Guns, Privacy, and Crime(nber.org)
nber.org
Guns, Privacy, and Crime
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29940
148 comments
Pointing a gun at someone is generally a crime in the US. No need for the hyperbole around gun ownership and people's behavior
https://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/man-sought-in-murder-of-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2018/09/21/you-pull...
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2022/03/04/three-charge...
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/lake-county-man-shot-kille...
https://www.waaytv.com/news/update-man-shot-accidentally-in-...
Etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2018/09/21/you-pull...
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/artic...
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2022/03/04/three-charge...
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/lake-county-man-shot-kille...
https://www.waaytv.com/news/update-man-shot-accidentally-in-...
Etc.
Yeah:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saQ72NZtrS0
Never ending:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saQ72NZtrS0
Never ending:
* https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
Unholstering it and holding it down at your waist is still very threatening. And while it's not common, it definitely happens here in the US.
That’s called brandishing and it’s still illegal
I have heard some people say this - and I am sure you may find some that wanted to charge it that way.. but I'm not sure that holding a firearm at your waist pointed toward the ground is necessarily brandishing or illegal.
Surely other factors could contribute to make such a situation more or less a threat - things said, or even a particular location compared to another.
I understand the GP comment person feels that such a thing is threatening, but I disagree with the blanket statement there too.. someone holding a firefarm does not mean they intend to, or are threatening to use it, imho..
just like someone pulling a phone out of their pocket and holding towards the ground does not mean they are going to call 911 - now that would be different if they pulled it out and said they were going to call.. but the act of pulling it out of one' pocket and holding it doesn't not imply they are going to use it for nefarious purposes in of itself.
Although I would consider them more ready to - and therefor deserving more acute attention and awareness.
Not a lawyer so I don't know for sure.. I just feel that someone holding a firearm in a downward position is not a direct threat like someone pointing it at a person - which then becomes brandishing / illegal in most circumstances afaik.
Surely other factors could contribute to make such a situation more or less a threat - things said, or even a particular location compared to another.
I understand the GP comment person feels that such a thing is threatening, but I disagree with the blanket statement there too.. someone holding a firefarm does not mean they intend to, or are threatening to use it, imho..
just like someone pulling a phone out of their pocket and holding towards the ground does not mean they are going to call 911 - now that would be different if they pulled it out and said they were going to call.. but the act of pulling it out of one' pocket and holding it doesn't not imply they are going to use it for nefarious purposes in of itself.
Although I would consider them more ready to - and therefor deserving more acute attention and awareness.
Not a lawyer so I don't know for sure.. I just feel that someone holding a firearm in a downward position is not a direct threat like someone pointing it at a person - which then becomes brandishing / illegal in most circumstances afaik.
At least in California, just touching holster is considered brandishing. Not sure it's the same in Texas though.
Depends upon the jurisdiction. For instance, there was a bill in Massachusetts in 2013 that had a provision making brandishing illegal, but the bill did not pass. There are no current statutes that I am aware of making brandishing specifically illegal in the state. Case law does reference brandishing quite a bit (mostly with a knife) and is used most often to show intent or where an assault or other crime has also taken place. (e.g. a perpetrator brandished a knife and then ordered a victim to perform an action against their will, or a perpetrator brandished a firearm to win an argument and was then found not to have a license for it).
Brandishing alone could be considered an assault I suppose, but I don't really see that much in case law. I think because its pretty rare for somebody to brandish a weapon with intent to harm and then not follow up with further criminal actions.
Brandishing alone could be considered an assault I suppose, but I don't really see that much in case law. I think because its pretty rare for somebody to brandish a weapon with intent to harm and then not follow up with further criminal actions.
Also could be civil assault
There’s a wide misconception that assault is an act if violence but legally it’s merely the unlawful threat of violence, which is of course implied by actual unlawful violence.
Unholstering or otherwise displaying a firearm is assault by definition unless there’s a justifiable reason to do so.
Edit: re: assault: https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/assault-an... “In most states, an assault or battery is committed when one person physically strikes or attempts to physically strike another, or when they act in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm.”
Unholstering or otherwise displaying a firearm is assault by definition unless there’s a justifiable reason to do so.
Edit: re: assault: https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/assault-an... “In most states, an assault or battery is committed when one person physically strikes or attempts to physically strike another, or when they act in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm.”
Maybe. Depending on the state I’d bet there’s common law saying otherwise.
Re: your edit, point is that doesn’t necessarily mean unholstering a weapon is assault as a matter of law.
> Pointing a gun at someone is generally a crime in the US.
I thought the major pro-gun argument was that criminals don't care for law? You know, the whole "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" thing. (Which is also patently false, by the way. Criminals in Germany usually don't have guns.)
I thought the major pro-gun argument was that criminals don't care for law? You know, the whole "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" thing. (Which is also patently false, by the way. Criminals in Germany usually don't have guns.)
> Which is also patently false, by the way. Criminals in Germany usually don't have guns.
Um, that doesn't invalidate "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns".
BTW in general I think we should have some saner restrictions on firearms in the US even if we have to amend the BOR to do it. But I will concede that the abundance of legal firearms will be challenging to suddenly prohibit and could certainly flourish among criminals. I'd like to consider your argument but "Criminals in Germany usually don't have guns" doesn't help much.
Um, that doesn't invalidate "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns".
∀ gun-holder | gun-holder ∈ criminals
∃ criminal | criminal ∉ gun-holder
∀ criminal | criminal ∈ gun-holder
BTW in general I think we should have some saner restrictions on firearms in the US even if we have to amend the BOR to do it. But I will concede that the abundance of legal firearms will be challenging to suddenly prohibit and could certainly flourish among criminals. I'd like to consider your argument but "Criminals in Germany usually don't have guns" doesn't help much.
you actually made the point of it.. when the populace is unarmed, the thugs can bully / rob / coerce just using muscle and knives, which makes the law abiding citenzry less safe imho..
but of course some will see it that way and some will not - much of individuals view point depends on where live / work.. people in nice places, surrounded by other nice places are more insulated from the more prevalent daily violence of the less nice places - the people who live and work in thos different places often see it differently.
anyway the saying is still true - outlaw X and only outlaws will have X - just like we outlawed drugs and have had a big expensive war on them for a long time - they are outlawed and wow, outlaws have them.
Sure you'd see some street crews using guns less if very few people had them, but you'd defeinely have gangs that had guns, there's just too much money in the game, and you already have supply chains getting kilos of other things to you that are not supposed to exist in the country.
Also if the criminal groups in Germany had Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador and their neighbors a train ride away, they would absolutely be using guns more imho.
