Does gun ownership lead to fewer home invasions?

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Circling back to the first part this means there are nearly a million crimes committed per month in the US making those 6-8 people an even more pathetic number. I have no doubt the real number is bigger but it’d have to be a LOT bigger to be counted anywhere near substantial.

But if it gets TOO substantial, then it doesn’t pass the smell test.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Do they “disclose the methodology” anywhere? I would have thought that the page itself would be the appropriate location, but perhaps a link is offered? No? Sort of thing that inspires some skepticism, if it were not for the impeccable credibility of the source.

For instance, I wonder about what qualifies. Suppose Paul Paranoid hears a suspicious noise, gets his gun, and shouts downstairs “Here I come, home invaders, and I’ve got a gun!” And said home invaders vanish, as if they had never been. Taking nothing, leaving no evidence of their presence.

He calls the cops, tells them the heroic story of his home invasion defense. Absent any physical evidence of breaking and entering, does this story go into the “success!” category, as clear evidence of crime deterrence?

I don’t know.

[Bone]

@Der_Trihs

I’ve always been under the impression that they are quite rare. I live in a city and I’ve never heard of one here.

Personally I doubt that having a gun would help; several armed guys > one surprised guy, armed or not. Really; why would thugs who often shoot at each other be especially scared of the guns of some guy in a house?

The Armed Citizen - Concealed Carry, Training, Gun Safes

Links to several local news reports (assumption that they are factual) of actual incidents of armed self defense. Many of these are for home invasion and most end up with the bad guys dead or wounded.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

But if it gets TOO substantial, then it doesn’t pass the smell test.

No number telling us how many people defend themselves with guns passes the smell test unless the people citing the number tell you how they calculated it. Doesn’t matter if it is me telling you or the NRA. If the Brady Campaign said they calculated the number of successful defense with guns to be 100/year but refused to tell you how they got that number would you accept it? I’d bet dollars to dimes you wouldn’t.

[emacknight]

Sorry for being away.

As always there will be problems with definitions. I used the term home invasion in a lose manner to cover the scenarios in which a criminal enters someone’s house for what ever nefarious purpose. I thought about using the term break and enter. Essentially, my previous gun thread involved a lot of comments to the effect that having a gun in the house makes people feel safer. And there has been a number of assertions that having a gun in the house is a deterrence to home invasions. This made me wonder if it would show up in the same statistics used in the previous thread.

In other words, do countries with lower gun ownership end up with higher numbers of break-ins/home invasions? And is there any evidence to suggest that all the guns in the US are making break-ins/home invasions less likely.

@Steve_MB

A “hot” robbery is a home invasion while the residents are present. Presumably criminals aren’t total idiots, and are thus likely to wait for a chance to commit a “cold” robbery instead if they perceive a significant risk of being met with armed opposition.

This is the theory as asserted frequently by gun-right-activists, but never backed up, which is why I started this thread. Is there a way to show statistically that this is the case? Does an armed citizenship lead to an environment with fewer home invasions?

@Bricker

Every month, the NRA’s magazine runs a column called “Armed Citizen,” in which six or eight stories are related, typically having to do with a homeowner either frightening off a would-be burglar or defending himself (or herself!) by actually shooting.

The archive page for this content says, “Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater…” and goes on to refer to studies that place the number of such incidents at 2.5 million annually.

I figured someone would bring up the NRA’s list of heroes, and I’m really glad you did. Wouldn’t 2.5 million incidents annually suggest to you that having a gun is NOT preventative? Every one of those cases show that criminals are undeterred by the possibility of an armed resident.

@enipla

Thieves usually go for easy pickens.

And, the homeowner would not necessarily be surprised. Breaking in can make quite a racket. That and motion sensor lights and such. I know, and wake up when deer enter my yard. And in my case, **my doggie alarms **go off at the slightest sound.

And this is usually the case. Thieves usually go for easy pickens, and I was under the impression that having a dog is the single best deterrent. Which to me suggests dogs should be in the 2nd amendment too.

Incidentally, my wife and I bought the little “we have an alarm” stickers and so far those have worked great!

[emacknight]

@Bone

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

Links to several local news reports (assumption that they are factual) of actual incidents of armed self defense. Many of these are for home invasion and most end up with the bad guys dead or wounded.

Exactly, a list of cases showing armed citizens are not a deterrent.

It’s also sadly ironic that they go through all the trouble of listing gun-defense scenarios as examples of how great guns are. But then fail to list all the gun-offense scenarios in which armed citizens kill unarmed ones.

