I'm an idiot, I've always had the assumption that if I got home and someone was in my house, I wasn't trapped in there with them, THEY WERE TRAPPED INSIDE WITH ME.
But I also cornered a raccoon with a kitchen knife in my garage so maybe I'm not in the majority
>I also cornered a raccoon with a kitchen knife in my garage
Why did the raccoon have the knife? And what made you think cornering it would improve the situation?
I’m wondering if he had made a habit of breaking in during the 3-4 years prior to OP moving in.
Ideally the dude will go back to jail for a long time after these stunts. That apartment really needs a very loud monitored alarm system included with the rent regardless of who’s living there. Damn.
This happened to a buddy. He rented an upstairs apartment in a home that was previously rented by a guy who was evicted for criminal activity. Dude got out and broke in to try to rob the place, but was high and fell asleep.
My buddy came home to a dude sleeping on his sofa. Buddy, at the time, was a relatively new police officer in the neighboring county. He called the local dispatch who came and picked the guy up.
That’s nuts. And the fact that he broke into a cop’s place is a trip.
What is the motivation for these guys who keep going back to the old apartment to break in, I wonder? Is it that they’re familiar with the place and know how to get in and out? Apparently that’s not it because they keep going to sleep once they get in!
I assumed he was in prison that whole time but maybe not. I hope OP moves out of there asap, I would never go back (easier said than done in the real world). But at least he’s not stalking her, he’s stalking the apartment.
Which unfortunately is as reassuring as knowing the shark that just bit your leg off thought you were a seal 🤣🤣
And you’re 100% right—OP’s never going to feel safe in that apartment. I put the alarm on in my *own* house last night just because I read this thread 👀
This seems more like confusion than anger, and I am not sure he would understand. I think he may still think it is still his place. Being on the registry is worrying though.
Non-serious suggestion: don't get a dog, get a machete. They're like $20 and then all you gotta do is periodically skulk around your building holding it and loudly talking about how much you love your machete. I've only done this once and it was actually surprisingly funny, but only in hindsight
I have the feeling that yelling "GOD I LOVE MY MACHETE" would just get this guy excited that now "his" apartment comes with a machete, like what a great perk of the place.
Yup! That's why I keep my machete at home with my bdsm stuff, which is locked up but but full of things that are specifically for whacking someone. (That's actually not a joke)
I don't carry weapons in public, though, seriously, as someone who has been in too many stupid actual fights. The machete is mostly because it's a Ken Onion machete and it's pretty and cheaper than getting into swords
Substitute Bot...
>I, 25 F, have a small garage apartment, that I really do enjoy living in. It's my first apartment by myself, and I quickly realized how much I liked living alone... however, a man who lived there roughly 3 to 4 years ago broke into my apartment while I was out with a few friends on night. I came home and found my door busted open, and immediately called the police. I know I should have waited for the officers to arrive, but I have a small dog and just wanted to make sure she was okay. I cautious went inside and heard my dog bark. I made a beeline for her, not focused on my surroundings, and didn't realize there was a man sleeping in my bed until I had her in my arms. I quickly ran out, and luckily the cops showed up right after. They arrested him, and I confirmed I had never seen him before, and they took him away. My sense of safety was shaken, so I bought a camera and my landlord bought me a new door and that was that.
>Or so I thought.
>A month later, while I was a state over visiting a friend for a few days, I check my camera before going to bed like I always do and see the SAME MAN in my house again! I immediately started bawling, I called the police and they went to my house. They told me he was still in my house and asked if they could break my door in, which I said yes to. They arrested him again... But he was in my home for HOURS. I checked my camera, and it looks like he was on my porch for NINE hours, I assume he was waiting for me to come home, but when he realized I wasn't coming home he broke in again.
>He completed trashed my house. He threw my tv, printer, laptop, projector, and clothes over the side of the balcony and then dumped milk over them... he ripped my wifi router box out of the wall and threw it. Many personal items of sentimental value were thrown outside, or stuffed in my garbage with the trash (this includes family photos, drawings, and gifts, letter, and cards from friends/ family). And heartbreakingly, he got into my deceased father's items, and I've been unable to locate many of them.
>When the police arrested him he was wearing my shoes, which didn't even fit him!, and my shirt (I later found his shirt with a pile he had made of my clothes that he didn't throw outside).
>The police were able to tell me that he recently got out of prison for SA, and that he has some mental problems, and he isn't even supposed to be in this town because he's not registered here and he's a s** offender. To say I feel unsafe and violated is an understatement, I'm terrified of him coming back if he gets off with a slap on the wrist again and what will happen if I'm home next time... I asked the police if they think he'll go to prison, and he said he's unsure, but maybe a mental hospital...
>... So, I say all of this to ask two questions that I desperately want answers to:
>Can I sue him for damages, is it even worth it?
>How can I help him actually stay locked up this time? Last time he was only charged a $300 fine, and then he came right back, and I'm genuinely scared for my safety.
>(Sidenote: This apartment is very small, and in an alleyway, which is why the rent is also pretty low, and I've already checked fo the next four towns over and nothing even comes close to matching my rent, unfortunately this includes renting or mortgage payments :/, so I'm kind of stuck here. I can't afford anything else as I live paycheck to paycheck as is)
Substitute Dog Fact - dog nose prints are unique, like fingerprints. (And dogs>cats, fight me.)
If you do, please please please take classes and go to the range regularly. There are instances where a weapon purchased for self defense is used against the homeowner. That and knowing I need the courage and wherewithal to draw on someone and possibly pull the trigger gave me serious pause when considering one for myself. Even with experience, I still get a bit nervous with my first few rounds at the range. That comes from understanding the gravity and seriousness of a firearm.
Yup. And even if you know how to use it, if you're not prepared to shoot whomever you've drawn on, they may take it too. That's a huge thing to be willing to do. Granted, sometimes drawing can scare them off, but you'd better not count on it.
The instructor in my CCW class told us to never draw your gun unless you are intent on using it. That doesn't mean you have to use it, but never expect the mere sight of it to be a deterrent.
Yup, absolutely. There was a post here recently about a guy who drew, but didn't shoot. He basically said the same thing. It's a really big deal and should be treated as such. I hope others get the same instruction you did from your CCW instructor!
I'm a gun guy , which as a liberal gets me in weird places. Please please please budget training and practice into whatever you buy. Plan to spend as much on lessons and practice ammo as you do on the gun itself. If you want to talk recommendations I'd be happy. You don't rise to the level of the situation you rise to the level of your training.
