Home Invasions

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't have any National Stats. A "home invasion" search on newspaper sites would yield some results.

I'm in San Diego, there were 24 home invasion robberies the last quarter of 2006 .

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070211/news_1m11security.html

From 02/11/07

"a home invasion in any neighborhood is uncommon, especially in San Diego.

For the October-to-December period in 2006, we had 24 home invasions citywide,” said Mary Cornicelli, the San Diego police captain overseeing the Rady investigation.

“In probably 90 percent of these cases, our suspects know the victims,” she said. “It's either a drug deal gone bad, someone connected to the family knows there's money in the house, or a third party is sent to collect a debt. "

Our Police Dept. is down 200 officers. If the current labor negotiations go as expected we will go down even more.

I haven't been in an automobile accident for 10 years. I wear a seat belt every time I get in a car.

2 different neighbors, as in, I can see their house from inside mine, have had home invasions in the past 18 months.

Good Luck with your research.
 
Crime Map

You don't say where you are but...the Los Angeles Police Department has a crime map with statistics going back 6 months and searchable in up to 7 day periods.

http://www.lapdcrimemaps.org/

Just put in a street address or intersection and Zip code and you can see in a number of different radius.
 
As someone who had to deal with a home invasion recently, look for earlier thread, I don't care about statistics, or the time and cash I spent getting my guns and carry license and practice and training. When it happens to you all the statistics are meaningless.
When you face a home invasion, it means that people are coming into someone's home with the knowledge that the home is occupied. They probably have something more than simple burglary in mind. If you think that being unable to defend yourself in such a situation is an acceptable risk even if the odds on it are low, I don't get it.
 
http://www.gunfacts.info
all official sources are footnoted, contains just about every statistic that there is relating to firearms, and as recent as published.
There is no category specific tracking of home invasion crimes at the federal level.

Someone considering to purchase a gun intended to be used as a defensive gun should definetely attend a personal defense or CCW class even if they are not intent on obtaining a liscence. Proper training, practice, safe gun handling, and situational awareness are all a must for any gun owner.
 
cra2 said:
thank you Trip20.

though now you're making me realize I was lumping Burglary in with Home Invasion. Looking it up, it appears as though a burglary is stealing from a place (business or home), while home invasion is going into a home with the intent to commit a crime.

You're welcome.

Considering you're pursuit of information appears to be directly related to one's perceived "need" to protect oneself in the home, many would argue that Burglary should be lumped in with Home Invasion when contemplating that need.

Home Invasion by definition would include burglary. After all, the home has been invaded (to be literal).

Otherwise, what you'll have is a cherry-picked set of statistics with certain arguably important variables removed based on semantics, context, or degree. One might construe this as a shady tactic to further one's agenda with out-of-context stats.

An individual studying the need for protection would give consideration to any type of home invasion when weighing the odds so-to-speak. Is it safe to assume any invasion will be a peaceful experience?

It's naive to believe that a "burglary" is a simple non-violent crime devoid of the need for protection. A burglary can often evolve into homicide, rape, and many other gruesome crimes.

To assume or even hope you will make it out unscathed makes no sense. You would be relying on the good will of a bad person - the home invader. That's playing the odds -- gambling -- with something just a little too important, in my humble opinion.

Here you do appear to get the idea of what most of us feel is a "Home Invasion":

cra2 said:
thus, anyone who comes in the home for criminal purposes is a home invader.

I happen to agree with you :)

cra2 said:
I'll have to look further into the stat you gave and see if they break out home invasions at all.

The FBI website did not break out home invasions, per se (that I could find). I believe this is due to the reasons noted above. Burglary is a type of home invasion.

If you're looking for a stat specific to criminals invading homes with the intent of rape, murder, or other similar violent attack where defense was necessary, I think you might have a hard time finding such tailored numbers.

I'd caution you to evaluate your criteria. I don't feel it will give you the most accurate depiction of your stated purpose:

cra2 said:
As a matter of fact, I wonder if (statistically speaking) bringing a gun into the home raises your odds of having a death in the family while not significantly altering your odds of surviving a home invasion.