Every place on earth is apples to oranges when trying to compare the situation in the US in regards to these interconnected issues.
anyway the saying is still true - outlaw X and only outlaws will have X - just like we outlawed drugs and have had a big expensive war on them for a long time - they are outlawed and wow, outlaws have them.
Sure you'd see some street crews using guns less if very few people had them, but you'd defeinely have gangs that had guns, there's just too much money in the game, and you already have supply chains getting kilos of other things to you that are not supposed to exist in the country.
Also if the criminal groups in Germany had Honduras, Mexico, El Salvador and their neighbors a train ride away, they would absolutely be using guns more imho.
Every place on earth is apples to oranges when trying to compare the situation in the US in regards to these interconnected issues.
When the thugs actually use their muscle to rob you, you get a twisted arm. When the thugs actually use their gun, you get dead. One is less healthy than the other.
Well for me that twisted arm would likely lead to a slow painful death (maybe 70/30 chances).
There is a chance I could beg for charity at Vanderbilt to donate $10,000 hemophilia treatments (of which it may take several for days) to keep me from nonstop internally bleeding to death - and there is a chance it would prevent death and just keep me in excruciating pain physically, mentally and emotionally instead of complete death.
There is a chance I could get charity to live through it, although I put the chances at less than 50%. There are other possible outcomes - partial treatment, and lawsuits over the hospital bills, and doctor bill. I would likely try to skip the hospital, apply ice every other 10 minutes and try to meditate my blood to flow slower. This could lead to nerve damage, and PTSD plus, but maybe not death.
Frankly I'd rather them have a gun or knife and let things get decided faster.
Many of the women I know would rather have the option to be armed to prevent twisted arms, and threats of severe violence.
However I can understand that there are people int he world who would rather be at risk of mugging via force to prevent their neighbors from having firearms. I do think this varies much depending on the amount of localized violence and is likely different for the folks living in nice parts of the world then people who live in cheaper parts of the world / cities.
I've also never thought when walking through New Orleans, SE D.C., or Memphis or St Louis that if one was to engage in a physical altercation with 'thugs' - that a simple 'twisted arm' would be the result.
Wish I had the resources to poll the locals to know how many of them think that would be a common result.
I understand things are different in different places, maybe parts of Germany and Russia have strong guys that twist arms and they get compliance. I would not expect that around here.
There is a chance I could beg for charity at Vanderbilt to donate $10,000 hemophilia treatments (of which it may take several for days) to keep me from nonstop internally bleeding to death - and there is a chance it would prevent death and just keep me in excruciating pain physically, mentally and emotionally instead of complete death.
There is a chance I could get charity to live through it, although I put the chances at less than 50%. There are other possible outcomes - partial treatment, and lawsuits over the hospital bills, and doctor bill. I would likely try to skip the hospital, apply ice every other 10 minutes and try to meditate my blood to flow slower. This could lead to nerve damage, and PTSD plus, but maybe not death.
Frankly I'd rather them have a gun or knife and let things get decided faster.
Many of the women I know would rather have the option to be armed to prevent twisted arms, and threats of severe violence.
However I can understand that there are people int he world who would rather be at risk of mugging via force to prevent their neighbors from having firearms. I do think this varies much depending on the amount of localized violence and is likely different for the folks living in nice parts of the world then people who live in cheaper parts of the world / cities.
I've also never thought when walking through New Orleans, SE D.C., or Memphis or St Louis that if one was to engage in a physical altercation with 'thugs' - that a simple 'twisted arm' would be the result.
Wish I had the resources to poll the locals to know how many of them think that would be a common result.
I understand things are different in different places, maybe parts of Germany and Russia have strong guys that twist arms and they get compliance. I would not expect that around here.
What about your neighbors in Austria, Finland, Iceland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, or Norway? Because tons of those neighbors also own guns, but you aren't really any more likely to get shot there than you are in Germany (all of those countries have less than 3 deaths by firearms per 100k people). And if you're just looking at crime that is not intentionally self-inflicted, you're looking at less than 1 death per 100k.
Almost all international statistics on gun ownership and gun violence in developed countries show a direct relationship between the two...at least until you take out the largest outlier, the United States. Then that relationship completely disappears.
Because you aren't more likely to die because more people own guns. You're more likely to die when your neighbors are poor. A more rigorous approach, which keeps the US "outlier" but also doesn't discard developing countries shows an extremely strong relationship with crime: poverty. Specifically the number of people living below the poverty line. The US, despite it's level of wealth and development, has a huge poverty problem, and that poverty problem turns into violent crime problems in the US just like it does literally everywhere else in the world.
Your neighbors in Austria, Finland, Iceland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, and Norway have figured it out: actual functioning gun regulation that still liberally allows for gun ownership (even scary assault weapons!), but stronger emphasis on a well functioning economic society. It's quite a bit ironic that the gun control policies that the US left so vigorously pushes for won't really have a measurable effect, but the poverty-reduction measures that they have all but abandoned actually would. I really wish they could be steered in the right direction, but I've given up hope.
Almost all international statistics on gun ownership and gun violence in developed countries show a direct relationship between the two...at least until you take out the largest outlier, the United States. Then that relationship completely disappears.
Because you aren't more likely to die because more people own guns. You're more likely to die when your neighbors are poor. A more rigorous approach, which keeps the US "outlier" but also doesn't discard developing countries shows an extremely strong relationship with crime: poverty. Specifically the number of people living below the poverty line. The US, despite it's level of wealth and development, has a huge poverty problem, and that poverty problem turns into violent crime problems in the US just like it does literally everywhere else in the world.
Your neighbors in Austria, Finland, Iceland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, and Norway have figured it out: actual functioning gun regulation that still liberally allows for gun ownership (even scary assault weapons!), but stronger emphasis on a well functioning economic society. It's quite a bit ironic that the gun control policies that the US left so vigorously pushes for won't really have a measurable effect, but the poverty-reduction measures that they have all but abandoned actually would. I really wish they could be steered in the right direction, but I've given up hope.
gun laws across the EU are pretty similar because they are all based on the same EU laws. switzerland is actually the most liberal and it doesn't have more guns either.
there are no more guns in austrian cities than there are in germany, or as far as i could tell, anywhere else in europe. maybe more people in the country side have guns because they use them for hunting. a lot of guns are also used for sport. you would only see those on shooting ranges. otherwise they are locked away.
i do agree with the idea about poverty. that makes a lot of sense and is sometimes that can and should be addressed.
there are no more guns in austrian cities than there are in germany, or as far as i could tell, anywhere else in europe. maybe more people in the country side have guns because they use them for hunting. a lot of guns are also used for sport. you would only see those on shooting ranges. otherwise they are locked away.
i do agree with the idea about poverty. that makes a lot of sense and is sometimes that can and should be addressed.