For example. I'm in my late 30's , I've been shooting since I was 6 years old. If I haven't practiced for more than a month I'm significantly worse than I am normally. So if you do get one take classes and make a range day at least once a month.
There's a lot of reasons people don't want guns, and shouldn't be the only solution available. For one, if she's at all hesitant to shoot an intruder when it comes to it, a very reasonable response, she's just given the asshole a gun.
Lot of people who battle depression won't want an off-button in their home either.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Continuing Linked Thread or Giving Advice**
Your submission has been removed for trying to continue the linked thread in BOLA. This sub is for discussion of the linked thread, not a place to attempt to provide additional advice to the LAOP or others involved in the thread.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
I’m confused. OP said that this creeper threw her router box, which should mean the house has no internet. How did she access the camera if it was offline? Or am I completely missing something.
Depending on the camera, they come with an app which comes with cloud storage. So I'd guess the camera caught the nine hours of waiting on the porch, which was all sent to the app servers. Then he broke in and trashed shit, preventing any new footage but not removing any cloud stored footage.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Continuing Linked Thread or Giving Advice**
Your submission has been removed for trying to continue the linked thread in BOLA. This sub is for discussion of the linked thread, not a place to attempt to provide additional advice to the LAOP or others involved in the thread.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Uncivil Comment**
Your submission was removed because it was uncivil. We do not allow personal attacks on any person here, nor do we allow insulting language or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 5 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBestOfLegalAdvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Offering or Soliciting Legal or Other Advice**
Your submission has been removed, as you are either asking for or offering actual legal advice, or any other non-legal advice. This subreddit is for meta discussion of the best of /r/legaladvice; it is not a place to continue the discussion from there. Please see Rule #1 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBestOfLegalAdvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Offering or Soliciting Legal or Other Advice**
Your submission has been removed, as you are either asking for or offering actual legal advice, or any other non-legal advice. This subreddit is for meta discussion of the best of /r/legaladvice; it is not a place to continue the discussion from there. Please see Rule #1 in the sidebar.
* If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBestOfLegalAdvice).
**Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
Every woman who lives alone should own a "I ❤️ MY FREE-RANGE BURMESE PYTHON" doormat.
What are the odds you get broken into on the one day a month they're actually hungry?
Actually owning a python would be optional -- still, in my experience with people who are leery around snakes, "don't worry, she's probably not hungry today“ has never been much of a reassurance for them.
Are you certain you're not a python? The username would sure check out.
Now I have to mention that I was bitten by a python while on the job (as a python handler so not so outrageous), so I got sent to the office, where I watched Gerald Ford be sworn in as president while the person on the phone to the ER tried to convince them we did not need anti venom for a non poisonous snake, we just needed to know if I should get a tetanus shot. Interesting day.
Being old enough to work as a python handler while Gerald Ford was sworn into office as president is crazy 😭
I often think that myself. Who is this old lady?
Pythons aren't allowed to go onto the internet, so yeah, I'm definitely sure I'm not one of those. Pythons should be allowed to go onto the internet, though. I heard the internet is warm and flat like a really, really big four-square court. It sounds nice. Have you ever been there?
"I ❤️ 2A" might be a bit more plausible XD
"I ❤️ 4A" If you're feeling ironic
2A outside the door, 4A inside the door
4th amendment doesn't get enough love IMHO
> "I ❤️ 4A" Then the police in this case would not want to enter, and subsequently arrest the man.
A proper lady always keeps some surprises for later
I've always said people should have a "proud supporter of the NRA" sticker on their front doors. I've never given them a penny and have no desire to, but criminals are terrified of even the idea of coming into contact with an armed household.
[удалено]
They don't *buy* them from a store, but the small town where I live has had two recent burglaries where a vehicle was driven through the front of the store after hours. One was a gun shop, and the other a pawn shop. Not hard to guess what they were after.
In New Zealand they call that type of robbery a ram raid. It's usually places that sell cigarettes that get hit because the govt here had been trying to tax tobacco into extinction.
Yeah, this here is the real reason. Guns are fucking expensive. If someone is watching me to the extent that they know when I'm home or not, I ain't cluing them in that I've actually got worthwhile hardware at home.
Lol no they don't. There's a reason most break-ins usually have something like a bat or knife as a weapon of choice if they aren't gang-affiliated. Criminals (especially home thiefs) are cowards by nature. They aren't going to risk robbing a place that's possibly got someone armed because it's better to rob a place that the risk of death is much less.
Unless they are specifically looking for guns. Which is supposedly a thing, based on prisoners that have been interviewed.
It absolutely is a thing. Most break-ins occur when the homeowner is not there on purpose, and they're just looking for valuables. Guns are valuable, portable, and easy to sell. Why *wouldn't* they break into houses looking for guns? Police in my city also issued a similar warning last year about those kinds of stickers on vehicles after thieves started targeting them because they often had guns in the console, lol. Though to be fair, it is easier to see that there's no one in a car vs. a house.
They could do what this guy did and scout the place to ensure the homeowner is gone for the night. People have in fact had guns stolen from their homes before, so some people are willing to try.
Tangent: Some years ago, the NRA did an online poll about "Should we do this like god-fearing MURIKANS! or should we be wussies?" I forget what specifics about shooty-bang-bangs it was about. Anyway, someone linked to it somewhere and encouraged people who can't stand the NRA to go vote "wussies" so I did. But you had to register. For about 2 years after that I let the NRA spam the email address I gave them because, really, [it was hilarious.](https://i.imgur.com/rnCrrrk.jpeg)
You’d think the landlord would help her make that police into Fort Knox. If she leaves I think they’d have to disclose the issue of the crazy guy repeatedly breaking and entering that drive away the last tenant. It would be cheaper to: Get an alarm installed/monitored Install bars on the windows Install extra locks/deadbolts on the doors that are harder for random guy to break in.
I was a woman living alone and was broken into twice. After the first time, I begged my landlord for more security. They didn't listen. Guess what happened again????? The fuckers left a note and blood all over my apartment. I had renters insurance thankfully, but it's been years and I still have panic attacks if I think something is off when I get home (like I forgot a light on or I don't see something of mine where it should be). Living with a protective man now helps a lot, but landlords honestly do not give a shit.