[JXJohns]

@emacknight

Exactly, a list of cases showing armed citizens are not a deterrent.

It’s also sadly ironic that they go through all the trouble of listing gun-defense scenarios as examples of how great guns are. But then fail to list all the gun-offense scenarios in which armed citizens kill unarmed ones.

Should we also expect Popular Mechanics to list all tool related injuries while extolling the virtues of the latest band saw? Does Motor Trend have an obligation to inform readers of the numbers of drunk driving deaths in the same issue containing an expose on the new Corvette?

Perhaps these magazines are quite within their right to publish the legal use of the items that they write about, shying away from the illegal use of same?

[Bone]

@emacknight

Exactly, a list of cases showing armed citizens are not a deterrent.

It’s also sadly ironic that they go through all the trouble of listing gun-defense scenarios as examples of how great guns are. But then fail to list all the gun-offense scenarios in which armed citizens kill unarmed ones.

The link is anecdotal at best and wasn’t intended to either support or refute the claim that gun ownership is a deterrent. The purpose was to provide counter example to Der Trihss’s claim that having a gun would not help a victim of home invasion.

Regarding the question of deterrence, this article persuasively makes the claim that yes, gun ownership does reduce the incidents of home invasion (burglarizing a home when occupants are present). Article is from 2001, but the statistics are sourced and I think the conclusions still hold. From the article:

It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology textbook explains, “Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success.” [FN8] Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. [FN9] But this happy fact of life, so taken for granted in the United States, is not universal.

The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home.

There are several more examples in the article itself.

[Steve_MB]

@Whack-a-Mole

Maybe but I would think the person would want to report it to the police and just leave out the part about using a gun.

He could tell them that he played of the federal agents in E. T. and scared the crooks away by waving his walkie-talkie at them.

[emacknight]

@JXJohns

Should we also expect Popular Mechanics to list all tool related injuries while extolling the virtues of the latest band saw? Does Motor Trend have an obligation to inform readers of the numbers of drunk driving deaths in the same issue containing an expose on the new Corvette?

Perhaps these magazines are quite within their right to publish the legal use of the items that they write about, shying away from the illegal use of same?

Well, yes, I think they do have an obligation.

Remember the recall of the Lexus SUV, or Toyota Prius, recently? Would you rather Motor Trend blew smoke up your ass and told you all the great things about the car, but didn’t bother to mention there was a significant chance you’d die in a fiery blaze? Wasn’t in Motor Trend that alerted the public to the safety issue in the first place?

Would you want Popular Mechanics to go on and on about how great a new power saw is and intentionally ignore that 1 in 5 blew up in a user’s hand?

Otherwise, what’s the point of the list? It’s intentionally misleading. Like having a list of all the deaths in the US from lack of health care. Other than providing masturbatory material for gun lovers, the list is simply reinforcing an availability heuristic.

[yojimbo]

@emacknight

Sorry for being away.

As always there will be problems with definitions. I used the term home invasion in a lose manner to cover the scenarios in which a criminal enters someone’s house for what ever nefarious purpose. I thought about using the term break and enter.

Ah. My confusion lay in definition of “Home Invasion”, I was thinking something more like guys in ski-masks take over a house, tie family up, rob their stuff and possibly rape or kill them.

Breaking and entering happens quite a bit here. I’ve walked in on a burglar and a friend was burgled as he, his wife and child were watching tv. Usually it’s drug addicts(at least in Dublin) IME and they NEED the money. Most of them wouldn’t give a fuck if a gun was there or not.

[JXJohns]

@emacknight

Well, yes, I think they do have an obligation.

Remember the recall of the Lexus SUV, or Toyota Prius, recently? Would you rather Motor Trend blew smoke up your ass and told you all the great things about the car, but didn’t bother to mention there was a significant chance you’d die in a fiery blaze? Wasn’t in Motor Trend that alerted the public to the safety issue in the first place?

Would you want Popular Mechanics to go on and on about how great a new power saw is and intentionally ignore that 1 in 5 blew up in a user’s hand?

Otherwise, what’s the point of the list? It’s intentionally misleading. Like having a list of all the deaths in the US from lack of health care. Other than providing masturbatory material for gun lovers, the list is simply reinforcing an availability heuristic.

Sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges. Saws blowing up or auto recalls are manufacturer defects, not illegal uses of those items. These are in line with the same articles seen in gun rags about using smokeless powder in antique guns or recent recalls regarding the Ruger LCP pistol.