"sometimes" was meant to be "something". i blame a slip on the word suggestions from my keyboard
Just so I understand: while those countries you named try to solve poverty (and thus protect the richer) on the state level, the US leaves this responsibility to the riches themselves - which will have to stock on weaponry obviously. So basically pushing for more personal freedom brings as a collateral those street wars. Another example where applied philosophy fails (thinking about communism as well)
Eh. I live in a state where a lot of people own firearms, myself included, and have open carry laws as well as concealed carry permits. It really isn't a big deal. Unfortunately humans are humans and, worse, Americans are Americans, and crazy people go crazy and do crazy person shit with a lot more regularity than we'd like, which is only compounded by easy access to firearms. But I'm willing to bet most of my neighbors own guns, including the right-wing troll[0] living up the street. I have no real fear that any of them are going to pull a gun on me.
[0] No seriously, this guy puts up intentionally inflammatory yard signs.
[0] No seriously, this guy puts up intentionally inflammatory yard signs.
I grew up in a place where gun ownership was the norm, and I have had a gun pulled on me in anger following a mutual fault car accident. People fuck up and get mad, confrontation happens. It is better for everyone if having firearms at hand is not the norm.
Aside from that I also caught a stray bullet in the hand when I was 15. I was in the woods, it was hunting season, I should have known better, etc etc. Hundreds of miles of beautiful nature that it was my fault I was injured while exploring.
The rural american attitude towards guns is indefensible. It just is. I'm as much a product of that culture as anyone, and in some ways as country as they come. But the problem isn't "crazy people" it is the guns.
Aside from that I also caught a stray bullet in the hand when I was 15. I was in the woods, it was hunting season, I should have known better, etc etc. Hundreds of miles of beautiful nature that it was my fault I was injured while exploring.
The rural american attitude towards guns is indefensible. It just is. I'm as much a product of that culture as anyone, and in some ways as country as they come. But the problem isn't "crazy people" it is the guns.
>I grew up in a place where gun ownership was the norm
Same here, rural America Deep South: Most people I know are armed and concealed carry almost all the time. In over 4 decades here, I have never seen a person even brandish a weapon.
Same here, rural America Deep South: Most people I know are armed and concealed carry almost all the time. In over 4 decades here, I have never seen a person even brandish a weapon.
How's this comment sitting for you a couple days later?
I know you’re being sarcastic, but it most definitely was the fault of the shooter who did not follow basic firearm safety rules (either not knowing what they were shooting at or what was beyond what they were shooting at). Firearm ownership is a right, but also must be taken seriously and responsibly. Regardless of the “mistake”, the offender should have been charged (hopefully with a felony).
If there are say 1% stupid people who won't follow safety rules, the sheer amount of personal danger is quite different if you have 100 gun owners or 10.000.
And thankfully that number is far, far below 1%, more like 0.04%. The US has by far the highest number of guns per capita, but no where near the highest number of gun deaths.
Like where you stand on this one this morning?
>The rural american attitude towards guns is indefensible. It just is.
Case closed! Damn, all that time wasted arguing. lol
Case closed! Damn, all that time wasted arguing. lol
How you feeling about this one today?
[deleted]
If you were armed too they probably would think twice.
I really doubt the narrative that someone who would pull out a gun over trash would spare the time to think twice.
The pull a gun over trash scenario is kind of ridiculous because the gun puller would be arrested. And it just doesn’t happen.
It would go like this: 1) I leave trash out 2) Neighbor yells and pulls out gun 3) I put up trash 4) I call police, neighbor is arrested and gun is taken away forever.
I think there’s a perception of “crazy people owning guns” means they are just randomly doing things. Gun owners are typically pretty responsible or self-destructive.
Half the US owns guns and there aren’t many crimes percentage wise. So the vast, vast majority just never do stuff with their gun.
The actual argument is about the extreme outliers who murder people and commit mass shootings. There’s 20M firearm homicides [0] so that’s still super rare as a rate but the impact of each event is super impactful.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
It would go like this: 1) I leave trash out 2) Neighbor yells and pulls out gun 3) I put up trash 4) I call police, neighbor is arrested and gun is taken away forever.
I think there’s a perception of “crazy people owning guns” means they are just randomly doing things. Gun owners are typically pretty responsible or self-destructive.
Half the US owns guns and there aren’t many crimes percentage wise. So the vast, vast majority just never do stuff with their gun.
The actual argument is about the extreme outliers who murder people and commit mass shootings. There’s 20M firearm homicides [0] so that’s still super rare as a rate but the impact of each event is super impactful.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
They would get arrested maybe - but only after I was already shot.
> The pull a gun over trash scenario is kind of ridiculous because the gun puller would be arrested. And it just doesn’t happen.
"Doesn't" is a strong word:
* https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-cop-who-pulled...
* https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/cape-coral-resident-...
> I think there’s a perception of “crazy people owning guns” means they are just randomly doing things. Gun owners are typically pretty responsible or self-destructive.
The problem is there is no filter in the US for the people that are not "pretty responsible or self-destructive." Just about any rando can get a gun in many states.
> The actual argument is about the extreme outliers who murder people and commit mass shootings.
No, it's about the 'background noise' of destruction that is on proverbial page 17 of the newspaper:
> A member of our well regulated militia allows a juvenile access to a loaded gun. The juvenile brings the gun to the home of a 14 year old friend, who shoots himself in the head unintentionally. He doesn’t survive.
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/15183659425894113...
> A member of our well regulated militia moves a loaded gun from a bedroom to a bathroom, then leaves it there. Her 6 year old son finds the gun when he goes to take a shower and shoots himself in the head. He does not survive.
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/15229931050662502...
> A (drunk) member of our well regulated militia spots her neighbor grilling burgers, so she walks over and points a handgun at his face and says "bang bang." When police arrive at her home, she points a cane at them and pretends it's a long gun.
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/15158166918082273...
See also:
* https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
"Doesn't" is a strong word:
* https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/colorado-cop-who-pulled...
* https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/cape-coral-resident-...
> I think there’s a perception of “crazy people owning guns” means they are just randomly doing things. Gun owners are typically pretty responsible or self-destructive.
The problem is there is no filter in the US for the people that are not "pretty responsible or self-destructive." Just about any rando can get a gun in many states.
> The actual argument is about the extreme outliers who murder people and commit mass shootings.
No, it's about the 'background noise' of destruction that is on proverbial page 17 of the newspaper:
> A member of our well regulated militia allows a juvenile access to a loaded gun. The juvenile brings the gun to the home of a 14 year old friend, who shoots himself in the head unintentionally. He doesn’t survive.
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/15183659425894113...
> A member of our well regulated militia moves a loaded gun from a bedroom to a bathroom, then leaves it there. Her 6 year old son finds the gun when he goes to take a shower and shoots himself in the head. He does not survive.
