Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Stephen Maize, Jan 10, 2020.
I thought being burglarized was being victimized.
It is. The report referenced in the OP was talking about the rate at which victims of burglary also became victims of violent crime during the burglary.
I never said that and no it is not a fallacy. I merely said that firearms decreases burglary from 50% to 30%.
It does discourage burglars from entering homes.
Maybe the guy that told me that 50% of my city had concealed carry made a mistake.
Probably. Should be fairly easy to check. Was this someone you know? If so, he should be able to provide you with a source for the information. If he can't, you can rest assured that he is speaking out of ignorance.
Often a problem unless speaking with an authoritative source. OTOH, there may be some hamlet in FL that has such a high rate.
Getting back to the original post.
While the data is from a 10 year old study and we'd like data from a newer one, this is surprising and supportive of homeowners having the most effective means of defending themselves. We think of "home invasions" as rare events dramatically presented on the news. OTOH, 27% isn't rare and our LE members often warn that anyone willing to enter your home while you're there is dangerous.
It should be noted that the violent crime rate during these burglaries is 7%, not 27%. 3.7 million burglaries during the 4 year period in question and the burglary victim became a violent crime victim during 266,560 of those burglaries. Doesn't change how I feel about people being armed in their homes, but those are the facts (according to this report, at least).
Yes, but the fact that that remarkable number is for people at home when it occurs is remarkable. If 25+% of burglaries are while people are at home (wonder if that includes walking in on it like a friend did?) then there's a stronger argument for being armed against burglaries. The fact that violence occurred 7% of the time leads to the question of whether this is 7% of all burglaries or part of the overall larger population? 7 of 100 rate isn't that comforting.
I heard a report on the data that it was 29% of people that were home or even 30%
Not every burglar is dangerous, not every burglar is violent
I have found an statistic where 13% is used.
Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%. “
Kleck used 9% while David kopel used 13%
Which may make a good correlation for higher gun ownership and willingness to defend the home (and possibly laws acknowledging the right to defend the home) mitigating the "hot burglaries" potential influencing our lower rates.
But there's little comfort in that when there are those that are.
Since there are 3 tiers of permits in Canada they may have been referring to the lower tier transport for sport category instead of carry permits.
According to a request for information from the Canadian government there are only 2 permits to carry (Authorization to Carry) in Canada! I find that to be a remarkably low number.
Any burglar inside my home with us present is considered dangerous and a lethal threat to my family and me. It would be naive to think otherwise.
True. Every burglar should expect to be treated as if they were though. Not every mosquito that lands on my arm is going to sting me, but they should all expect to be squashed anyway.
Not true. If they are not threatening, they should be gently let go.
I think roughly let go would be better.
How would you determine if they're threatening?
We've wandered off topic.
Separate names with a comma.