Does gun ownership lead to fewer home invasions?

Great Debates
41

Its probably also worth pointing out that penalties for burglary vary greatly between countries as well, and even its perceived seriousness, odd as that might sound.

Australia is highly urbanised, has much shorter sentencing, and doesnt have ‘3 strikes’ or the like as a concept. Id put issues like that down as a greater cause of its higher burglary rate than the presence or absence of guns.

Both burglaries we experienced were very professional in and out 5 minute ‘cold’ jobs. Obviously thats anecdotal but most of the burglary stories I hear in Oz follow that pattern.

Otara

42

But cars are useful, whereas if guns don’t make people safer, they aren’t useful.

They do make violence more dangerous. A punch or a stab is less likely to kill you than a gunshot. Guns mean that violence is more likely to be lethal even when not intended to be; a guy who slashes with a knife and runs is less likely to kill you than someone who shoots you and runs.

43

No; people will break in to steal your gun. Unless you go around with it in your hand it’s useless. They just lead to more accidental shootings, particularly by children.

44

Guns have hunting and recreational uses. Besides we could live without cars too. Bikes and mass transit. In any case, areas with fewer guns do not seem to have less overall fatal accidents.

I see nothing that shows that areas with less guns have a lower lethality rating in crime.

45

Approximately 250 children per year drown in backyard swimming pools. No one needs a backyard pool. Should be ban them?

46

Pools don’t drown children, water drowns children.

47

You know somewhere, at some time, some city council or something has proposed just that. There’s already talk/action of banning incandescent lightbulbs and plastic grocery bags, rather than removing the incentive to use them.

48

I call BS on this list. Australia has the highest burglary rate in the world? Triple the US’s? Denmark is 3rd but South Africa is 10th? I flat-out don’t believe it.

Well I wonder how that was compiled. Some research finds that[PDF link, page 4] our actual rate was around 1 per 1,000, not over 20 times that rate. Moreover robbery with a firearm actually declined since the gun buyback and tightening of gun ownership laws in 1996.

49

Mass transit does not exist most places in the US. Generally only urban areas have them (I live in Chicago and got rid of my car because mass transit suffices…I doubt people living downstate who are miles from anything could manage as well without a car). Clearly the automobile/trucks have massive benefits to society. As such we tolerate the danger they pose. Further, autos are rarely used as weapons. Accidents happen sure but they are just that, accidents. Same with pools and drownings. Few people use a pool to threaten someone. Guns on the other hand are used a great deal to threaten/attack another person.

Well, not crime but…

And…

So, guns seem more dangerous to those who own them than criminals are to them and more dangerous to children than pools are it would seem.

Now consider the gun does not seem to actually make you safer from criminals and the math starts looking pretty bad when it comes to reasons to own a gun.

50

‘Get rid of cars because we have bikes and mass transit’? Right, because that is the best way for our fire departments and ambulances to get around. :rolleyes:

Whack-a-Mole, I’d save your breath. After noting that guns a) are really,really dangerous and b) do not serve any other purpose other than to kill things, the gun fanboys will just get mad at you for insulting their ‘recreational pastime’. If they can’t tout how safe guns make them, they’ll say that guns are ‘fun’. Like having a bicycle or something. 'Cause, you know, playing around with guns is so cool and all. Except for the part where you shoot your own daughter.

51

It’s available online if you want to look. In basic terms they asked a lot of random people if they had been the victim of crime n the past 12 months.

That is the most accurate way of getting crime statistics that are comparable across regions.

That research itself notes that the figure will include “include only crimes that come to the attention of the police and not all criminal acts”.

This is a major problem in looking at crime statistics. As crimes increase they actually tend to be reported *less *often because the victims fell that it is a waste of time to do so. Across much of Australia the police response to a burglary is to ask if you want anything done. If you say no then they give you a job number for the insurance claim and that’s it. If you do want something done they make an appointment to turn up some time in the next week, and that will almost always be rescheduled multiple times due to more pressing business.

Unsurprisingly most, I suspect the vast majority, of burglary goes unreported in Australia. I don’t imagine that anybody at all would bother to call the cops if the material stolen was less than the insurance excess. For example, if you leave your 5 year old pushbike in the garage unlocked, and it gets stolen, you have indisputably been burgled, but nobody in their right mind would report that in Australia.
This is why the victims of crime surveys provide much more accurate data than police or court records.
ETA. The 2004 study is now available. Australia is no longer worst in the world IIRC, having been overtaken by England.

Only if you carefully pick your data points.

Robbery with a firearms had been stable (actually declining very slightly) for the 30 years prior to 1996. It actually rose sharply following the introduction of the gun laws and didn’t return to pre-1996 levels until 2002. Since then it has continued the downward tend that it was already on before the laws were introduced.

IOW the robbery-with-firearms rate had been declining. The gun buyback and tightening of gun ownership laws were introduced and the rate *increased *for 7 years. It was only 6 years after the laws were introduced that the rate began to fall. As it had been falling before the laws were introduced.