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/15229931050662502...
> A (drunk) member of our well regulated militia spots her neighbor grilling burgers, so she walks over and points a handgun at his face and says "bang bang." When police arrive at her home, she points a cane at them and pretends it's a long gun.
* https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/15158166918082273...
See also:
* https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
so we can speculate far enough to imagine this person into existence, but no further
That sort of thinking directly brought about WW1 as well as the Cuban missile crisis.
If everyone was armed then society's short-fused lunatics are the ones most likely to misjudge a situation and start shooting first over something trivial.
Goes a long way to explaining most shootings by the police too.
If everyone was armed then society's short-fused lunatics are the ones most likely to misjudge a situation and start shooting first over something trivial.
Goes a long way to explaining most shootings by the police too.
CCW is very common in the US now, CCW holders are less likely to commit crimes than police officers. In general CCW or constitutional carry states don't see big wild west shoutouts at grocery stores so no. People are generally good and honest. Criminals are the exception to that, except they don't really care about whether or not carrying a weapon is illegal.
A quick google search brought up a statistic from Pittsburgh 2008 where roughly 1/5 of perpetrators were the legal owners of the gun used in a crime.
Gun crimes are so much more prevalent in the US vs practically any other developed country. Usually by leaps and bounds. Australia used to have around 20% of US gun death rate for years. In 1996 they introduced strict gun control laws. Decline in gun deaths was gradual, but over some 15 years they went down by some 70%.
Gun control can work.
Gun crimes are so much more prevalent in the US vs practically any other developed country. Usually by leaps and bounds. Australia used to have around 20% of US gun death rate for years. In 1996 they introduced strict gun control laws. Decline in gun deaths was gradual, but over some 15 years they went down by some 70%.
Gun control can work.
Legal owner is not the same thing as CC permit holder, and CC permit holders to seem to be safer than other gun owning or carrying categories and rarely involved in altercations or crimes.
Australia is a highly ambiguous example of gun control success for numerous reasons.
It's also worth noting that the funding and law enforcement capacity to disarm the US were stringent gun control legal is borderline impossible, if not just impossible, from a purely mathematical perspective when compared to things the like the war on drugs and considering the sheer number of guns owned.
Australia is a highly ambiguous example of gun control success for numerous reasons.
It's also worth noting that the funding and law enforcement capacity to disarm the US were stringent gun control legal is borderline impossible, if not just impossible, from a purely mathematical perspective when compared to things the like the war on drugs and considering the sheer number of guns owned.
>In 1996 they introduced strict gun control laws. Decline in gun deaths was gradual, but over some 15 years they went down by some 70%.
Gun deaths worldwide fell precipitously during that same time frame, including in the US. 1994 was the peak of gun violence, and fell almost every years since then until the BLM riots and the ACAB crowd scared cops out of doing their job.
Gun deaths worldwide fell precipitously during that same time frame, including in the US. 1994 was the peak of gun violence, and fell almost every years since then until the BLM riots and the ACAB crowd scared cops out of doing their job.
correlation does not equal causation. Economy, pop culture, social safety nets, offline-social networks, and so many other things are factors in all this.
the 90's were not the same at 2009 and not the same as 2021 by many means.
I just searched : https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=Pittsburgh+2008+w... - and even the left wing news is saying that gun rights folks are accurate in that most gun crime is committed by non-legal-firearms owners, like 8 out of 10.
It's a weird stat to consider anyhow. In my experiences, many crimes are not officially reported, and many are not reported completely - so all that is screwed anyhow. There is no way to know how many crimes are committed in each city with illegal gun possessors.
the 90's were not the same at 2009 and not the same as 2021 by many means.
I just searched : https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=Pittsburgh+2008+w... - and even the left wing news is saying that gun rights folks are accurate in that most gun crime is committed by non-legal-firearms owners, like 8 out of 10.
It's a weird stat to consider anyhow. In my experiences, many crimes are not officially reported, and many are not reported completely - so all that is screwed anyhow. There is no way to know how many crimes are committed in each city with illegal gun possessors.
That may be true, although it doesn't really address the parent commentor's line of argument: in environments where few (if any) people are allowed to have guns, concealed carry isn't necessary, and gun crime is rare.
His argument was that a lot of people being armed leads to regular standoffs. CCW being very common and leading to almost no standoffs over stupid arguments absolutely does address it. I'm ignoring comparing individuals to nation states, which is just silly.
Are they less likely than non-CCW permit holders?
Reading a lot lately about "criminals" then brandishing during road rage incidents.
> CCW holders are less likely to commit crimes than police officers.
What’s “commit” here? Accusation, conviction, something else?
What’s “commit” here? Accusation, conviction, something else?
What makes you think they'd think even once?
[deleted]
I literally can’t imagine Germans pulling a gun without just cause. We’re talking about people who won’t even jaywalk. I suppose most Berliners aren’t German anymore though.
Edit: If I’m somehow wrong I respectfully ask that you please correct me.
Edit: If I’m somehow wrong I respectfully ask that you please correct me.
You asked respectfully, so I'll respond with total respect.
I found some of the Berliners/Germans near where I lived (less affluent part of the city) to be very quick to extreme anger over any perceived social slight, amplified more so if done by an obvious foreigner like myself.
Mostly it's these older guys, who grew up in a totally different culture, and absolutely it's only a tiny fraction overall.
For example, I read this only today, and it really resonated with what I (very very occasionally) experienced.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/22/in-no-city-hav...
I found some of the Berliners/Germans near where I lived (less affluent part of the city) to be very quick to extreme anger over any perceived social slight, amplified more so if done by an obvious foreigner like myself.
Mostly it's these older guys, who grew up in a totally different culture, and absolutely it's only a tiny fraction overall.
For example, I read this only today, and it really resonated with what I (very very occasionally) experienced.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/22/in-no-city-hav...
>We’re talking about people who won’t even jaywalk.
Come on man. This is a stupid stereotype.
To relate to the initial post, it is also very wrong that only police and the most dangerous parts of organized crime are armed. Germany has masses of inherited guns. They are just not visible. Breaking and entering are also a very real and common thing, although focused on when the owners are (presumed) away.
Come on man. This is a stupid stereotype.
To relate to the initial post, it is also very wrong that only police and the most dangerous parts of organized crime are armed. Germany has masses of inherited guns. They are just not visible. Breaking and entering are also a very real and common thing, although focused on when the owners are (presumed) away.
I'm a bit surprised, I would have guessed publishing permit holder locations would have lead to organized and targeted attempts to monitor and steal guns from the households listed. (In the same sort of way I'd expect people to smash and grab a truck with an NRA sticker to maybe find a gun in the glove box.)