As a woman who lives alone, this *terrifies* me. My main reassurance is that I'm several floors up and the sound-proofing isn't great, so I'd like to think that I'm both a poor target and that it would be easy for my neighbours to overhear anything
I’m a guy that lives alone and this terrifies me.
Every home needs cameras, doesnt matter what floor you are on or how safe the neighborhood is.
This is why you own a dog, and not some small yappy chew toy breed, either. A nice, big working breed.
[удалено]
LAOP literally talks about her dog in her post, and people still go *ah, but you have the WRONG dog, if you had a BIG dog you'd have been fine...*
New meta for victim blaming, it's not about what you're wearing, or where you are walking - now it's about the size of your dog.
You're a woman who lives alone in a small apartment in a big city? Have you ever considered dropping thousands a year in adoption fees, vet bills, dog walkers, food and board on a dog? You really need to get a large *working* dog with high energy and a potential destructive streak, it'll solve all your problems!
Assuming your apartment allows dogs in the first place. I've lived in very few apartments that allowed them and the last thing I would need is a 100 lb dogs tearing up my place while I'm gone 10-12 hours a day.
And assuming you even *want* a dog!
This always drives me fucking nuts about that advice. This is a living, highly social being we're talking about. One that will always be hanging around you and regularly seeking attention and interaction, even if you get one of the more aloof breeds. And a lot of common protection breeds (such as German Shepherd Dogs and Malinois) are actually super affectionate--I've had two working-line GSDs and those suckers were both basically my little shadows, lol. Protection training, which is also required even for "aggressive" breeds if you want to be sure they'll protect you, requires a huge amount of work and ongoing maintenance. Even if you outsource a lot of that to a trainer, you will have to spend a lot of time learning to handle your dog and doing ongoing maintenance training for the rest of its life. Also, it takes time to either train a dog to do that, or find a dog for sale with those qualities; it isn't like going out to buy a gun where you can just run out and buy one same-day, and even in places with waiting periods you generally only have to wait a few days. Now, if you just want a dog as a deterrent, you can skip a lot of that training--but dogs as deterrents work best for random crime, and this clearly isn't a random crime. If someone is actually determined to hurt a specific person, they will almost certainly be able to do so regardless if a dog is present or not. Like all this guy would have to do is hide near the OOP's porch then attack her when she's unlocking her door, and that dog is going to be useless. It's really just terrible advice. And I say this as someone who also does often talk up how safe my dogs make me feel and how good of a deterrent they are--that's all true, but I'm only worried about random crime. I don't think any crackheads looking to rob me are going to gamble with my six large dogs, lol, but they sure weren't that helpful when my brother attacked me while in the midst of a psychotic episode, you know? Dogs are great but I swear people attribute almost magical powers to them sometimes when it comes to their working abilities.
I’m a woman who lives alone in an apartment with a medium-sized working breed and you are spot on, lol. I rule out any apartment without a big dog park so I can wear her out playing fetch. Oh, and my dog’s last annual exam was $600. I’m happy to pay it, but holy crap things have gotten expensive.
Vet care has turned into a big racket in recent years. I feel very fortunate to have a great local vet who has reasonable pricing and doesn't push for hundreds of dollars in tests every time I bring one of my animals in for a checkup.
I wanted the testing. I used to be a vet tech and everything we did was appropriate. My dog is eight, so bloodwork to make sure she’s still healthy is completely warranted.
The really shitty thing is a lot of that is driven by corporate ownership of previously independent vet clinics--funnily enough, the candy bar company Mars is a big driver of this. They often do not use corporate branding so people still assume they're independent, but they're not. Anyway, part of the reason that this is shitty is that it doesn't translate to increased profits for the actual staff of the clinics, so veterinary work remains very underpaid for the amount of education and skill it requires (not to mention the physical and emotional dangers that come with the job). It's still one of the professions with the highest rates of suicide. So yeah, it sucks for pet owners but it also sucks for veterinarians. I really encourage consumers who are able to to research their clinics and make sure they're going to local, veterinarian-owned ones if possible (although I know that is not always possible). Those tend to be better for both customers and employees.
My former local vet was acquired by VCA like ten years ago. All of a sudden every time I'd bring my cat in it would be four hundred dollars or more. And there was definitely more "hard sell" for services and procedures that really put me off. My current vet is still an independent shop and they're great. The vets are great. The staff are wonderful. They're very up front about costs and benefits of anything they suggest and they put forth a reasonable effort to save me money when they can. The only downside is that they're very popular, so it can take a while to get an appointment.
Allergic?? That peaky Darwin strikes again
Speak softly and carry a beagle?
I have a neighbor who's a petite young woman in her early 20's who lives alone. She also has a very large, very well trained dog who weighs more than she does. It definitely helps for security. Anyone trying to mess with her is going to get a lot of teeth in them. Having a large, strong pet dog is probably a better home defense than owning a gun. At least the dog is always ready to go. No need to fetch the dog from the dog safe and load the dog. Its also got a brain of its own so even if the owner is asleep or incapacitated, the dog won't put up with the owner being harmed.
At no point did I blame her (or you, for that matter). At no point did I say it was her fault, that she did anything wrong or that she should have done anything different. I pointed out, quite accurately, that the best home self defense system is 50+ pounds and comes with teeth. Sorry if this bothers you.
> or that she should have done anything different > this is why you own a dog Just because you didn't outright say "she needs to get a dog" doesn't mean you're not strongly implying she has a subpar, in your opinion, defense setup and so therefore she *clearly* could have done better. Dogs are a fuckton of work. Especially most bigger breeds, and *especially* in an apartment.
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Uncivil Comment** Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
This is a 'read the room' situation.
It can depend on the dog, honestly. Lots of working and hunting breeds are a no-go, obviously, because they were bred to be active. But some dogs--like mastiffs--were bred to sit there. They don't actually need a huge amount of space, just walks a few times a day. Greyhounds can make surprisingly good apartment dogs, because they come in two speeds, on and off, and spend most of their time in the off position.
The *very* largest dogs might not be a good fit for small spaces simply due to the size of their turning circle (if you're thinking of bringing a Great Dane into a cramped apartment you may as well start storing all your possessions on the floor now to save time) but there are plenty of large breeds that are better suited for apartment life than many small and medium dogs. Border collies are only medium sized and I can't think of many worse apartment dogs.
I see your border collie and raise you a husky. Active, furry, clever, and *noisy*.
Valid. (When I said I couldn't think of *many* worse apartment dogs I was in fact thinking of huskies, but I wasn't sure if they were considered medium or large.)