[Sam_Stone]

The problem with any of these statistics and comparisons is that the factors that drive crime are complex. Some are cultural, some are the result of population density, some are economic.

Here’s a link to the FBI’s Crime Statistics Database. If you’re seriously trying to figure out if gun ownership reduces crime, you’re probably better off comparing various states with differing gun ownership rates. You have a lot more data points to compare, and the population will be a little more homogenous.

But even a cursory glance through the data suggests to me that while gun ownership may be a factor, it’s going to be hard to find it because other factors loom much larger. Washington DC had a complete ban on legal guns at the time of the last data collection, but had by far the highest violent crime rate (1,459.0 incidents per 100,000 people). But that’s almost certainly due to the fact that Washington DC has a huge underclass with a lot of gang and drug activity.

Montana has very liberal gun laws, and a very low violent crime rate (281.5 per 100,000 people). But the difference between it and DC is probably overwhelmingly due to the fact that Montana has no underclass, no major population centers with decaying inner cities, no gangs, and a much smaller drug culture.

This is why debates on the efficacy of gun legislation never end. It is extremely difficult to author a study that manages to control for all confounding factors, and even if you do a pretty good job of it, there will always be something for opponents to complain about.

But it also suggests that if you really care about reducing crime, and not just about guns, then you’re probably better off expending your energy elsewhere. On a Pareto chart of crime factors, I’m guessing ‘gun laws’ is somewhere near the bottom.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Steve_MB

He could tell them that he played of the federal agents in E. T. and scared the crooks away by waving his walkie-talkie at them.

Tell them you have the iPhone app that makes sounds like a gun being cocked.

[Quartz]

@enipla

Really? Just the oposite for myself. Aren’t there quite a few ‘hot’ robberies in England?

Yes. I can’t give numbers but I can give two specific examples:

1. A burglar operating near my parents had the MO of breaking in upstairs while there was a party on downstairs. If challenged, he pretended to be another guest.

2. At a previous address, my neighbours caught someone trying to break into my flat.

[Sage_Rat]

@Leaffan

Well, this is how Nationmaster breaks down the statistic of “burglaries per capita.” But I’m not clear on their definition of burglary.

# 1    	Australia:  	21.7454 per 1,000 people   	
# 2   	Dominica: 	18.7892 per 1,000 people  	
# 3   	Denmark: 	18.3299 per 1,000 people  	
# 4   	Estonia: 	17.4576 per 1,000 people  	
# 5   	Finland: 	16.7697 per 1,000 people  	
# 6   	New Zealand: 	16.2763 per 1,000 people  	
# 7   	United King'm: 	13.8321 per 1,000 people  	
# 8   	Poland: 	9.46071 per 1,000 people  	
# 9   	Canada: 	8.94425 per 1,000 people  	
# 10   	South Africa: 	8.89764 per 1,000 people  	
# 11   	Montserrat: 	8.24323 per 1,000 people  	
# 12   	Iceland: 	8.11156 per 1,000 people  	
# 13   	Switzerland: 	8.06303 per 1,000 people  	
# 14   	Slovenia: 	7.93734 per 1,000 people  	
# 15   	Czech Repub: 	7.24841 per 1,000 people  	
# 16   	Hungary: 	7.15849 per 1,000 people  	
# 17   	United States: 	7.09996 per 1,000 people  	
# 18   	France: 	6.11634 per 1,000 people  	
# 19   	Ireland: 	5.73755 per 1,000 people  	
# 20   	Netherlands: 	5.55531 per 1,000 people

It can’t be right though. Michael Moore told me so.

I think that this Nation Master list is more on-point for home invasions. I’d imagine that a significant percentage of “burglaries” are of stores or in a dark alley, which aren’t applicable. Combining that data with the gun ownership list at the Wikipedia, we get:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4181904/gunsvburglary.png (Where, “burglary” means “property crime victims”)

I’m not seeing any meaningful relationship, if any.

[thelurkinghorror]

@yojimbo

Ah. My confusion lay in definition of “Home Invasion”, I was thinking something more like guys in ski-masks take over a house, tie family up, rob their stuff and possibly rape or kill them.

Breaking and entering happens quite a bit here. I’ve walked in on a burglar and a friend was burgled as he, his wife and child were watching tv. Usually it’s drug addicts(at least in Dublin) IME and they NEED the money. Most of them wouldn’t give a fuck if a gun was there or not.