Edit: Would it be different if the publication didn't bin by zip code?
Edit: Would it be different if the publication didn't bin by zip code?
Targeting and burglarizing homes of known gun-owners seems like a great way to have a very short criminal career.
Happens all the time. Guns are almost as easy as drugs to sell/fence. Also, folks doing cat burglar stuff obviously don't have good risk estimation going on in the first place. But on top of that, most home robberies happen during daylight work hours, when the person breaking in has already identified the house is empty. The movie/tv scenario of a dude in all black breaking in at night with a flashlight is more exceptional.
Guns are one of the most common things burglars are looking for when they’re robbing a home.
Contrary to some popular rhetoric, people with guns effectively never stop crimes in progress.
Contrary to some popular rhetoric, people with guns effectively never stop crimes in progress.
Hmm you sure about that? It literally just happened:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/intruder-shot-in-armed-...
Have you considered the possibility that your media sources intentionally withhold such news cases such that you’ve evidently been left with a confused view of the reality?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/intruder-shot-in-armed-...
Have you considered the possibility that your media sources intentionally withhold such news cases such that you’ve evidently been left with a confused view of the reality?
[deleted]
Every week people win the lottery too.
Even the lowest estimates by pro gun control groups and researches put defensive gun uses in the US at 55k+ a year. Most estimates range from 500k to several million a year.
Those all include police and other security personnel usages as far as I am aware. I guess my statement lacked the proper context but I’m focused more on private gun ownership.
The idea that having a gun in our home is ample protection from a burglar, for instance, is rooted in an egotistical vision of ourselves saving the day from the bad guy. Not any sort of reality. It happens, but it is exceedingly rare and you’re much more likely to have that gun stolen or injure someone by accident than you are to stop a home invader.
The idea that having a gun in our home is ample protection from a burglar, for instance, is rooted in an egotistical vision of ourselves saving the day from the bad guy. Not any sort of reality. It happens, but it is exceedingly rare and you’re much more likely to have that gun stolen or injure someone by accident than you are to stop a home invader.
The CDC disagrees:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18319/chapter/3#15
The CDC seems to agree that the data available is shaky and inconclusive, and that other gun related injuries may outweigh the defensive benefit as I said above, but I take your point.
agree that they are sought by burglars and add that much of the car crime has that as primary focus it seems.
disagree that they never stop crimes. many of the times they stop crimes they are not reported, and even if reported would not make it to any stats.
It's easy to see this if you just think of the hundreds of stops each day in every city in which an armored car pulls up to get money. Literally hundreds of times every day people with guns are preventing crime that would be progress.
disagree that they never stop crimes. many of the times they stop crimes they are not reported, and even if reported would not make it to any stats.
It's easy to see this if you just think of the hundreds of stops each day in every city in which an armored car pulls up to get money. Literally hundreds of times every day people with guns are preventing crime that would be progress.
If it wasn’t clear from context, I was targeting that statement around private gun ownership rather than security focused professions.
Pretty sure they break in when no one is home. Guns are second to cash in terms of desirability for robbers.
Pretty sure you are right, and many will knock / ring the door to ask if you want some tree service or if you are selling a car or something if someone answers.
If no one answers and no dog barks..
If no one answers and no dog barks..
I don't know about homes, but I suspect there is a reason that Nashville is #1 in thefts of guns from cars.
There are several reasons for this.
One being that we currently can not (currently legally) use deadly force to protect property like they can in Texas..
Although the desire to change that is changing bit by bit every week as hundreds of cars are broken into every week (and have been).
Two is that cops here have not pursued car break-ins very well imho. Even when you call them with video evidence, a license plate, full description of act in progress.. crickets.. everyone knows this - and it makes it worse.
I went to a MNPD meeting a couple years ago and they had proof that criminals were targeting two particular locations in the area in which the business had the TSA thing Posted saying you have to leave guns in your car, can't being them in.
Another factor is that juveniles have particular high reward and low risk of punishment. Everyone knows it - and they use it to their advantage a lot. There's nest cam video of one woman following her kids in her car while they hit car after car / house after house.
Every other week the cops put our a report saying lock your car, so many guns stolen this week - blah blah.. it's like they are blaming the victims instead of helping to do more policing.
This isn't a dig at the cops - I get it, they are understaffed, have lots of priorities and even when they catch people they often do no time.. so why go chasing after some kids that are likely to shoot back at you (which they did to some cops about 18 months ago or so)
Yes other reasons include that there are lots of guns in and around Nashville. So the odds of getting one when you break into a car are higher than in NY or Frisco I guess.
Another thing is that gun safes for a car are not optimal at this time. Sure if you have a one of the few vehicles they make direct fit safes for, you can spend a couple bills and get a good one - but we need better options.
There are of course many other factors, income inequality and so many other things of course, it's a long list, I hate to see people try to point at any one thing and say 'yeah if that then this would't be a thing' -
So I've been brainstorming this now again for a while, and chatted with an auto-body shop guy for a bit and am thinking of a combination of an existing safe option that is around 20 bucks combined with a metal U that goes around the part of the passenger seat thing and locks similar to a clamp on cables like a dog runner - this kind of thing could make a huge impact and I should spend some more time on it.
One being that we currently can not (currently legally) use deadly force to protect property like they can in Texas..
Although the desire to change that is changing bit by bit every week as hundreds of cars are broken into every week (and have been).
Two is that cops here have not pursued car break-ins very well imho. Even when you call them with video evidence, a license plate, full description of act in progress.. crickets.. everyone knows this - and it makes it worse.
I went to a MNPD meeting a couple years ago and they had proof that criminals were targeting two particular locations in the area in which the business had the TSA thing Posted saying you have to leave guns in your car, can't being them in.
Another factor is that juveniles have particular high reward and low risk of punishment. Everyone knows it - and they use it to their advantage a lot. There's nest cam video of one woman following her kids in her car while they hit car after car / house after house.
Every other week the cops put our a report saying lock your car, so many guns stolen this week - blah blah.. it's like they are blaming the victims instead of helping to do more policing.
This isn't a dig at the cops - I get it, they are understaffed, have lots of priorities and even when they catch people they often do no time.. so why go chasing after some kids that are likely to shoot back at you (which they did to some cops about 18 months ago or so)
Yes other reasons include that there are lots of guns in and around Nashville. So the odds of getting one when you break into a car are higher than in NY or Frisco I guess.
Another thing is that gun safes for a car are not optimal at this time. Sure if you have a one of the few vehicles they make direct fit safes for, you can spend a couple bills and get a good one - but we need better options.