Reading that charitably, the laws had absolutely no effect on robberies with firearms. An alternative reading is that it led to an increase in fire-arm-related crime and only 15 years of effort have succeeded in overcoming the damage.

More interesting looking at that graph is the huge upswing in in all robberies following the introduction of the gun laws. The laws saw a slight increased in robberies involving firearms, but an in increase of ~33% in armed robberies of other sorts, and unarmed robberies. The armed robbery and unarmed robbery rates are still much higher than they were before the laws were introduced. Once again, the charitable reading is that the gun laws had no effect whatsoever on armed robberies. An alternative reading is that it lead to massive increase in armed robberies.

The homicide rate using firearms has also continued the pre- 1996 decline. In contrast attempted murders and abductions using firearms has consistently increased, reversing the pre-96 decline, while abductions with firearms has increased.

52

Just like you want to outlaw guns and make our police and soldiers defend themselves with sharp sticks.

Why do you hate our brave fighting men and women?
:rolleyes:

Really? More dangerous than tobacco? Or motor vehicles?

Cite.

Really?

Cite!:rolleyes:

53

In case anyone else wants to trot out the stupid swimming pool argument, I submit the following:

How many children, out of all that go swimming, drown? How many children, out of all who are shot at, die? To compare being shot with swimming you don’t get to compare childhood gun deaths with all gun uses, only those uses that put children directly at risk. If one doesn’t do that, one is just regurgitating worthless right-wing talking points and not thinking about what one says.

54

Yet home invasions are rare in the US. No matter what you think, a criminal would much rather face a defenseless, or absent homeowner.

55

From Raw Story

Citing the most recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the report reveals that 2,827 children and teens died as a result of gun violence in 2003

Out of curiosity, how many kids would have to die each year in back yard pools before you’d suggest we do something like say, require a fence?

Or would the more appropriate response be, “meh, kids die, at least people have a way to cool off in the summer.”

56

Okay, we all need to read this article, it’s fucking long and I’m only half way through, but it’s the sort of evaluation I was looking for.

Here is the most interesting comment:

No be honest, did that just make you jizz a little in your pants? Well, there is more:

It seems clear to me that the gun culture in the US had created a *perception *of armed citizens, and that *perception *acts as a deterrent.

But note that it is the perception that creates the deterrent, and not the actual gun. The article actually mentions that the sight of a gun is enough to scare away more buglers, which is to say that a fake gun is just as effective as a real gun (assuming it doesn’t have the little orange cap at the end).

However, the most significant aspect about that article is confirmation bias. Criminals were asked if they worried about being shot, the criminals said yes. No mention of other questions, no mention of other answers. Are they worried about alarms, are they worried about dogs, are they worried about a psychotic 12 year old left home alone?

The possible possession of a gun is one of many factors considered during the 2 hours spent casing a house.

But here is the kicker: this hasn’t stopped burglaries, but appears to have shifted it from night-time/occupied to day-time/unoccupied. So now what happens to the guns presumably still at home?

57

I investigated home invasions as part of my duties in a Violent Crime unit. Generally speaking, the targets were known drug dealers (80-90%) or otherwise believed to have a lot of money on hand. The perpetrators of these crimes were often very violent during the invasion and didn’t hesitate to beat victims right away. I guess they didn’t shoot immediately due to the attention gunfire tends to draw but resistance was often met with gunfire. The bad guys aren’t cool professionals but rather amped up (adrenaline & other drugs) thugs. When other criminals are the target they know guns will likely be present but it doesn’t deter them, at least when they went ahead, anyway. Putting a “This House Protected by Smith & Wesson” sign may deter when you are home or it may invite when you are not. Or both. Personally, I abide in the “Its better to have and not need it than the other way around” philosophy. When I’m not home the gun is hidden and locked away.

58

They are left alone because the thieves get their guns from the overseas black market?

59

This is actually what I referred to previously as “escalation.” The high potential for defensive gun ownership will partly lead to avoidance–going into unoccupied homes. But the flip side seems to be that when the decision involves going into potentially occupied homes, guns are expected, and planned for.

ETA Your research also shows how general statistics can so easily hide what’s going on. A place could have high rates of gun violence and home invasions. But looking closer reveals that they are not random but a direct result of gang activity.

60

That might be fine except I cited earlier that having a gun in the home seriously increases the likelihood of someone ending up dead.

You may be very conscientious about the gun and keep it safe so such things cannot happen but we both know not everybody is. Probably not even most are. Whatever the number the stats tell the story of increased likelihood of someone dying and there is no evidence cited that it actually makes you safer (or at the least the “safer” part is swamped by the un-safer part). Unfortunately I think this lands in the category where everyone thinks they are the safe one and it is everyone else who is a dork about it. Kinda like everyone thinks they are a good driver and it is all the other assholes out there who are the problem.