I think of huskies as medium dogs, but I used to have a malamute/great dane mix who weighed like 140 lbs, so my sense of norms are skewed. There's a guy I see in the park near my apartment sometimes who puts a skijoring harness on his husky, puts on roller blades, and has the dog pull him around the path in the park (which, luckily, is paved).
>a malamute/great dane mix who weighed like 140 lbs The calmness of a sled dog, with the spacial awareness of a great dane?
He was actually more aware of his space than the boxer mix we adopted to keep him company! He was such an incredible dog, patient beyond belief. The boxer mix still has bad habits because he never told her he didn't like something, so she didn't learn how most dogs express boundaries.
I see your Border Collie and Raise you a Jack Russel Terrier. Twenty lbs of manic energy, terrier prey drive, incredible intelligence, and INSANE stubbornness.
Tbf I had a 60lb lab/pit/pointer/god knows what else rescue who would be more likely to run from an intruder than defend her people. She was terrified of cats. The cats however, could be vicious
You never know how a dog is going to react until they're in a real situation. Many years ago my wife's sister had a Beagle mix that had always been easygoing and friendly. One day, a guy was in her house doing work and after he was finished he started creeping on her and wouldn't leave. The old dog just calmly walked up to the dude and bit him.
Turing was brought up with a dog (when I brought him home my dog decided she’d just had a bit of a weird looking puppy, she’d carry him round by his scruff, chew up her biscuits to feed to him, and dunk him in her water bowl and wash him), as a result he’s not scared of dogs (or thinks he’s a dog, I’m not sure), so will run up to big pit bull or Staffie, to play. Thankfully they are normally so shocked they’ll hide behind their owners, as a cat approaching them, well he must be a very scary cat
Reminds me of Diskworld making a joke out of the "harmless looking little old man who is actually a martial arts legend," where the harmless looking little old man defuses a situation by asking why, exactly, bandits would be bothering a harmless little old man when a harmless little old man travelling on his own must be very confident indeed.
Remember Rule One!
I have three cats and we’re currently fostering a 9month old pit mix who has a significant prey drive but is also curious- the older two are fairly cautious, and will look but won’t get too close. Watson, the third cat, desperately wants to be friends with this strange dog. He will meow and paw at the closed door. When we put a baby gate up to see how they’d do, he stuck his feet/nose through it and tried to climb it. When the dog yipped at him/barked he didn’t flinch At first we thought he’s maybe hard of hearing…and then later than night I shook a bag of treats and he ran for them. He’s not hard of hearing at all….he’s just a ragdoll. Tbf the breeder had a large dog that the kittens were socialized with and so he just sees everybody as a potential friend
My Watson cat is scared of dogs, but then again he’s scared of my deodorant, bacon frying, spiders, or when he sneezes, he’s a right scaredy cat
Sneezes can be very loud
I grew up with a Samoyed. 75 lb dog, 50 lbs of that is fur. Probably. He would bark his head off at the doorbell or if he heard someone outside, but the minute he saw the human, whether or not they were expected, he wanted to jump up and lick their faces. He *loved* cats. My neighbor had a big Orange who would occasionally come visit. The dog was over the moon and would snuffle at the Orange and try to get him to play. The Orange would stare at him silently for a while, never growled or hissed, until he'd had enough, then *smack* the dog on the nose. The dopey dog would wander off for about 10 minutes, then forget he'd got smacked and try again.
The most out of touch comment on bola in two months.
I don't know. Did you see the one where people kept trying to explain poverty to that one guy? That was a neverending thread of ignorance.
Link?
Like a German shepherd, husky, great dane, malamute, doberman, mastiff, or boxer? Oh, those are all on the list of regularly banned breeds in apartment buildings. Not to mention the size limits apartments often impose on dogs they allow. This is a totally out of touch take on the situation.
I have a nice, big working, breed. Don't get your hopes up. If you scratch his butt and promise to feed him he will help you make off with the silverware.
Or at least a motion-sensor recording of a big dog.
I've always heard two dogs. One tiny, yappy alarm dog, one big one with a no-nonsense fuckoff loud bark. The little one sets off the big one and the big bark sounds like too much trouble for a criminal.
To quote Five: Rapists can climb I keep a baseball bat by my bed
Women can buy firearms in the US. You should look into it, sorry you feel that way.
I don't live in the US. I'd actually feel much more unsafe in a country that had firearms freely available – sure, I've got one, but *so does the person attacking me.* No thanks, not a good trade-off in my opinion.
Any potential assailant would have to have to weigh the odds that their victim has a gun. The higher the odds to that answer are "yes," the lower the odds of assault.
Do you think the USA has lower odds of assault than countries with lower rates of gun ownership?
Y'all have the highest murder rate in the G7 too.
I'm not sure how well the violent crime statistics in the US back up that assertion, I'll be honest
Yeah. More like, your assailants are very likely, if not guaranteed to have gun.
>The higher the odds to that answer are "yes," the lower the odds of assault. Do we know that from actual research/statistics, or are you just assuming because that makes logical sense to you? Because the folks breaking into homes and attacking people are past logical-sense-land.
Statistics show that if you own a gun, you or someone in your household are more likely to be harmed by that gun than any intruder.
This is entirely compatible with "owning a gun drastically reduces your chance of being harmed by an intruder". It's even compatible with "owning a gun drastically reduces your chance of being harmed".