The assertion that introducing a firearm on your behalf will only increase your odds of being killed... well these are arguments used by most anti-gun folks to imply that one might actually be safer with out a firearm in the home.

Well, if one were to use the firearm as a vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, or meat tenderizer... I'd probably agree with that assessment. But when firearm owners store, maintain, and employ their firearms responsibly, there is no argument in the world that will logically outweigh the benefits of having a firearm available when you need it. I have a feeling one can only appreciate the true gravity of this statement when one has lived the same.
 
troll? free advice

CRA2, what good would these numbers do? They reflect the general population of america, average circumstance that likely won't match your own. The way that you decide handle your home/firearm will have a MUCH greater impact on whatever numbers there are.

As someone who uses numbers to help corporations make decisions (not life and death mind you), I can tell you that the numbers you request will be difficult to obtain, and should contribute ~10% to your decision (made up number). We'd call it a directional read, but much less important than other data. 90% is your own circumstance.

This just isn't a good way to go about making decisions.

Here are questions that should drive your decision. List isn't exhaustive. These are NOT very quantifiable.

Where do YOU live, the numbers will carry much higher impact if they are local to you. City newspaper is likely a good source, better would be narrowing it down to your neighborhood/ similar neighborhoods. But remember, (paraphrasing the stock market warnings ...) past performance does not neccessarily indicate future). Neighborhoods age, crime rates can climb.

Can you responsibly own firearms. Inherent in that is your ability to legally own, your commitment to using them responsibly (for your circumstance). Do you have kids, are you home much, etc. Can you commit to train to proficiency? Annecdote: I knew a coworker who was adament about dying/sucumbing to rape rather than defense, even for family members. Her choice, hard for me to imagine, but certainly shouldn't own a firearm if true.

How safe is your house, commute, lifestyle. If your crime rate is 1:1,000 vs 1:1,000,000 makes a huge difference, tho both will seem very low. Annecdote: my kids asked me why a friend who smokes hadn't got lung cancer. They were too young to break into the odds. I don't know the odds of lung cancer, only that smoking elevates them substantially.

How quickly can you change your mind? Say you felt like firearms weren't for you, then something changed. If you can borrow a firearm while purchasing one, then the decision to eschew them doesn't "cost" you much exposure to harm. Otherwise, even owning one in deep storage (kept off site?) maybe good insurance should your decision to own one turn out to be wrong. Example: If things got bad (threatening call, witness a crime, bad breakup, friends bad luck) how quickly could you acquire a firearm. No loaners and a state with a waiting period might indicate ownership as an "hedge".

Who do YOU believe should be responsible for your self defense? For some the answer is LE, Husband/friend, communities security, alarm systems.

That's enough of that. Of course there are many other influencing factors.

The decision is much more complex than a few statistics (which I would not have great faith in reqardless) will support. They could be one datapoint, but much more is about you, and only you know the truth in those answers.

One last attempt to make a point.

A man was on the side of the road at night, frantically looking in the weeds. A good samaritan stopped to ask what was the matter. Turns out a suitcase had come off and he was looking for it.

"So, it fell off in this area?"
"No, back a half mile"
"What, Why are you looking here?"
"because the lights better".
This was related by an exec at a companies internal meeting with employees.
Story highlighted how the company was trying to use numbers to make decisions regarding customer satisfaction, in an effort to raise the bar. Sometimes you got to step away from the numbers and go with a gut feel.

These type of numbers are used (rightfully and wrongfully) for making decisions about large groups of people. If you are trying to make decisions for yourself, then then all of the above is my advice.

