Armed Homeowner Steps In After Girlfriend's Estranged Husband Allegedly Breaks In

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'm glad FOX News has chosen to give the issue of 'defensive gun use' some attention.

Armed homeowner steps in after girlfriend's estranged husband allegedly breaks in: police

An Oklahoma man reportedly stepped in when his girlfriend's estranged husband allegedly broke into their home, leading to one neighbor praising the state's gun laws.

"People just be breaking into other people's houses over here and... I guess that's what's going on. And I'm just glad that it's open carry in this state because people need to be able to protect [themselves]," Midwest City, Oklahoma, resident only identified as Gabrielle told OKC Fox...

"I guess they see targets, but I'm telling you, you think them single moms aren't armed, or, you know, them single dads or people are not going to protect their home. You come in them doors you know and you're not invited you might get filled up with holes. And that's just the honest truth," added Gabrielle...

I guess the suspect survived, but was charged with first-degree burglary and stalking.

In 2022, The Trace declared...

...The reality is that estimates of defensive gun use are so squishy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May removed all figures from its website. But below we do our best to separate fact from fiction...

This ambiguity has opened the door to a fierce debate between gun violence researchers and pro-gun advocates, who tend to cite different sets of data. Academics largely rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a twice-yearly poll of crime victims conducted by the federal government, while gun rights activists point to a series of telephone surveys conducted in the early 1990s by a criminologist and self-described ?gun control skeptic? named Gary Kleck...

Defensive gun use, Hemenway said, "is the linchpin of almost all the arguments about having a gun."

Another reason DGU overestimates are repeated across decades is because most studies on the topic are more than 20 years old. In interviews, both Kleck and Hemenway say they consider the science to be settled. Kleck hasn?t repeated his telephone survey in nearly 30 years, while Hemenway points to the NCVS as a current barometer of defensive gun use. But both men concede that the true number of DGUs will probably never be known...

But, therein lies the problem with such an 'analysis.' The whole point is directed at undermining and, thus, negating, the "linchpin" of pro-gun arguments; not necessarily to establish the legitimacy or veracity of the data. Notice how the article ends...

..."What we do know for sure," Hemenway said, "is that having a gun in your house increases suicides, it increases gun accidents, and it increases homicides, at least of women in the house. And we can?t find any benefit from it."

Such says a lot regarding the premises the anti-gun crowd 'rely' upon and purvey. Coincidentally, we then do the same thing to their premises. While each argument makes sense to believers, neither side seems honest, logical, or rational to the other. Well, until most become actual 'victims' and didn't have access to effective arms to defend themselves or personally know someone who did or the events become sufficient to cause 'concern' to overwhelm 'cause.'

Now, add in the 'games' which go on with official statistics... Government Continues to Downplay, Distort Data on Defensive Gun Use...

In 2021, John R. Lott, Jr., the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a paper on the "serious errors" he found in Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports purporting to track "active shooter incidents" (ASIs). The FBI's annual or biannual reports - which aim "to provide federal, state and local law enforcement with data so they can better understand how to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from these incidents" - contained, according to Dr. Lott, critical errors. In one instance, the failure to include "many major missed cases" meant that once those cases were accounted for, what the FBI had presented as a drastic increase in ASIs between 2000 and 2013 was actually a "slight, statistically insignificant upward trend over the 38 years from 1977 through 2014," and one that was, moreover, attributable to high numbers in a single year (2012)...

As a result, you begin to understand why the RAND Corporation concluded, in 2018... The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Defensive Gun Use...

There has been little empirical work since the NRC (2004) report, so the serious limitations in the literature remain largely unresolved. At first glance, individuals engaged in DGU appear less likely to lose property and suffer injury and more likely to report that their action helped the outcome. However, several important caveats emerge. First, it is not clear that DGU is uniquely beneficial relative to other actions. Second, given that the literature is largely based on cross-tabulations and relatively basic multivariate analyses, when associations are found between DGU and reduced injury, for instance, it is not clear whether this is due to a causal effect of the DGUs on reduced injury or whether the circumstances that make a DGU possible also make injury less likely. In the latter case, it may not be DGUs that reduce the likelihood of injury but rather unique features of the circumstances in which DGUs occur. For instance, individuals may be more likely to defend themselves with a weapon when they feel that they have a greater opportunity to be successful in that defense, which may bias estimates toward a beneficial impact of gun use. Statistical models designed to identify the causal effect of DGUs on various outcomes have not yet been reported.