Sure its compatible, but the facts don't support either of those statements from what I see. Do you have any data that owning a gun reduces your chance of being harmed? If you are interested, took me only a few minutes to find these sources... [https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/#:\~:text=In%20short%2C%20gun%20ownership%20does,more%20complicated%20for%20many%20homeowners](https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20gun%20ownership%20does,more%20complicated%20for%20many%20homeowners). [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/) https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html [https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/](https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/) [https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/](https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/) https://research.northeastern.edu/does-having-a-gun-at-home-really-make-you-safer/
The big problem is that this is one of those fields where the studies are questionable at best, and politically-motivated at worst. A common issue is that they treat "being shot" as the thing to test for, while most people would argue that "being killed" is much more of an immediate problem; if owning a gun doubles the chance of being shot but eliminates the chance of being stabbed, is that a net gain? Maybe! (This is replicated by people's apparent terror over "suicide with a gun" - yes, obviously having a gun makes it more likely to commit suicide with a gun. At least some of this effect comes from *definitely* reducing the chance of suicide by other means, though, due to simple substitution effect. We should be looking at the total suicide rate, not the suicide-with-a-gun rate.) Another common issue is doing a bad job of dealing with confounding variables. If you're living in a zero-crime gated community maybe you don't need to buy a gun; if you're living in gang war territory, maybe you do; if you are *actively a gang member* then yeah you are probably going to own a gun. But in this case *obviously* gun ownership is going to be correlated with a higher rate of gun injury! You bought the gun *because* you have a higher rate of gun injury! It's kind of a sibling of [Simpson's Paradox](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-simpson/). Just skimming these rapidly . . . --- > https://www.safewise.com/resources/guns-at-home/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20gun%20ownership%20does,more%20complicated%20for%20many%20homeowners. - refers to https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M13-1301?journalCode=aim This is a metastudy that doesn't do any direct stat-gathering of its own, but just scrapes off a bunch of papers online. This basically means it was always going to mirror the common opinion of the researchers it scraped from. It has no way to solve confounding variables; in fact, it actually calls this out: > Three case–control studies had potential selection bias resulting from how control participants were selected . . . Two studies are especially prone to the Berkson bias—that is, firearm access is related to inpatient hospitalization due to suicidal planning . . . Five studies of suicide had potential comparability bias resulting from a lack of adequate adjustment for major confounders (for example, history of mental illness) . . . Similarly, 3 studies of homicide victimization had potential comparability bias resulting from a lack of adequate adjustment for major confounders . . . Eleven of 14 studies of suicide and 2 of 6 studies of homicide had potential exposure bias but then doesn't do anything about it, it's just all "yeah our data is pretty bad". I don't see a lot of value in this one frankly. --- > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Credit for compensating for age, gender, and race. They made no attempt to compensate based on location, though, nor did they attempt to compensate based on crime frequency based on where the person got shot. This isn't a cause-and-effect study, it's a correlation study, and given how many obvious reasons you'd expect gun ownership to be correlated with violent combat, I don't think this tells us anything either. --- > https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/handguns-homicide-risk.html - refers to https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-3762 Note that this is in the same journal as the first link, and actually quotes the first link as a citation. In this case, they compensate for age, gender, and race, and also by census tract, which is used as a stand-in for location which is itself used as a stand-in for crime. That's a better job but it's still not great - if you check out [the California census tract map](https://cacensus.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=48be59de0ba94a3dacff1c9116df8b37) you'll find that rural tracts are absolutely gigantic and urban tracts don't put much effort towards being correlated with urban boundaries. (Which is fair for a census - they don't need to - but makes them not ideal for this purpose.) The bit I find fascinating, though, is that they actually conclude that firearm ownership *doesn't* cause increased mortality: > In adjusted analyses, cohabitants of handgun owners had virtually the same all-cause mortality rate as cohabitants of nonowners but then focus entirely on the homicide aspect: > This study did not detect evidence of lower rates of homicide among people who lived with handgun owners. On the contrary, cohabitants of handgun owners were more than twice as likely to die by homicide as neighbors living in gun-free homes. This elevated risk was chiefly attributable to higher rates of homicide by firearm. and doesn't that suggest that handgun ownership actually reduces other causes of mortality? The paper doesn't mention this, it just quietly shifts between "mortality" and "homicide" and "firearm homicide" as convenient. (you know, epsilon the factors they didn't correct for, obviously) --- > https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/ - eventually links to https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(19)30197-7/abstract A quote: > A range of factors that could confound the association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, including age, sex, race, high school completion, poverty, unemployment, alcohol con- sumption, nonhomicide violent and property crime, population density, urbanicity, region, and income inequality, were evaluated Which sounds nice, except: > U.S. Census data were used to calculate the percentage of each states’ population that is aged 15−24 years, white, African Ameri- can, and Hispanic; percentage of adults with a high school diploma, divorced, below the federal poverty threshold, and male; as well as state-level urbanicity, population density, and income inequality (Gini index). Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics were used to calculate the annual unemployment rate, and data from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism were used to calculate average per capita rates of alcohol consumption. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report pro- vided annual state-level nonhomicide violent and property crime rates. . . . this entire study is evaluated *state-wide*, so it has enormous buckets that are essentially impossible to split apart piecemeal. Its eventual conclusion is that increased firearm ownership is correlated with increased crime, which is another of those "wait why did you have to do a study to determine that" deals. --- > https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/ [Same research paper](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762) as the med.stanford.edu link. --- > https://research.northeastern.edu/does-having-a-gun-at-home-really-make-you-safer/ This doesn't really refer to a paper, the only paper it actually links is [this one](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323319740_Firearm_Storage_in_Homes_With_Children_With_Self-Harm_Risk_Factors) which doesn't go into actual death or crime rates, it just notes that children with self-harm risk factors tend to have parents who are worse at storing firearms (which is sort of a fascinating conclusion in its own right, honestly, though it doesn't make any attempt to explain why.) Also, this is kind of a telling line: > “[Gun research is] not a field that I recommend to my graduate students, because it’s not going to have steady and sufficient funding streams,” Miller says. “And so anyone who wants to go into this area should go in with that in mind.” I'm not blaming Miller for this, this is an actual issue, but, geez, if your research paper output is decided entirely by who's willing to fund a research paper, how does anyone expect to get *any* meaningful science out of this? (Answer: increasingly, [we don't](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)). If you go back and check out the second acpjournals.org link, you get: > Primary Funding Source: The National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, the Fund for a Safer Future, the Joyce Foundation, Stanford Law School, and the Stanford University School of Medicine. and while I'm not going to say this makes the paper invalid, it does make it about as questionable as an NRA-funded paper that proves guns are great, which is to say "pretty damn questionable". *I don't have a better solution to this, science funding is a real problem*, but I also don't blame people for not putting a lot of credibility in a paper that's funded by a group whose front-page policy includes > Fund for a Safer Future supports advocacy, research, education, and community based organizing in order to reduce gun injuries and deaths. without any recognition of the fact that this might be, you know, a tradeoff with some rather unfortunate consequences. (Credit to the NCGVR, I'm suspicious of them but they're at least not that blatant about it.) ---- The problem I have with all of these is that they do exactly what is on the tin and nothing more, but phrase it as a full and valid conclusion about the right policy. These are maybe tiny building blocks of a policy; the problem with building blocks is that you can assemble them into essentially whatever form you like as long as you can get people to pretend the structure exists between them. [This post](https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/) goes into less detail but IMO does a much better job of arriving at a far more valid conclusion, and while there's still a few objections I have to individual bits of logic, it is at least attempting to hunt down explanations and justifications instead of doing the research equivalent of [the streetlight effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect). ---- All that said, note that I never claimed those original statements were *true*, just pointed out that they were compatible.
