What did this family not have that it needed?

[Seth]

What is.... pet Russian bear for maul intruder of home?

Incorrect.

[Seth]

A smartphone to take a mugshot of the intruder. Quite obvious.

I always sleep with a smartphone at my bedside. I wouldn't feel safe without it.

Not answered in the form of a question, so disqualified (and wrong).

[Seth]

Nineberry is correct. But I can add to the list.
An audible alarm for the child to set off.
A local policeman on patrol.
Better locks on the door.
A burglar alarm.
Video security cameras.
Motion detector alarms.
Pepper spray.
Etc.

There are so many answers.

And yet there is only one correct answer, which you did not state.

[Blind groper]

Seth

We all know what you are getting at. However, when you compare different western nations, there is no evidence that having a gun makes you less likely to be a victim and heaps of evidence to show that more guns means more people murdered.

I have discussed before the New England Journal of Medicine study that showed that simply having a gun in the house in the USA doubles the risk of being murdered.

I am not sure why I mentioned that, since prior experience shows that mere data does not change gun enthusiasts minds.

[piscator]

We have sliding windows, with flyscreens outside, that can either be locked when fully closed, or in a second position, open enough to let in a scrub python or crab spider, but not sharks or dingoes...

...Do you still have to tie your wallaby down?

[JimC]

You forgot the drop bears...

[piscator]

Drop bear ass bandits!

[Seth]

Seth

We all know what you are getting at. However, when you compare different western nations, there is no evidence that having a gun makes you less likely to be a victim and heaps of evidence to show that more guns means more people murdered.

False equivalence. Your chances of being a victim actually are less if you routinely carry a gun for reasons I've previously discussed in detail having to do with improved situational awareness. But let's say arguendo that you are correct and that having or not having a gun has zero effect on your likelihood of being a target for violent crime. I say target for violent crime rather than victim because a "victim" is a person against whom a crime has been successfully perpetrated. This assumes that the crime is successful, which is not necessarily true. Having a gun does, factually and provably, reduce your chances of becoming a victim of a crime because it gives you the means of preventing or thwarting the crime before it is successful, as in the case of the barber shop patron.

And as I've said endlessly in response to your Handgun Control drivel, neither my life nor anybody else's life can be reduced to the sort of bullshit statistical argument you allude to. Whatever the overall likelihood of being murdered is, either in a gun-owning or non-gun-owning nation, it's irrelevant to the principle that each and every single individual, as an individual, has the right to be lawfully armed for lawful self defense, even if the presence of handguns in society might statistically increase the likelihood that others will be victimized

I have discussed before the New England Journal of Medicine study that showed that simply having a gun in the house in the USA doubles the risk of being murdered.

And I have discussed before the fact that this study has been debunked and refuted as the anti-gun propaganda it is many times by many qualified critics and is therefore rejected.

I am not sure why I mentioned that, since prior experience shows that mere data does not change gun enthusiasts minds.

Even if what you cite were true (it's not, it's a seriously flawed study) it's utterly irrelevant from the public policy perspective because each individual has the right to choose to accept that risk or not accept that risk.

[NineBerry]

We have sliding windows, with flyscreens outside, that can either be locked when fully closed, or in a second position, open enough to let in a breeze, but not a person...

The intruder did not enter through the window, he left through the window. The intruder entered through the backdoor. No pun intended.

[tattuchu]

Meanwhile, I just read a news story in which a fellow went out and picked up breakfast for his wife. He was going to give her a nice breakfast in bed. Only she thought he was a burglar and pulled a Pistorius and shot him through the closed door as he approached the bedroom. She got him in the chest. He's recovering, I think. No word on what happened to the breakfast.

[NineBerry]

Meanwhile, I just read a news story in which a fellow went out and picked up breakfast for his wife. He was going to give her a nice breakfast in bed. Only she thought he was a burglar and pulled a Pistorius and shot him through the closed door as he approached the bedroom. She got him in the chest. He's recovering, I think. No word on what happened to the breakfast.

Wouldn't have happened with a smartphone instead of a gun.

[mistermack]

The answer is a gun of course. Or preferably lots of guns.

Nothing would make people safer that lots of guns around the place, loaded and cocked and ready to fire.

It's ludicrous to point to instances of accidental shootings, or shootings due to temporary rage.

That's making the fundamental mistake of going by real life examples.
The reality of gun ownership is best illustrated by Clint Eastwood fantasy films, and John Wayne garbage. Neither Clint nor big John ever killed anyone who didn't need killing. Case proved.

To go by real life is just silly. Even Wild Bill Haycock, the grandaddy of all main street gun-slinging duellists, killed his best friend, a deputy marshall, who came running to his aid. But that was real life, so how could that prove anything?

To go by real life gives a totally false impression of what is likely to happen. Clint would never have shot the wrong person. Even though he hardly even looked where he was shooting.
So just pack the house with guns, and watch lots of Eastwood and John Wayne on the telly. You know it makes sense.

[NineBerry]

Or maybe a Dildo would have been enough to satisfy the intruder. Then, on the other hand, you can use guns as dildos.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Seth

We all know what you are getting at. However, when you compare different western nations, there is no evidence that having a gun makes you less likely to be a victim and heaps of evidence to show that more guns means more people murdered.

I have discussed before the New England Journal of Medicine study that showed that simply having a gun in the house in the USA doubles the risk of being murdered.

I am not sure why I mentioned that, since prior experience shows that mere data does not change gun enthusiasts minds.

How is gun have magic murder increasing power, which make simple existence of gun double murders? Avtomat have many gun in safe, is not automatically have double murderers waiting in closets. Maybe real truth to matter more complicated than simple bullet point statistic, and real factors more diverse than presence of gun?

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Or maybe a Dildo would have been enough to satisfy the intruder. Then, on the other hand, you can use guns as dildos.

Not so good if bayonet affixed...