If you are trying to decide if gun owners are silly for spending "COUNTLESS hours and THOUSANDS of dollars on our arsenal of bedside weapons and not $25 on a helmet to wear around outside. "

... well then you are a just a troll.
 
cra2

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jun-20-Sun-2004/news/24144219.html

From the article link...
Asked half a century ago why he robbed banks, infamous "Slick" Willie Sutton is said to have replied, "Because that's where the money is."
But today's home invasion robberies defy Sutton's logic. Most in the Las Vegas Valley have occurred in the poorest neighborhoods, according to a Review-Journal analysis of crime and census data.
Middle-class neighborhoods farther from the valley's core have had relatively few home invasions, and exclusive master-planned communities such as Lake Las Vegas and Anthem have remained virtually untouched by the crime.
The data, criminologists say, contradict the widely held belief that violent home invaders typically prey on middle- and upper-class neighborhoods when searching for a score.
"You would think they would go where the money is, but research shows most will operate a short distance from where they live," said Carnegie Mellon University professor Alfred Blumstein, director of the Pittsburgh-based National Consortium on Violence Research and one of the nation's top crime experts.
"Most of the home invasion events you read about or see on television happen to middle-class or elderly folks, but I think that's a result of the selectivity of what the media finds interesting. But in fact, these are often acts of desperate individuals looking to get drug money or people who might feel out of place if they go to nice suburban areas where they might be more easily noticed as suspicious."

Crime zones

Home invasion, where robbers raid a home and hold its occupants captive while plundering it, is not a new crime. But it became a well-known form of robbery only in the late 1980s, police say.
Southern Nevada police agencies investigated at least 749 home invasions between January 2001 and mid-March. The crime accounts for only about 5 percent of all valley robberies in a year, with the number of home invasions growing at about the same rate as the region's population, according to the newspaper's analysis.
Nationwide comparisons are unavailable because the FBI and other entities that collect crime data do not separate statistics on home invasions from other types of robberies.
The analysis found that some 57 percent of all Southern Nevada home invasions between Jan. 1, 2001, and March 15, 2004, occurred in only eight of the valley's four dozen ZIP code districts: 89030, 89101, 89104, 89106, 89109, 89110, 89115 and 89121.
Those eight ZIP codes experienced 426 home invasions. Individually, they were the only ZIP codes where more than 30 home invasions were reported in the past three years.
The 89101 area, which includes much of downtown Las Vegas, had the most home invasions, with 89. North Las Vegas' 89030 zone, just north of 89101, was second with 73. The 89109 zone, which includes the Strip and its surrounding neighborhoods, was third with 58.
Meanwhile, the ZIP codes that include the tony Anthem development in Henderson and the more modest Centennial Hills community in the northwest valley each experienced three home invasions since Jan. 1, 2001.
During the same period, the postal zones that include Rhodes Ranch and McDonald Ranch in the southern valley each had one. The ZIP code that includes Lake Las Vegas, home to some of the Silver State's poshest pads, had yet to experience a single home invasion.

Neighborhood trends

Geographically, the eight postal zones with the most home invasions form an uninterrupted north-south swath through most of the valley's poorest residential areas, encompassing the Strip corridor, running through downtown Las Vegas and continuing into the neighborhoods west of Nellis Air Force Base.
Data from the 2000 U.S. Census show all but two of those ZIP codes had unemployment rates well above 5 percent while the rest of Clark County averaged about 4 percent.
Single-family homes in these areas sold on average from $103,000 (89030) to $147,000 (89121), while homes in ZIP codes with only a few home invasions since January 2001 typically sold for well above $200,000 last year, according to SalesTraq, a company tracking the local housing market.
The census data also show all but one of those eight ZIP codes had a poverty rate far above the Clark County average of 10.8 percent. In fact, three ZIP codes in the swath are the only ones where at least one in four people live under the poverty line, which the federal government defined at the time of the most recent census as a family of four with an income of $17,050 or less.
Sociologist Robert Bursik, who conducted a lengthy study that examined the relationship between crime and poverty in 74 Chicago neighborhoods over 20 years, wasn't surprised that home invasions were mostly likely to unfold in Southern Nevada's poorest neighborhoods.
But the University of Missouri, St. Louis professor said extensive research he has conducted found that poverty is not a direct cause of crime.
Bursik's 1995 study, "Economic Deprivation and Neighborhood Crime Rates," found an area's crime rate is more closely related to the level of "social disorganization."
"By that I mean that poor neighborhoods tend to be characterized by low levels of guardianship: People don't watch each other's property or keep an eye on each other's welfare," Bursik said. "If a neighborhood looks out of control with graffiti, abandoned homes, uncollected trash, that signals to an offender that this is a neighborhood where I can get away with something."