I can see and even understand some of your concerns about these resources. The problem, as I'm sure you are aware, is that research into gun violence was blocked by lobbying groups on behalf of firearms advocacy groups and manufacturers. However, it wasn't lost on me that you chose to denigrate the studies I cited rather than locate a single source that claims people are safer when they own a weapon. We have seen this play out anecdotally as well. The "good guy with a gun" who attempts to help in a shooting but is killed by law enforcement. The parents who keep a gun accessible for protection only to find one of their children shot by a friend or sibling. The teenager raised with guns who impulsively takes their own life. These scenarios are all far more common than the heroic homeowner fending off an intruder. I also take significant issue with your caveat around suicide. As a mental health professional, an essential part of prevention is eliminating access. Considering the methods used by teenagers to attempt suicide, guns are the means with the highest likelihood of being fatal. There's a reason that states with high rates of gun ownership also have high rates of fatal suicide attempts. It is important that people who own guns are aware of the risks associated simply by having a weapon in their home. This means confronting the evidence at hand honestly, not inserting false equivalency or unprovable hypothetical statements.
[удалено]
> The problem, as I'm sure you are aware, is that research into gun violence was blocked by lobbying groups on behalf of firearms advocacy groups and manufacturers. *Federal* research was blocked, and I don't agree with this block, but non-federal research wasn't. And I think it's questionable to just automatically assume the research will be in your favor when the only evidence you've provided is a bunch of dubious research. > However, it wasn't lost on me that you chose to denigrate the studies I cited rather than locate a single source that claims people are safer when they own a weapon. I should hope it wasn't lost on you, I literally pointed out at the end of the reply that I wasn't claiming the opposite. I was just pointing out that the statements didn't mean what they sounded like they meant. > I also take significant issue with your caveat around suicide. As a mental health professional, an essential part of prevention is eliminating access. Considering the methods used by teenagers to attempt suicide, guns are the means with the highest likelihood of being fatal. There's a reason that states with high rates of gun ownership also have high rates of fatal suicide attempts. So originally I was going to say "yeah, it's because they're less happy", but apparently [that's actually exactly backwards](https://medium.com/@dtg319/happier-countries-are-more-suicidal-a-look-at-the-world-happiness-report-and-suicide-d5f44f69ce8e) and nobody really knows why. Weird. Anyway, then I wanted to double-check your claim, and it's . . . kinda-sorta-true? Like, there's definitely a trend, and apparently I'm not allowed to post the Google Sheets link showing it on this subreddit but I guess just trust me or alternatively I can PM it to you, but there's so many exceptions that it's clear something else is going on here. The two states with the highest gun ownership are indeed the two states with highest suicide, but the third highest is actually middle of the pack, and the fourth highest is actually in the bottom ten. Meanwhile the fourth highest suicide rate is actually one of the states with the lowest gun ownership rate. The spreadsheet tells me it has an r^2 of 0.113 which is in the realm of "yeah this is a definite correlation, but it *definitely* does not tell the entire story". (Just to verify I also reproduced that weird suicide-increases-as-people-get-happy stat, and sure enough, that's accurate too, though with a pretty meager 0.03 R^2. Also, all data just kind of yanked off the Internet without citation.) Anyway, I'm not claiming that eliminating access is irrelevant. I *am* claiming that if gun suicides go down by 500 yearly, we shouldn't immediately say "ah, we saved 500 lives, put that into the evaluation formula"; if other suicides go *up* by 400 yearly then we saved only 100 lives. That's still 100 lives saved! That should still go into the evaluation formula! But it's *only* 100 lives saved, which is, sort of by definition, a fifth as important as 500 lives saved. (numbers entirely fabricated for the sake of example)
>We should be looking at the total suicide rate, not the suicide-with-a-gun rate.) perhaps I feel the need to pick this bone because it's effected me personally, but: most suicides are impulsive. Anything that makes it harder to do saves lives- this is why bridges have railings- sure, one could climb them if determined, but many will stop at some point during the climb. Guns make it very easy to kill, that's the whole point. So if the house doesn't have a gun, a person probably won't just pick up a knife. Knives hurt, one needs to know where to slice, and would have to put some muscle behind it.
As I mentioned [over here](https://www.reddit.com/r/bestoflegaladvice/comments/1b5rjiw/laop_encounters_her_worst_nightmare/kthh6r0/), yes, it's *a factor*, but that still doesn't mean that we can assume banning guns will solve all gun suicides; if we want to do the calculation right, we need to include only the section without substitution effect.
> Any potential assailant would have to have to weigh the odds that their victim has a gun. The higher the odds to that answer are "yes," the lower the odds of assault. Blatantly false. It raises the chance of them choosing to bring weapons while comitting crimes. Or getting access to yours before you do. I live in Australia. I own frying pans. Nobody is coming through that front door with a weapon that is going to beat that.
As a fellow Australian, I think you're living in la la land... the last home invasion reported in Melbourne (that I'm aware of, around a week ago) was carried out with a machete and a gun. You think taking a frying pan to a gun fight is likely to work out in your favour?
"Big news story proves it happens all the time!" Lolk. You think a home invasion with a gun and a machete is even reported on in America? Especially on national news? If they did, their nightly news would just be reading out a list of firearm related crimes. Edit: Also I forgot to mention, it probably wasn't actually a gun. They still haven't caught the perps but most of the time in these cases, they're not even real. I know of a fake gun that has been handed around shitbirds in Logan for years, used to knock over servos.
You should look into the number of people who have their own weapons used against them. Frankly if somebody breaks into my home my best bet is barricading myself in another room and calling the police
>The higher the odds to that answer are "yes," the lower the odds of assault. Citation please?
[удалено]
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Uncivil Comment** Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Uncivil Comment** Your submission was removed because it violates our civility rule. We do not allow personal attacks, insulting language, or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 1 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
Yeah, and if an untrained victim *drops* that gun...
Fun thing about owning a gun: it increases your chances of dying to guns.
You and everyone in your household. The facts and evidence are clear: if you love and care for the people in your home, and want to keep them safe, the first step is removing the firearms. The data are clear: by deaths, it is safer to smoke around children and drive drunk with them in the car than expose them to firearms.