Survey-based analyses of the effects of DGU suffer from more-general limitations. For example, individuals reporting the outcomes were also the ones who made the decision to engage in DGU, which may influence their assessment. Furthermore, survey data cannot be used to assess the relationship between DGU and fatalities, because those killed during incidents cannot be included. And more broadly, it is unclear whether this literature, which rests largely on the NCVS, suffers from the limited generalizability of DGU events within its scope. It has been widely noted that DGUs not involving an included crime category are less likely to be captured by the NCVS. To the extent that these incidents have different outcomes or different characteristics, NCVS-based findings may not be generalizable. Efforts to use other sources of data, however, have encountered similar limitations regarding the size and representativeness of samples and the ability to identify the causal effects of DGU.

Finally, even if DGUs have a positive causal effect on such outcomes as injuries and property loss, it may still be the case that DGUs do not provide net societal benefits if many or most involve illegal use of firearms. Whether any net societal harms outweigh the benefits to those individuals who succeed with legitimate or just DGU in protecting their own or others? well-being is a value judgment that society must make. Having better data on the frequency of legitimate and illegitimate DGU, and on the magnitude of harms and benefits associated with those events, would assist in making that judgment.

For these reasons, we conclude that the existing evidence for any causal effect of DGU on reducing harm to individuals or society is inconclusive.

Which is why I tend to fall back on and often repeat the 'warning' provided by SCOTUS in 1943...

...The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...

Remember, the Bill of Rights were not constructed based on 'studies,' but based on real world experiences with a repressive government. It's the reason why, back in July, Reason.com noted... This 80-Year-Old Supreme Court Case Offers Hope for Teachers Who Think DEI Has Gone Too Far. If the case has "enduring relevance as a guarantor of free speech" and can be utilized to pushback against mandates regarding 'diversity, equity, and inclusion,' then, perhaps, it can also serve as a bit of an inspiration on defending gun rights.

[BigPimping]

Never a wise idea to get involved with a woman with a psychotic ex-boyfriend or husband. This is why I make a very good living.

[L84CABO]

By the way they say "estranged husband" in the article, does that mean they are not divorced? Wouldn't they have said EX husband if they were divorced?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

By the way they say "estranged husband" in the article, does that mean they are not divorced? Wouldn't they have said EX husband if they were divorced?

There are only, really, a couple of versions of reporting on this readily available. One says 'estranged' and the other...

Armed Oklahoma Man Saves Girlfriend After Ex-Husband Breaks In, Charges At Them

One neighbor who spoke to reporters praised Oklahoma's gun laws after a man in the state intervened when his girlfriend's ex-husband allegedly broke into their house and threatened their lives...

Of course, there's... Armed Man Shoots Violent Home Invader in "Open Carry" Oklahoma, where the subtitle is (emphasis mine) "Man defends girlfriend from estranged ex-husband during violent break-in, authorities say;" but, the article's text just uses 'estranged.'

So... ... when it comes to whether they're divorced or separated. I think their point is that they are no longer a 'couple' and living separate lives; meaning that, in this PC world, they may not know so are indicating 'separated' rather than drawing conclusions in a media story.

I had a next door neighbor once who was 'divorced' but had a 'violence prone' ex-husband stalking her to the point where she couldn't 'hide' from him. He showed up one night, broke in the sliding glass rear door, and was arrested on site. The landlord's 'estranged ex-girlfriend' (meaning they were no longer living together and she was 'shacked up' with a guy she hadn't yet, but would eventually marry) had been attempting to give her a place to live so as to 'disappear;' but, he found her through contacts. When the landlord was apprised of the incident, he was not happy; but, was concerned that he kicked the gal out, he'd be held liable. He then came at me for 'advising' her to hole up someplace she felt 'safe' until the arrest was sorted out and it was determined whether the police would 'hold' the former husband. I told him it was a choice. He allowed the gal in, knowing about the ex. So, I told him his options were, among a number of things, to potentially be held liable, potentially have the gal 'short' him on the rent because she was (unofficially) 'advised' to find a 'safe' spot until her door was repaired and she knew what the ex's status was with police - OR - he could be on the wrong end with the neighbors in the duplex apartments surrounding her if the ex's behavior spilled over and impacted them. Needless to say, I didn't hear anymore about it from the landlord.

That was decades ago.

The point is that if you read the accounts, she wasn't even in the house she 'shared' with the 'husband' or 'ex-husband' or 'former husband' or whatever his current standing in terms of 'living with' her. She was in the next door neighbor's home...

The couple's residence on Flannery Drive that was broken into early on Wednesday is next door to Gabrielle's home.

It was the owner of that home who shot the suspect.