Temporary salve

Criminologist Terry Miethe, a criminal justice professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said the eight ZIP code areas fit that description.
He added that local efforts at cleaning up these neighborhoods have led to temporary, superficial fixes.
As the best examples of this, Miethe pointed to two of the local neighborhoods most plagued by home invasions. One is West Las Vegas, an area generally bordered by Carey Avenue on the north, Bonanza Road on the south, Interstate 15 on the east and Rancho Drive on the west. Another is the area long known as Naked City, near the Strip and Sahara Avenue in the shadow of the Stratosphere.
To improve these two areas, the federal government began channeling $2.2 million in 1994 to the city of Las Vegas through the Executive Office of Weed & Seed. The grants would fund law enforcement efforts to "weed" out violent crime, gangs, drug trafficking and then "seed" the areas with social services and economic revitalization programs.
Naked City was rechristened "Meadows Village" as part of this improvement effort.

Gains lost

Police formed a task force with the FBI to suppress gangs, drugs and juvenile criminals in the neighborhoods, and authorized overtime pay to step up the number of officers patrolling in cruisers, on foot and on bikes. They eventually secured convictions against many of the worst drug dealers and gang members.
Meanwhile, other grant money went toward restoring dilapidated housing and funding programs promoting literacy, substance abuse prevention, children's after-school activities and bilingual education.
But when the federal funding dried up, the task force was dissolved, and the Metropolitan Police Department moved the bike patrol from Meadows Village to downtown.
"With Meadows Village and the Westside, there was a little good done, and then the money runs out and crime returned," Miethe said.
The federal government had a similarly bleak assessment.
"Gains were reversed because weeding was not sustained and seeding efforts never `took root,' " stated a 1999 National Institute of Justice case study report on Las Vegas.
"Metro went in there and won several awards for neighborhood crime prevention programs," Miethe said. "But as soon as police leave, those areas went back to being crime-prone areas, so it's not surprising you see all these home invasions there."

So what does that tell us? (note bold text...) FBI does not (or at least did not) keep separate statistics on home invasions per se. It took the reporter several weeks to glean all that info to write up a one page summary... and that's just from within the Las Vegas NV valley some three years past (2004 article discussing 2001 incidents... statistics Metro had available at the time of his research). Note only 749 Home Invasions in less than three months his article covered. Most in poorer neighborhoods (drugs?), a few in some of the newer, nicer neighborhoods. Only 749 in 80 days or less... in one metro area...
hmmmm. Thi' I don't know how many golf ball assaults took place in the same time (cause I wasn't on the golf course playing my usual Jerry Ford game at the time probably :D )
 
For statistics, you'd probably better off searching for "breaking and entering" and "burglary." The problem, however, is that these will include places of business, government facilities, etc. If you can figure out what percentage of those crimes involve homes (especially when the residents are present), you'll have bit the bacon.
 
Baba Louie

Only 749 in 80 days or less... in one metro area...

I gotta point out that this was through March 2004, not 2001. Still way too many break-ins, though.

Southern Nevada police agencies investigated at least 749 home invasions between January 2001 and mid-March. The crime accounts for only about 5 percent of all valley robberies in a year, with the number of home invasions growing at about the same rate as the region's population, according to the newspaper's analysis.
Nationwide comparisons are unavailable because the FBI and other entities that collect crime data do not separate statistics on home invasions from other types of robberies.
The analysis found that some 57 percent of all Southern Nevada home invasions between Jan. 1, 2001, and March 15, 2004, ...
 
I would like to see these crimes tracked statistically so that we can have a more informed discussion. I think we would find home invasions are more common than we imagine, and that many more homeowners than we imagine successfully defend themselves with guns, in the majority of cases without firing a shot.

Here's the way I look at it. In any given home, the probability is low. People who don't choose to keep a gun are not crazy or foolish. They are not "sheeple" or any of the other derogatory terms some extremists like to use. If they not sure the gun can be kept safely away from people in their home who might misuse it, then they're far safer without one. But people who can keep a gun safely and know how to use it are better off with one than without.