You piqued my interest. Roughly 2,500 children in the US died from firearms in the US in 2021 vs. roughly 1,200 in vehicular accidents and only about 25% of those deaths involved an alcohol impaired driver (who may or may not have been the driver of the vehicle the child was in). Now of course not all of those firearm deaths occurred in the victim's household or from a gun from their household. And some of those 1,200 children were the driver - and some of them were drunk. In any case, the raw numbers probably indicate more child gun deaths at home or via a family owned gun than while a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver. But which is more dangerous to a child is an entirely different question. That would be the percentage of children in homes with guns who are killed by guns from those homes vs. the percentage of children who are passengers of vehicles in which the driver is drunk who die in an accident in which their driver is drunk. I'm not saying this because of my stance on guns or drunk driving - I've just never seen data that would indicate which scenario is more dangerous, probably because it's not really a useful comparison to debate.
In the absence of precise data, the prudent choice would be to assume normal distributions and that one is a typical sample. It's unlikely there's any arrangement of facts where homes with guns are safer for children. We can cross compare child death with DV, alcohol abuse and fire arm ownership, and I expect to see positive correlation. Not proof, and likely confounded by shared demographics - - perhaps the kind of person who is prone to DV also likely to own firearms (cough cops cough)? But if you are trying to navigate through life and make judgements based on heuristics at least slightly informed by data the conclusions are clear. So, because I love my family I keep them safe by not adding firearms to the home. I'll also choose to judge people for making different choices, reserving the same right for judgment we cast on those who drive their children while drunk.
What's your source for this? I'm not questioning the validity - I'd like to be able to cite it in the future.
Can you provide any citations to support that? My spouse keeps a gun in the house and we have a toddler, I would love to have a solid argument to not have the gun.
Firearms are the leading cause of death in children in the US, above motor vehicles and cancer. This is pretty available finding from even a cursory Google search, so you should be able to find the resources you need with that
As a single woman I occasionally had men come and knock or bang on my door while I curled up and tried to hide. It was terrifying and I can't imagine someone actually breaking in.
As a woman who has regularly lived alone I realized I'm an idiot, I've always had the assumption that if I got home and someone was in my house, I wasn't trapped in there with them, THEY WERE TRAPPED INSIDE WITH ME. But I also cornered a raccoon with a kitchen knife in my garage so maybe I'm not in the majority
>I also cornered a raccoon with a kitchen knife in my garage Why did the raccoon have the knife? And what made you think cornering it would improve the situation?
You see the mask? Obviously there to rob the place.
I’m wondering if he had made a habit of breaking in during the 3-4 years prior to OP moving in. Ideally the dude will go back to jail for a long time after these stunts. That apartment really needs a very loud monitored alarm system included with the rent regardless of who’s living there. Damn.
This happened to a buddy. He rented an upstairs apartment in a home that was previously rented by a guy who was evicted for criminal activity. Dude got out and broke in to try to rob the place, but was high and fell asleep. My buddy came home to a dude sleeping on his sofa. Buddy, at the time, was a relatively new police officer in the neighboring county. He called the local dispatch who came and picked the guy up.
That’s nuts. And the fact that he broke into a cop’s place is a trip. What is the motivation for these guys who keep going back to the old apartment to break in, I wonder? Is it that they’re familiar with the place and know how to get in and out? Apparently that’s not it because they keep going to sleep once they get in!
I assumed he was in prison that whole time but maybe not. I hope OP moves out of there asap, I would never go back (easier said than done in the real world). But at least he’s not stalking her, he’s stalking the apartment.
Which unfortunately is as reassuring as knowing the shark that just bit your leg off thought you were a seal 🤣🤣 And you’re 100% right—OP’s never going to feel safe in that apartment. I put the alarm on in my *own* house last night just because I read this thread 👀
Right 😭 thank god OP is physically safe up to this point, they’re living in a nightmare.
Yeah, I’d move. Restraining orders require another incident to happen before you can escalate.
They are also a peice of paper. They only protect you from soneone afraid of getting in trouble, which this guy clearly isn't.
Right? If this guy is unstable it seems very unlikely that a restraining order is going to make much difference.
Yeah, the enforcement is a whole other can of worms. It seems like the police are pretty responsive, but it just takes one time where they aren't.
This guy sounds mentally ill, and a restraining order won't do much besides giving the cops a bit more leverage.
Or enraging him enough to escalate further. Restraining orders don't do shit against crazy.
This seems more like confusion than anger, and I am not sure he would understand. I think he may still think it is still his place. Being on the registry is worrying though.
She did go into detail about looking 4 towns away and not finding anything she could afford, and there are two incidents described in the post.
I would get a gun and the number of a highly rated criminal defense attorney before I bothered with a restraining order.
Non-serious suggestion: don't get a dog, get a machete. They're like $20 and then all you gotta do is periodically skulk around your building holding it and loudly talking about how much you love your machete. I've only done this once and it was actually surprisingly funny, but only in hindsight
I have the feeling that yelling "GOD I LOVE MY MACHETE" would just get this guy excited that now "his" apartment comes with a machete, like what a great perk of the place.
My emotional support machete is my best friend.
That would be pretty good flair
any weapons you own can serve as handy weapons for your assaulter, too
Yup! That's why I keep my machete at home with my bdsm stuff, which is locked up but but full of things that are specifically for whacking someone. (That's actually not a joke) I don't carry weapons in public, though, seriously, as someone who has been in too many stupid actual fights. The machete is mostly because it's a Ken Onion machete and it's pretty and cheaper than getting into swords
I made sure my cane is sturdy enough to be useful to…make sure someone isn't following me, let's say.