There are of course many other factors, income inequality and so many other things of course, it's a long list, I hate to see people try to point at any one thing and say 'yeah if that then this would't be a thing' -
So I've been brainstorming this now again for a while, and chatted with an auto-body shop guy for a bit and am thinking of a combination of an existing safe option that is around 20 bucks combined with a metal U that goes around the part of the passenger seat thing and locks similar to a clamp on cables like a dog runner - this kind of thing could make a huge impact and I should spend some more time on it.
I’m not tracking - what is the implication?
Anecdotally, was in Nashville for a work training event at a Fairfield near the new Grand Ol’ Opry.
Of the 2 dozen attendees, all with anything remotely “gun” suggestive had their trucks burglarized at the hotel. Several lost weapons during the burglaries.
Anecdotally, was in Nashville for a work training event at a Fairfield near the new Grand Ol’ Opry.
Of the 2 dozen attendees, all with anything remotely “gun” suggestive had their trucks burglarized at the hotel. Several lost weapons during the burglaries.
Gun ownership is common here, as is (apparently) leaving the guns in cars. Criminals need an illegal source of guns, since they can't pass a background check, so they steal them from the copious amounts of cars containing them.
>Gun ownership is common here, as is (apparently) leaving the guns in cars.
Would you prefer that they take them into the business, regardless of whether it is posted to not allow carry?
Would you prefer that they take them into the business, regardless of whether it is posted to not allow carry?
Waiting for people to leave their house for work and such seems low risk?
Aren’t you assuming that the risk/reward of breaking into a house to steal a firearm is lower that trying to acquire one by other means? (Illegal arms dealers, using false or stolen credentials, etc.)
Getting a gun permit in TN is actually rather restrictive compared to say, Iowa, where they approve them for blind people.
https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/eligibilityrequiremen...
https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/eligibilityrequiremen...
That sounds like an interesting legal case.
On one hand, the state shouldn’t block one’s civil rights because one is disabled.
On the other hand, blind gun-owner.
On one hand, the state shouldn’t block one’s civil rights because one is disabled.
On the other hand, blind gun-owner.
Are you implying that blind people are somehow irresponsible on account of their disability?
I suppose I am, yes. Not of all blind people of course, but of one that owns and fires a gun.
How can a blind person shoot a gun in a responsible way?
How can a blind person shoot a gun in a responsible way?
Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGPlZ9Ctptg&t=900s
Provided you have someone pointing you in the right direction and making sure that downrange is clear, there's nothing wrong with this.
Provided you have someone pointing you in the right direction and making sure that downrange is clear, there's nothing wrong with this.
Same as any other prepared individual. Analyze your home, take note of individual entries to rooms, plan out to set up 90 degrees to the opening in the event of a break in. To stop bullets from leaving your house, set up full bookshelves behind the doorway when looked at from your chosen spot, or live in a brick house. Go with a sighted friend to the shooting range and have him call your shots to understand what distances you can point shoot at and hit a silhouette, this will let you know your capabilities without sight.
Or alternatively, the same exact thing you’d do as a responsible gun owner who was not blind.
Or alternatively, the same exact thing you’d do as a responsible gun owner who was not blind.
> How can a blind person shoot a gun in a responsible way?
Don’t be simple-minded. Blind people can shoot a gun responsibly the same as anyone else: be sure of your target and what’s behind it. Yes, that’s more difficult for persons that have impaired or even no usable vision, but knowing many legally blind persons I can assure you that they are responsible firearms owners.
Don’t be simple-minded. Blind people can shoot a gun responsibly the same as anyone else: be sure of your target and what’s behind it. Yes, that’s more difficult for persons that have impaired or even no usable vision, but knowing many legally blind persons I can assure you that they are responsible firearms owners.
...be sure of your target and what’s behind it.
How?
How?
By knowing the layout of your house? And what direction you can safely shoot in? Brick homes or strategically set up bookshelves go a long way.
People who aren’t blind have the same exact considerations, except they orient themselves with vision, whereas the blind use their other senses.
People who aren’t blind have the same exact considerations, except they orient themselves with vision, whereas the blind use their other senses.
Legally blind doesn't necessarily mean "can't see".
Point blank?
Edit: Also legally blind != completely blind.
Edit: Also legally blind != completely blind.
[deleted]
We use detailed crime and handgun carry permit data for the city of Memphis to estimate the impact of publicity about the database on burglaries.
We find that burglaries increased in zip codes with fewer gun permits, and decreased in those with more gun permits, after the database was publicized.
So to reduce my chances of house robbery just get a gun permit. You don't even need to own a gun and all the hazards that come with it.
Or if you're looking where to live, move to a zipcode with fewer gun permits so you can worry less about a stray round coming from a neighbor's house.
We find that burglaries increased in zip codes with fewer gun permits, and decreased in those with more gun permits, after the database was publicized.
So to reduce my chances of house robbery just get a gun permit. You don't even need to own a gun and all the hazards that come with it.
Or if you're looking where to live, move to a zipcode with fewer gun permits so you can worry less about a stray round coming from a neighbor's house.
Yeah, you can read that statistic more than one way. For example, my reaction was that you should move to an area with lots of permits, because the robbers are clearly working over the low-permit neighbourhoods.
I mean, if you're going to rob someone, it's often better if they're not armed.
[Edit] I forgot about the "good and bad neighbourhood" thing that is present in some US cities. I mean, all cities everywhere have rough neighbourhoods or estates; but I was shocked when I first arrived as a guest, to be advised: "Don't cross the road at the end of the block, that's a bad neighbourhood".
I wonder how permit levels correlate with the "good/bad" ranking of a neigbourhood.
I mean, if you're going to rob someone, it's often better if they're not armed.
[Edit] I forgot about the "good and bad neighbourhood" thing that is present in some US cities. I mean, all cities everywhere have rough neighbourhoods or estates; but I was shocked when I first arrived as a guest, to be advised: "Don't cross the road at the end of the block, that's a bad neighbourhood".
I wonder how permit levels correlate with the "good/bad" ranking of a neigbourhood.
> a stray round coming from a neighbor's house
Any statistics on how often this happens? Feels like a “shot by a swimming dog” scenario.
Any statistics on how often this happens? Feels like a “shot by a swimming dog” scenario.
I simply assumed it must happen often enough to be quantified. So I searched for /"stray round" "neighbour's house"/. I got:
About 48 results (0.32 seconds)
It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search
Try /"stray bullet" "neighbor"/ and you'll get the results you're looking for.
Most of these results appear to be describing homes struck by bullets from gun ranges, so at the very least you should avoid living in the line of fire of a gun range.
If, say, a neighbor did try to stop a robbery by shooting at the perpetrators, and in the process a bullet hit a neighboring home, that would probably be reported as a "shootout" or an "act of heroism" or something, not a "stray bullet".