One thing is certain. Given a large enough sample of people, these crimes will occur. If not to you, then to someone else. That's why our founding fathers envisaged a society when the entire law abiding population was armed.
 
I gotta point out that this was through March 2004, not 2001. Still way too many break-ins, though.
Mea Culpa and gracias for pointing that out Doggy. So that'd be 749 in 1800+/- days. Not so bad... a veritable walk in the park, as it were.
 
trip20, I agree with you:

Considering you're pursuit of information appears to be directly related to one's perceived "need" to protect oneself in the home, many would argue that Burglary should be lumped in with Home Invasion when contemplating that need.

I think that burglarly can't be looked at by itself though, unless you can break out how many of those involved homes (or "hot" homes, as someone pointed out). Otherwise, 90% of those might be thefts of cars from empty warehouses, for all we know. But I didn't mean to imply that I thought burglars in the home should NOT be included in Home Invasion stats. I was agreeing that anyone coming in the home unlawfully is pretty much, by definition, a home invader.

(but the definition I found stated that they needed to be there for criminal purposes. I guess, technically, someone may have some reason for entering your home unlawfully with ZERO motivation to commit any crime.)
 
Baba Louie

Mea Culpa and gracias for pointing that out Doggy. So that'd be 749 in 1800+/- days. Not so bad... a veritable walk in the park, as it were.

Uh-huh. As long as that park isn't in one of those 8 zip codes.


I'm happy to mention that my zip is not one of those 8. I'm also happy to mention that even so, I'm still sitting here with my .357 full of Gold Dots within easy reach.

And 3 big dogs.

The wife is also in the same room with a .45.

I won't even mention the goodies in the (at the moment unlocked) safe.
 
I guess, technically, someone may have some reason for entering your home unlawfully with ZERO motivation to commit any crime.)
What a load of sophist crap. By definition, they have demonstrated at least one motivation to commit a crime, since they're guilty of B&E.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract That may me something along the lines of what your looking for,

rm12470, that's a great link. thanks.

awp, spoke too soon. you had stray off topic as well...

and it took me less time to google it than it has for you to insult every remark anyone here has directed at you, trying to help or not.

heh.. I like the way some people "generalize." Kind of a 'half-glass empty' fella, are ya?
Though I may very well BE a gun-owner myself, and an NRA member, and a CCL holder, etc, etc, I've got people suggesting whether or not numbers should help me decide to buy a gun, and people telling me why THEY'd own a gun, and people telling me why stats don't matter, and people ASKING me why'd I'd want stats...
rofl.
If you'll review, I said THANK YOU and asked questions of the few people who actually attempted to answer the original question and provide guidance towards the stats I requested.

look up what you are actually curious about.

I am, and have. And was inviting anyone who has studied this longer than myself to point out what they've found too. But I DO appreciate your attempt to make it seem like I'm wasting YOUR time by forcing YOU to read this thread and MAKE you reply to it.

Now then.. if you think I'm asking the wrong questions or that stats have no purpose, then (as a moderator advised) .... walk away. Noone's forcing you guys to read this, or to post why I should/shouldn't buy a gun, or why stats do/don't matter.

Those of you who HAVE researched this, I'm DYING to hear from you.
And those of you who ARE interested (whether for pro-gun or anti-gun) purposes, I thank you for providing some interesting reading.

peace out homey
 
cra2, this table, which is found buried in that original link I posted, might have the detail you're looking for. It seems to break it down in a fashion that you may be able to remove those things (i.e., car theft) that do not pertain to your topic.

A few words of advice: Ignore the jabs aimed at you, and they'll eventually go away so this topic can remain open and informative.
 
What a load of sophist crap. By definition, they have demonstrated at least one motivation to commit a crime, since they're guilty of B&E.

I don't think entering a home without permission is considered B&E.

What I said was that I read a definition of "home invasion" that called unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime (I don't recall if it said "felony" crime or just crime).

Then I said, I guess they specify intent to commit a crime, because maybe there'd be some cases where unlawful entry could occur withOUT some intent to do evil.