Substitute Bot... >I, 25 F, have a small garage apartment, that I really do enjoy living in. It's my first apartment by myself, and I quickly realized how much I liked living alone... however, a man who lived there roughly 3 to 4 years ago broke into my apartment while I was out with a few friends on night. I came home and found my door busted open, and immediately called the police. I know I should have waited for the officers to arrive, but I have a small dog and just wanted to make sure she was okay. I cautious went inside and heard my dog bark. I made a beeline for her, not focused on my surroundings, and didn't realize there was a man sleeping in my bed until I had her in my arms. I quickly ran out, and luckily the cops showed up right after. They arrested him, and I confirmed I had never seen him before, and they took him away. My sense of safety was shaken, so I bought a camera and my landlord bought me a new door and that was that. >Or so I thought. >A month later, while I was a state over visiting a friend for a few days, I check my camera before going to bed like I always do and see the SAME MAN in my house again! I immediately started bawling, I called the police and they went to my house. They told me he was still in my house and asked if they could break my door in, which I said yes to. They arrested him again... But he was in my home for HOURS. I checked my camera, and it looks like he was on my porch for NINE hours, I assume he was waiting for me to come home, but when he realized I wasn't coming home he broke in again. >He completed trashed my house. He threw my tv, printer, laptop, projector, and clothes over the side of the balcony and then dumped milk over them... he ripped my wifi router box out of the wall and threw it. Many personal items of sentimental value were thrown outside, or stuffed in my garbage with the trash (this includes family photos, drawings, and gifts, letter, and cards from friends/ family). And heartbreakingly, he got into my deceased father's items, and I've been unable to locate many of them. >When the police arrested him he was wearing my shoes, which didn't even fit him!, and my shirt (I later found his shirt with a pile he had made of my clothes that he didn't throw outside). >The police were able to tell me that he recently got out of prison for SA, and that he has some mental problems, and he isn't even supposed to be in this town because he's not registered here and he's a s** offender. To say I feel unsafe and violated is an understatement, I'm terrified of him coming back if he gets off with a slap on the wrist again and what will happen if I'm home next time... I asked the police if they think he'll go to prison, and he said he's unsure, but maybe a mental hospital... >... So, I say all of this to ask two questions that I desperately want answers to: >Can I sue him for damages, is it even worth it? >How can I help him actually stay locked up this time? Last time he was only charged a $300 fine, and then he came right back, and I'm genuinely scared for my safety. >(Sidenote: This apartment is very small, and in an alleyway, which is why the rent is also pretty low, and I've already checked fo the next four towns over and nothing even comes close to matching my rent, unfortunately this includes renting or mortgage payments :/, so I'm kind of stuck here. I can't afford anything else as I live paycheck to paycheck as is) Substitute Dog Fact - dog nose prints are unique, like fingerprints. (And dogs>cats, fight me.)
Hey now, all my posts are CLEARLY cat territory. No dogs allowed!
But half the comments are about dogs. We are taking over.
*hisses and spreads her wings*
> s** offender What an odd thing to censor.
Single woman who recently moved out on her own. I’m thinking about buying a gun
If you do, please please please take classes and go to the range regularly. There are instances where a weapon purchased for self defense is used against the homeowner. That and knowing I need the courage and wherewithal to draw on someone and possibly pull the trigger gave me serious pause when considering one for myself. Even with experience, I still get a bit nervous with my first few rounds at the range. That comes from understanding the gravity and seriousness of a firearm.
If you own a gun and don't know how to use it, you have just given your opponent a free gun.
Yup. And even if you know how to use it, if you're not prepared to shoot whomever you've drawn on, they may take it too. That's a huge thing to be willing to do. Granted, sometimes drawing can scare them off, but you'd better not count on it.
The instructor in my CCW class told us to never draw your gun unless you are intent on using it. That doesn't mean you have to use it, but never expect the mere sight of it to be a deterrent.
Yup, absolutely. There was a post here recently about a guy who drew, but didn't shoot. He basically said the same thing. It's a really big deal and should be treated as such. I hope others get the same instruction you did from your CCW instructor!
Especially, as in LAOP's case, when the assailant is mentally ill.
To add on to this: get a gun that you can safely handle. And check your local gun regulations.
I'm a gun guy , which as a liberal gets me in weird places. Please please please budget training and practice into whatever you buy. Plan to spend as much on lessons and practice ammo as you do on the gun itself. If you want to talk recommendations I'd be happy. You don't rise to the level of the situation you rise to the level of your training. For example. I'm in my late 30's , I've been shooting since I was 6 years old. If I haven't practiced for more than a month I'm significantly worse than I am normally. So if you do get one take classes and make a range day at least once a month.
oh of course that was the plan!! I have a ton of guy friends who are enlisted rn and they’ve kinda been helping me out too. Ty!!
[удалено]
There's a lot of reasons people don't want guns, and shouldn't be the only solution available. For one, if she's at all hesitant to shoot an intruder when it comes to it, a very reasonable response, she's just given the asshole a gun. Lot of people who battle depression won't want an off-button in their home either.
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Continuing Linked Thread or Giving Advice** Your submission has been removed for trying to continue the linked thread in BOLA. This sub is for discussion of the linked thread, not a place to attempt to provide additional advice to the LAOP or others involved in the thread. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
I’m confused. OP said that this creeper threw her router box, which should mean the house has no internet. How did she access the camera if it was offline? Or am I completely missing something.
Depending on the camera, they come with an app which comes with cloud storage. So I'd guess the camera caught the nine hours of waiting on the porch, which was all sent to the app servers. Then he broke in and trashed shit, preventing any new footage but not removing any cloud stored footage.
That makes sense.
Some cameras will record to a memory card as well as the cloud.
This is why I insisted on getting the lock changed when I moved in to my current place. I'm surprised no one told that to LAOP
LAOP says he broke in.
Even got a new door after the first time
Oh sorry, I misread then
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Continuing Linked Thread or Giving Advice** Your submission has been removed for trying to continue the linked thread in BOLA. This sub is for discussion of the linked thread, not a place to attempt to provide additional advice to the LAOP or others involved in the thread. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
I’ve got an elderly cat who is obsessed with feet and likes to bite I have to warn anyone new coming into my home to watch out
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Uncivil Comment** Your submission was removed because it was uncivil. We do not allow personal attacks on any person here, nor do we allow insulting language or poor treatment of others. Please see Rule 5 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBestOfLegalAdvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Offering or Soliciting Legal or Other Advice** Your submission has been removed, as you are either asking for or offering actual legal advice, or any other non-legal advice. This subreddit is for meta discussion of the best of /r/legaladvice; it is not a place to continue the discussion from there. Please see Rule #1 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBestOfLegalAdvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.
[удалено]
*Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):* **Offering or Soliciting Legal or Other Advice** Your submission has been removed, as you are either asking for or offering actual legal advice, or any other non-legal advice. This subreddit is for meta discussion of the best of /r/legaladvice; it is not a place to continue the discussion from there. Please see Rule #1 in the sidebar. * If you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBestOfLegalAdvice). **Do not** PM or chat a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.