If, say, a neighbor did try to stop a robbery by shooting at the perpetrators, and in the process a bullet hit a neighboring home, that would probably be reported as a "shootout" or an "act of heroism" or something, not a "stray bullet".
An armed society is a polite society.
-- RAH
> An armed society is a polite society. -- RAH
You may wish to actually look up the Heinlein quotation and its context:
> To begin with, the quote isn’t a Heinlein quote any more than “I seen that black n****** yonder ruttin’ on my Mayella!” is a Harper Lee quote. The “polite society” line comes from a Robert Heinlein character in the novel Beyond This Horizon. That character is a privileged product of generations of eugenics. He lives in a society where genetic manipulation has extended lifespans and overpopulation is a prime concern. In that world, dueling has been re-introduced not because it makes people “polite” but because it kills people. And the character likes it because he believes it specifically kills those lesser people, those genetically inferior people, who need to be weeded out to make room for the übermensch to thrive.
* https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/2/1881430/--An-armed...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon#In_popular...
Further:
> There are two problems with this line of thought. First, there is plenty of evidence that it is not true. Second, even if it were true, we shouldn't settle for this kind of "politeness."
* https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/ethics-everyone/2022...
You may wish to actually look up the Heinlein quotation and its context:
> To begin with, the quote isn’t a Heinlein quote any more than “I seen that black n****** yonder ruttin’ on my Mayella!” is a Harper Lee quote. The “polite society” line comes from a Robert Heinlein character in the novel Beyond This Horizon. That character is a privileged product of generations of eugenics. He lives in a society where genetic manipulation has extended lifespans and overpopulation is a prime concern. In that world, dueling has been re-introduced not because it makes people “polite” but because it kills people. And the character likes it because he believes it specifically kills those lesser people, those genetically inferior people, who need to be weeded out to make room for the übermensch to thrive.
* https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/2/1881430/--An-armed...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon#In_popular...
Further:
> There are two problems with this line of thought. First, there is plenty of evidence that it is not true. Second, even if it were true, we shouldn't settle for this kind of "politeness."
* https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/ethics-everyone/2022...
I'd expect if this were true, then the USA which has the highest per capita concentration of guns anywhere in the world, should also have the least amount of crime, but this isn't the case.
per capita when you average that way sure - but i think it's more like the average gun owner has several and it still leaves millions of people unarmed and are easy victims.
I also do not think lethal force is the primary reducer of crime for a country, I think it has more to do with social safety net available and income inequality and things like that - and guns won't help with those factors.
Then of course you have to add El Salvodor, Honduras and their neighbors being a free train ride away to the mix.
One thing to reduce violent crimes is not going to stop all crime anywhere, especially here.
I also do not think lethal force is the primary reducer of crime for a country, I think it has more to do with social safety net available and income inequality and things like that - and guns won't help with those factors.
Then of course you have to add El Salvodor, Honduras and their neighbors being a free train ride away to the mix.
One thing to reduce violent crimes is not going to stop all crime anywhere, especially here.
Politeness grounded in fear and the threat of violence.
Arguments and differences escalating to shoot outs.
Sounds like Utopia... in the 5th circle of hell.
Arguments and differences escalating to shoot outs.
Sounds like Utopia... in the 5th circle of hell.
And that sentence is made up. It is sentence from fictional story. It does not accurately describes how real world works. Many cultures full of gun are super rude - macho dudes proving masculinity and low level criminals are more likely to have guns and are way less polite then average person.
It is so weird to see Americans talking about guns...
When you live in a society without guns everywhere, the notion that law-abiding citizens don't need and don't want guns is just plain obvious, like "water is wet and the wind blows". Civilized life is life with low crime so you don't need guns. They're far more trouble than solution.
But talk an American talk about gun control and they go full crazy on "socialist tyranny" and "from my cold dead hands!". They just can't grasp it.
When you live in a society without guns everywhere, the notion that law-abiding citizens don't need and don't want guns is just plain obvious, like "water is wet and the wind blows". Civilized life is life with low crime so you don't need guns. They're far more trouble than solution.
But talk an American talk about gun control and they go full crazy on "socialist tyranny" and "from my cold dead hands!". They just can't grasp it.
It’s so weird to see non-Americans with no concept of American history criticize American gun rights or comprehend the foundational principles of an armed citizenry. Cliff’s notes: gun rights are not as much about personal self defense as they are national self defense. They allow the people to protect the country and protect themselves from the country (ie government).
> […] protect themselves from the country (ie government).
Non-violent civil resistance has greater odds of working than violent resistance.
Over the last century movements that used violence only succeeded about 25% of the time, and generally resulted in autocratic regimes when they did. Non-violent movements succeeded about twice as often, and generally resulted in non-autocratic systems afterwards (main exception probably being Iran).
See the book Why civil resistance works by Chenoweth which does a review of the literature.
Non-violent civil resistance has greater odds of working than violent resistance.
Over the last century movements that used violence only succeeded about 25% of the time, and generally resulted in autocratic regimes when they did. Non-violent movements succeeded about twice as often, and generally resulted in non-autocratic systems afterwards (main exception probably being Iran).
See the book Why civil resistance works by Chenoweth which does a review of the literature.
[deleted]
I'm not American and resent that individuals cannot arm themselves, if they choose to.
We have no defence against the government and its agents. You may think the government is benign - I do not.
I could ignore government a lot easier, and its abilities to write special laws to sanction it doing whatever it likes, if I had the ability to defend myself.
So, you and I had better convince ourselves that the government really does have our interests at heart, because we have no other options.
We have no defence against the government and its agents. You may think the government is benign - I do not.
I could ignore government a lot easier, and its abilities to write special laws to sanction it doing whatever it likes, if I had the ability to defend myself.
So, you and I had better convince ourselves that the government really does have our interests at heart, because we have no other options.
> We have no defence against the government and its agents.
Oh, I am sorry to hear that. In both my native (Portugal) and adoptive (Canada) country we do have defences: votes, freedom of assembly and speech, passports,...
They're far more effective than guns.
Oh, I am sorry to hear that. In both my native (Portugal) and adoptive (Canada) country we do have defences: votes, freedom of assembly and speech, passports,...
They're far more effective than guns.
You can choose red or blue and someone to represent you for 4-5 years (this is not democracy, its 'representative democracy' - the people choose nothing); you can't choose not to follow government edicts - eg shutting down schools, the economy; you do not have freedom of assembly (in Canada you can have your bank account frozen); in Canada you cannot travel by plane or train if you are not vaccinated; passports are a government id - not sure why this is a benefit to you; etc.
But, as long as the governance system has you convinced its a good thing, it's all fine.
But, as long as the governance system has you convinced its a good thing, it's all fine.
How is a gun a defence for any of the above? Do you think shooting a cop would have left the freedom convoy better off?