I can think of at least one example off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are others. There was an old guy who shot some kid who had entered his screen door. Turns out the kid was autistic or something and had simply wandered away from supervision. I think the old guy got in trouble for being so trigger-happy. The kid was harmless, unarmed, and would've smiled and sat on the floor to play marbles with ya, if he'd been confronted. But I REALLY REALLY don't want this to turn into a discussion of the legality of that case - I just point out that there CAN be instances, however rare, of folks coming in who don't actually intend a crime, and thus that may be why they specified "home invasion" must have intent.

In the end, I think home invasion stats (unless anyone's compiled them already) would have to include any "invader" - whether burglar or whatever, armed or unarmed.
 
Last edited:
cra2 said:
I just point out that there CAN be instances, however rare, of folks coming in who don't actually intend a crime, and thus that may be why they specified "home invasion" must have intent.

cra2, you're correct, there are a few rare instances where an "invasion" occurs with complete benign intent.

But for this discussion to remain relevant... lets be honest and concede that the overwhelming majority of situations involve bad people doing bad things. The exceptions you may introduce into this conversation are so irrelevant statistically, that they only detract from the real discussion.

A responsible party who takes the necessary precautions in identifying his/her target, would solve a majority of mistaken identity shootings that are, again, so absolutely rare they have no bearing here.
 
Lies, damn lies and statistics.....When the balloon goes up and the front door is coming off it's hinges because some miscreant thinks he can score the mother lode in my house I couldn't give a red rats backside what the statistics say about the chances of being victimized by home invasion.

Accurate data for this simply does not exist. And even if it did exist I wouldn't care too much about what the numbers said. A firearm is like an ambulance, when you need it you need it NOW and you need it badly. 99+%
of us will never be victims of home invasion robbers. 99+% of us will never be struck by lightning either. Doesn't mean it can't happen. Most of us play
the local lottery etc. Our logical mind knows we will never win big but our
emotional mind says go ahead and buy that ticket. Well we are all more likely to face a BG in our homes than to win the Megabucks jackpot. Odds are not always the deciding factor. The potential outcome is important in the consideration also. The logical mind says it probably won't happen to us,
but the gut says "I don't care, be ready for it anyway."
 
as usual, couldn't agree more, trip20.

but talking about the definition was probably necessary at some point.
helps orient us all on the same page.
 
Even though I have been told to shut up and that I have contributed nothing of value to this thread (did cra2 bother to read my first post speaking about 4 home invasions in Albuquerque in the past 5 months?), I will contribute this:

How do you quantify the deterrent factor of gun ownership in the US? Could it be that many home invasions don't occur simply because the risk to the attacker is too high? Note that the recent increase of these types of home invasions in places that have implemented or intensified firearms restrictions, places such as Australia, Great Britain, etc. might just support this theory.

In other words, how do you count things that don't happen? I, for one, continue to believe that possessing firearms in the home (my CCW is in my pocket even now while typing these words on my couch) is the best way to protect my family. One home invasion in the area would be enough to cause me to take this action, and we have had 4 in the past 6 months.
 
cra2,

That warm feeling you notice under your hind end is the heat rising from that little fire you started with your attitude at the outset of this thread, post number 1. The deafening sound you attribute to the memberships' general uproar is what happens when one throws gasoline on a fire.


Nice way to introduce yourself to the membership.


This isn't a library or university. We aren't economists or statisticians. And this isn't your intern research team, or your message board. If you want scholarly research, go to a scholarly source. If you want responses uncluttered with anecdotes and opinions, too bad. We exist to share such things with each other. You can ask for whatever responses you want, but you can't demand it. Expressing anger and distain with the membership over it won't get you very far. You'd have been better off simply reading past what you didn't feel supported what you were looking for and keeping your mouth shut.

After you have finished the research project you felt compelled to conduct, perhaps you might want to read Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. Or, you can continue your boorish behavior and see how well that works out for you.


This thread is locked. The manner in which it was started was designed, either through direct intent or blind ignorance, to generate hostile responses. I'm closing it before I have to exile anyone I like for expressing righteous outrage.




<By the way, welcome to THR.>
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top