Armed home invasion in the Fenway

Brian D'Amico reports a gunman forced his way into an apartment at 46 Westland Ave. around 11:30 p.m.

He's described as black and in his 20s.

There was another armed home invasion across the street last August.

The incident occurred about 90 minutes after an armed robbery on the other side of the Fens.



Free tagging: 


Next time might be his last

We can only hope that the next time this 'armed home invader' selects a target, he is met on the other side of the door by an NRA member. The odds are the outcome might go a bit different for the home invader


Odds against the intruder vs. over-all odds

Sally, your Examiner citation is really off-point. Jakester was opining about reversing the odds against an intruder given a weapon. Your article speaks about the over-all odds of misadventure given a weapon in the home. Your view that the presence of a weapon in the home increases the likelihood of death and injury seems supported, but it doesn't speak the efficacy of a weapon in fending off an intruder.


You're welcome to study further.

No one is going to stand there at the gun show and say "wow--this gun is awesome but having it into home with my three sons is going to substantially increase the risk that one of them will make a successful suicide attempt or accidentally harm someone else." But the stats show just that. The chances that you'll actually use your gun to successfully defend yourself against an intruder are minuscule, despite the Wayne LaPierre spoonfed fantasies of the Jakester and his ilk. So yes--when I hear "odds" being used as a reason to arm yourself (in the Fenway, no less, where I'm guessing that armed home invasions are fairly rare) my hackles go up.


More made up stats sally?

Sally, to quote Ronald Reagan - "There you go again." You have this tendency to make up stats hoping that no one will realize what you're doing. But many of us do. You may be able to fool your fellow libs, but most Americans are far smarter than are you. A gun in the home is the best and quickest defense against a home invasion. If you choose not to have one, hey, your choice. its the wrong one but you have the right to make it. I'll keep my gun and guaranteed, a home invasion will have far less of a chance of being successful at my house than at yours. As for feeding trolls, after reading some of your Looney posts, I can only guess at what you've been consuming.


someone posted earlier that there are 22 bad gun incidents in homes for every single successful home defense with a weapon.

But you would play those odds BECAUSE GUNS!!!! GUNS!!!!!!! GUNS!!!!!!!!

What an idiot you are.

Oh, and this from actual research, fool:

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Oh, but its ACTUAL RESEARCH from actual FACTS and DATA so of course, in your bizarro world that equals "made up stats".

I'm betting you can't even add up 4+7+11


Although I'm arguing on your side....

the stats quotes in the pubmed article don't quite tell the full picture. comparing costs and benefits of guns in the home, costs are somewhat easy to measure; benefits less so. There is, arguably, a deterrent or herd immunity effect in play; you need to count not only the home invasions that were stopped by an armed homeowner, but also those that were deterred by the potential presence of an armed homeowner.

Twisted stats, indeed.

True: placing cyanide-baited traps all around the perimeter of my home would significantly reduce the chances of a rabid skunk entering the premises and infecting one of my children with rabies.

Also true: Cyanide all over the premises would increase the chances of my family or a visitor getting poisoned.

Even if cyanide-baited traps were 100% effective at preventing rabies, I wouldn't do it.

Why? Because the chances of a rabid skunk coming into the house and biting one of my kids is pretty damn close to zero, so there's really no sense in increasing the risk, even a little bit, to protect against an event whose likelihood is so vanishingly small.

In the same way, the increase in risk to me and my family that would result from keeping a firearm handy, would grossly exceed the reduced risk of home invasion.

I'm a staunch defender of 2nd amendment rights, and I have no personal objection to guns. But the argument that keeping a gun at home makes you safer, is demonstrably false, and needs to be called out.

Sorry, but what stats did I make up exactly?

Just remind me. Because there seem to be plenty of them out there supporting my point--I mean of course they're all from notorious lib progressive hippie sources like the AJE And yes--I understand that actually dealing with facts rather than fantasy is unsettling for you, jake. If having weaponry in your home makes you feel safer then go for it--just please be aware of the inherent dangers of having a gun in your home, be aware of signs of depression or instability and so on. Personally I prefer to have a dog, an alarm system and a police station two blocks away but I guess those are just my crazy moonbat ways.

So the examiner article you

So the examiner article you cite mentions 62% of gun related deaths are suicides (the article also doesn't cite where this data comes from). How does that even relate to the safety of the homeowner during a home invasion?


Hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

And, please be in touch - given your wonderous grasp of risks involved with having guns and home invasions, I'd like to offer you some "sure fire" betting action. Oh yes.


Some nonsense

A lot of the Berklee/NEC kids are serious consumers of marijuana. Some are dealing. If the supply chain brings the students into contact with a less, uh, professional colleague, yeah this could happen.

Also, it's widely known that musicians use tons of Apple products, and have pricey instruments in their apartments. Break in, and you get an expensive guitar, a nice violin, and two MacBooks.