Five family members, including three kids, were found dead in an Ohio home Thursday evening in what police are calling a “domestic dispute that turned deadly,” according to a news release.
The incident is being investigated as a quadruple murder-suicide, police said.
“To defend against intruders!” they’ll enthusiastically exclaim, thinking it makes them some badass… except it significantly increases the likelihood you will, in your adrenaline-fueled and panicked response, accidentally shoot yourself or another family member (or beloved pet) while mistaking them for an intruder— not to mention all of the other statistically higher chances of half a dozen other gun-related tragedies happening simply because a gun is present in the home.
“But we keep it locked up!” These people will claim. Great, but that only lowers the danger somewhat; it doesn’t eliminate it. Kids are very clever. They can find keys. They have intimate knowledge of you and can guess combinations. They can get access to those locked-up guns if they’re determined, and kids are determined. And a locked-up gun isn’t much use when an intruder breaks into your home and you have mere seconds to fumble around in the dark with a key or combination amidst that adrenaline-fueled panic, half-awake, trying to unlock the lock-box and load the gun while trying not to accidentally shoot yourself or a loved one.
And no matter how much time you spend at the shooting range, shooting at a well-lit, stationary, paper target, that won’t prepare you for shooting at a moving, human target in the dark. When faced with the prospect of shooting a living person, many people will freeze, and in that moment, an intruder who may have had no intention of using their weapon may suddenly decide that they now have no choice and pull the trigger. And they very likely have more experience than you.
A knife or a baseball bat is far more effective in a close-quarters confrontation, not to mention far more survivable should the target be a mistaken one. You’re no badass. Just call 911 and try to keep your family out of danger. You don’t have the years of training that the professionals do. Don’t risk the lives of yourself and your family just because you fear losing control.
I don’t generally disagree with your point, but I’m not sure why you’re making it here.
Lets not pretend like this was anything but intentional use of a firearm by a family annihilator, and that the problem in this case is gendered violence, not gun safety.
They’re just expanding on the comment they replied to.
And I just pointed out that their long spiel about gun safety is irrelevant because this wasn’t a case that could have been prevented with gun safety. This man wanted to kill his family, and he did.
Pretty sure that he’d have had a lot of difficulty shooting them if there wasn’t a gun around.
Again, they were replying to someone else’s comment about the safety of having a gun in the home. If they’d made a top-level comment saying this, maybe you’d have an argument, but currently all you’re doing is trying to derail the the discussion with irrelevant details.
It’s not like these were the first people to die of gun violence so who cares whether a tangential discussion applies in this specific instance?
If you can’t see the connection between the dangers of having a gun in the home and what happened here, it’s because you don’t want to.
If you can’t see the connection between gendered violence and what happened here, it’s because you don’t want to.
(also gun safety, which I literally started my previous reply saying I agree with, had nothing to do with this case, you are just derailing the conversation from the real issue - an epidemic of deadly misogyny. It wasn’t the gun being there that made him kill them)
Insinuating gender issues into this when there no evidence of that as a motivation (no suicide note, no knowledge of the motivations) is simply you projecting an agenda.
As a matter of gun safety, it’s obvious: the best way to keep a home safe from gun violence is to not have a gun in the home.
~~Oh no. ~~
The article is short. It names all the members of the family. Based on the names, there appear to be:* One adult male* One adult female* Two teen females (yeah, I’m calling 12 a teen)* One male childThere is no information in the article about which one of the above was the shooter, and all of them are old enough to be able to handle a firearm (although it’s less likely that the male child, aged 9, would have been the shooter).Your comments refer to “him” and “this man,” so you must be referring to the adult male. Unless you have some information about this incident that is not stated in the article, you are assuming that you know who the shooter was, where there is no information to support that claim.It seems that you want to believe that it must have been the man, because you believe that men are intrinsically violent. Is it more statistically likely, based on past history? Sure. But you cannot apply statistics that way to come to a correct conclusion about an individual incident.If you bother to watch the video, it states several times that the father was the shooter. How else would he have shot everyone else than himself otherwise?
I’m operating based on the facts given, not some social agenda or implicit biases. Get your facts straight. 
I stand corrected.
And the professionals might also mistake you for the intruder. Or they might shoot you by accident or because you were “mentally ill”, “uncooperative”, or “black”. Or they might shoot you for fun. So, you know, choose your risk carefully.
Statistically speaking, the odds of that are far far lower than what might happen when you have a gun in the home.  The cops are certainly more likely to mistake you for intruder if you’re holding a gun. 
Yes, choose your risk carefully. But don’t base it on bravado and fear. 
Well written. It’s just cosplay.
This is all very easy to say, but have you ever had to defend yourself against an adult who actually meant to harm you?
Yes I have, several times.
And, no, it’s not easy to say. This comes at the hand of decades of research and real-world observations by thousands of people and agencies and the data they’ve collected. What’s easy is to just think that having a gun will solve all of your problems and make you safe. What hard is to acknowledge the facts: it statistically will make your home far more dangerous.
If the true goal of organizations advocating against civilian gun ownership (and publishing statistics you cite) were to save lives then educators, in recognition of the fact that about half of households own at least one firearm, would actually ensure children could at least make a gun safe (properly unload) instead of the abstinence approach that is taught today in every school.
I have advised several people AGAINST buying firearms for self defense, Knowing they would not train adequately to become proficient. Guns are not a blanket solution, but a baseball bat or knife? By any unskilled user? Like two 200-300 pound dudes breaking down the door of a 100 pound person whose never received martial arts training would be better off with a bat? That is hilarious and absurd. With that being said it’s a much lower bar to get proficient enough with a firearm that one can handle it safely and stand a good chance of defending themselves against even multiple attackers. As for the statistical dangers yes but two things: zero guns obviously means zero gun suicides, and if your objective is to produce quickly communicable punch lines, it’s easy to manipulate statistics to suit your aims - virtually every number used by people who favor complete civilian disarmament is cherry picked once you dig down into to sources and see what is included and excluded from those figures.
It’s funny you mention suicides:
From Pew Research:
So who is it who’s “manipulating statistics” by acting like preventing/massively reducing the 54% of gun deaths (26k+ and trending upward) is not something we should be trying to accomplish?
Proclaiming that people who keep a weapon for self defense all think “it makes them some badass” is insulting language that will keep some people from being interested in what are some otherwise good points.
I’m a dude that agrees with the sentiment that a baseball bat coupled with bear spray is much better than a gun. The bear spray can be used at a distance of up to 50ft and while it will effectively immobilize someone, it won’t do permanent harm if you mistakenly target someone you care about. Baseball bat or knife is definitely a good option, but I can understand a smaller person’s concern that both have a need to be very close to a person to be effective and there’s a fear of being disarmed. A gun may let them defend themselves from a distance, and any shot, even a bad one or in the air from a distance is a great warning and potential deterence.
An assailant with a weapon themselves may feel provoked to use it if you come after them with a knife or baseball bat too, so it’s not unreasonable to opt for a gun in that circumstance too.
A gun itself does bring risk, and like I said I recommend bear spray as that stuff is way more effective than pepper spray, works at a distance and isn’t going to kill anyone by mistake. I still however understand why somebody might have more peace of mind knowing they have a gun handy vs just a baseball bat or knife. They’ll likely never need either or have an accident, but I won’t discount they might feel more secure with a means to defend themselves from a distance.
Methinks the “badass” doth protest too much
Ammosexuals lack both