I get where you're coming from, but have you met our wildlife? Even the notoriously anti gun Canadians will make exceptions for polar bears and moose.
Well, yes. I am an European living in Alberta, Canada.
Never met wolves, but did meet a lot of bison, moose, elk and even one black bear.
But a disclaimer, I was carrying a bear spray/pepper spray can. You might think that qualifies as a gun...
Never met wolves, but did meet a lot of bison, moose, elk and even one black bear.
But a disclaimer, I was carrying a bear spray/pepper spray can. You might think that qualifies as a gun...
You talk about America like it is civilized... we fight being civil tooth and nail. We're a country that enslaved people up until the 1930s (don't think that it ended in the 1850s, and it's still legal to enslave prisoners).
>We're a country that enslaved people up until the 1930s
How?
>it's still legal to enslave prisoners
You mean other countries just let prisoners go free, or what are you getting at? Other countries don't have work farms for prisoners?
How?
>it's still legal to enslave prisoners
You mean other countries just let prisoners go free, or what are you getting at? Other countries don't have work farms for prisoners?
> >We're a country that enslaved people up until the 1930s
> How?
USA had slave soldiers up to 1973. And it could happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta...
> How?
USA had slave soldiers up to 1973. And it could happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Sta...
[deleted]
Don't forget jury duty, getting a K-12 education, doing chores, and paying taxes. All forced labor, which can loosely be defined as "slavery," if you bend the meaning of the word far enough.
> We find that burglaries ... decreased in those with more gun permits
Interesting find. Although this doesn't mean guns prevent burglaries just by mere presence. And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach and it's not necessarily a safer scenario.
Interesting find. Although this doesn't mean guns prevent burglaries just by mere presence. And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach and it's not necessarily a safer scenario.
Considering that about 266,000[1] people are injured by burglars per year, deaths included, I'm not seeing how the resident being able to shoot back is making anything "less safe" for anyone except for the burglar, which I'm pretty sure anyone getting burgled is usually ok with.
Though as to why burglaries went down, I wonder if people got more alarm systems or took other deterrent countermeasures after the database was published?
[1] A DOJ special report PDF https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
Though as to why burglaries went down, I wonder if people got more alarm systems or took other deterrent countermeasures after the database was published?
[1] A DOJ special report PDF https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
There is the point of correct close combat training. Shooting in an enclosed proximity is vastly different. For instance you don't want the gun to blind, deafen or grabbed and used against you. That can be alleviated with the right training and choices.
You need more information beyond that to assess -- e.g. are people living in remote areas or next to a police officer?
You need more information beyond that to assess -- e.g. are people living in remote areas or next to a police officer?
>For instance you don't want the gun to blind, deafen or grabbed and used against you
Sounds like we need to make it easier to obtain suppressors so that the victim's guns do not blind or deafen them as much.
Sounds like we need to make it easier to obtain suppressors so that the victim's guns do not blind or deafen them as much.
> And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach and it's not necessarily a safer scenario.
It’s safer overall if it means there are fewer people willing to rob a home, whether it’s because (1) they’ve seen what happens to other people when they try, or (2) they themselves tried, and now cannot try again.
It’s safer overall if it means there are fewer people willing to rob a home, whether it’s because (1) they’ve seen what happens to other people when they try, or (2) they themselves tried, and now cannot try again.
This reminds me of one of my favorite (due to its uniqueness) local laws in the US:
> In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm.” “If you're going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you're the criminal – are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-owner...
> In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm.” “If you're going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you're the criminal – are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-owner...
Gun question not withstanding, am I the head of my household or is my wife?
I’m not sure how they define it, but it’s also moot; the law was meant to be a political statement, and doesn’t actually mandate ownership of a gun:
Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Just declare it to be a joint partnership and you'll both have to have one. Problem solved!
Why does that matter? If one of you buys something, doesn't the other one of you own it too?
I think the question is which one of us needs to clean the damned thing.
You’re married, decide amongst yourselves. Who owns the weapon wouldn’t matter who has a responsibility to clean. Since you’re married, in Georgia, it’s community property and you both own it and both have the responsibility to clean. Who would you like to help you decide this issue of who cleans the weapon?
Yes.
Almost every time I've heard this mentioned it's framed as "I live in such a backward place, they have a law that requires everyone to own guns."
Where I live many households own firearms (likely around 50%+). B&E is nearly non-existent in homes, but we get a fair share of overnight car break ins though. These are usually opportunistic where the cars are unlocked and the theft can be achieved quietly and quickly. Porch pirates as well.
I definitely attribute the lack of household break ins to be a correlated to the number of gun households. Areas with a high degree of gun ownership and castle laws, there is a pretty big deterrent to the criminal to find their prey elsewhere. Just too much risk for the minimal rewards you find in most homes.
I definitely attribute the lack of household break ins to be a correlated to the number of gun households. Areas with a high degree of gun ownership and castle laws, there is a pretty big deterrent to the criminal to find their prey elsewhere. Just too much risk for the minimal rewards you find in most homes.
If it reduces the amount of violence, it reduces the amount of violence. You don't get to take a measured reduction and conclude that it increased.
You can still claim a lot of things, but not that.
You can still claim a lot of things, but not that.
> And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach
If you break into my obviously occupied house, then you aren't doing it to steal $100 of shitty electronics.
Put another way, you saw that my dwelling was occupied and felt that made it more of a good target than any of the other houses around me.
I don't use lethal force to protect stuff. I use lethal force to protect my family.
If you break into my obviously occupied house, then you aren't doing it to steal $100 of shitty electronics.
Put another way, you saw that my dwelling was occupied and felt that made it more of a good target than any of the other houses around me.
I don't use lethal force to protect stuff. I use lethal force to protect my family.
the important thing is that it was:
> after the database was publicized
It seems they couldn't confirm if burglaries were prevented or merely moved the burglaries to low gun zipcodes, but they felt they had weak evidence for a drop in burglaries in total
> after the database was publicized
It seems they couldn't confirm if burglaries were prevented or merely moved the burglaries to low gun zipcodes, but they felt they had weak evidence for a drop in burglaries in total
not sure most people are put off by their community being unsafe for burglars
give this thread half an hour or so
Home burglaries in general have been trending down regardless of gun ownership. Burglary just isn't as profitable anymore. Common target items like consumer electronics and small appliances have gotten so cheap that they're not worth the hassle. It seems like the burglars have moved on to stealing catalytic converters from parked cars.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
The article says "burglaries increased in zip codes with fewer gun permits".
Do you mean the abstract says?
To be honest, I was more comfortable that none of my a-hole neighbors were armed, because they would have pulled a gun on you for leaving out the rubbish an hour too early or talking to loudly after 8pm.