FWIW, my definition fits yours. Mine are:

Home invasion: criminal enters house, threatens (or beats or kills) homeowner, robs place.

Robbery: criminal takes money or property from an individual while they are present. In the case of a home, they can break in at night and rob while the homeowner is asleep, although this is ambiguous as to the next category. This category includes home invasion. Outside the home this would include things like mugging and carjacking.

Burglary: criminal breaks into home without confronting property owner. Especially when it is daytime, or nobody is obviously home (newspapers piled up, etc.) This is breaking and entering.

@Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco

I find it hard to believe there’s so few in certain counties in that list, but you never know. In any case, the United States is surrounded by countries that have strict gun ownership laws, so even at a glance it doesn’t look like a factor.

Also, did someone just confuse Ireland with England? I feel kind of insulted, and I’m not even Irish. (They appear lower than both the UK and US on that list anyway).

I hope so too, and presume that he is talking about US vs. Canada. Moore made a big point (not sure what it was supposed to prove though) that crime is lower in Canada.

I have always heard it said that the rate of violent crimes are higher in the US vs. UK, but most other crime rates are higher in the UK. If robbery means what I think it means in the list, then this makes sense. The property crime graph should include all types, including robbery, burglary, vandalism, etc.

[DrDeth]

@Sam_Stone

The problem with any of these statistics and comparisons is that the factors that drive crime are complex. Some are cultural, some are the result of population density, some are economic.

Here’s a link to the FBI’s Crime Statistics Database. If you’re seriously trying to figure out if gun ownership reduces crime, you’re probably better off comparing various states with differing gun ownership rates. You have a lot more data points to compare, and the population will be a little more homogenous.

But even a cursory glance through the data suggests to me that while gun ownership may be a factor, it’s going to be hard to find it because other factors loom much larger. Washington DC had a complete ban on legal guns at the time of the last data collection, but had by far the highest violent crime rate (1,459.0 incidents per 100,000 people). But that’s almost certainly due to the fact that Washington DC has a huge underclass with a lot of gang and drug activity.

Montana has very liberal gun laws, and a very low violent crime rate (281.5 per 100,000 people). But the difference between it and DC is probably overwhelmingly due to the fact that Montana has no underclass, no major population centers with decaying inner cities, no gangs, and a much smaller drug culture.

This is why debates on the efficacy of gun legislation never end. It is extremely difficult to author a study that manages to control for all confounding factors, and even if you do a pretty good job of it, there will always be something for opponents to complain about.

But it also suggests that if you really care about reducing crime, and not just about guns, then you’re probably better off expending your energy elsewhere. On a Pareto chart of crime factors, I’m guessing ‘gun laws’ is somewhere near the bottom.

Right, Gun ownership or banning does not seem to have a significant large effect on crime one way or the other.

This is why I am mildly against Gun Laws- they seem to do nothing to reduce crime.

[Der_Trihs]

@enipla

Thieves usually go for easy pickens.

And, the homeowner would not necessarily be surprised. Breaking in can make quite a racket. That and motion sensor lights and such. I know, and wake up when deer enter my yard. And in my case, my doggie alarms go off at the slightest sound.

A home invasion by definition isn’t about sneaking in; motion sensors and so forth aren’t going to much good because they aren’t trying to sneak in the first place. And when it’s several armed men against one, just about anyone is “easy pickings”, Rambo fantasies aside.

And they’d probably just shoot the dog.

@DrDeth

Right, Gun ownership or banning does not seem to have a significant large effect on crime one way or the other.

This is why I am mildly against Gun Laws- they seem to do nothing to reduce crime.

But they do reduce accidental shootings; can’t shoot someone without a gun. And they make violence more lethal as well. If guns don’t reduce crime, then gun owners are just putting themselves and others into danger for no benefit.

[DrDeth]

@Der_Trihs

But they do reduce accidental shootings; can’t shoot someone without a gun. And they make violence more lethal as well. If guns don’t reduce crime, then gun owners are just putting themselves and others into danger for no benefit.

Well, sure you can’t have gun accidents without guns, but then we couldn’t have car accident without cars.

There does not seem to be any correlation between violent crime and gun ownership or even deadly crime. Although we have these mass shootings, in some nations they have mass slashings or bombings.

It’s true that overall, gun ownership does not seem to make society safer. But ancedotally it can make the owner safer. Assuming he knows what he’s doing, that is.

So, yes, gun ownership does not seem to benefit society, overall. But it does no harm to society either. Overall.