Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on November 15, 2003, 09:28:38 PM
-
http://www.nracentral.com/the_armed_citizen.php
The Armed Citizen
Store clerk Nicole Tucker, 21, first noticed the man wandering around Tucker’s Market around 4 p.m. when the store was very busy. He’d said he was looking for a friend. An hour later, when Tucker was alone in the store, the man returned. “I was by myself the second time,” she said. “He confronted me about money, he said, ‘Give me your money or I’ll blow your brains out.’” The man acted as though he had a gun in his pocket. As he came around the counter toward her, his view was momentarily obstructed and Tucker used that to her advantage. She grabbed the gun kept in the store, which stopped the man in his tracks. “He must have seen me with it (the gun) because he took off and ran back out the door. I followed him … I pointed the gun at him, but I never fired,” she explained. Police were on the scene within 30 seconds, but the suspect remained at large. Tucker’s coworker, Doris Clark, praised Tucker’s actions. “The only reason he didn’t get anything was that when he came around the corner, he was facing a gun,” Clark said. “She was a very brave young lady, and I compliment her very much for her bravery.” (Altavista Journal, Altavista, VA, 05/14/03)
A 64-year-old Tacoma, Wash., resident confined to his bed managed to defend himself when attacked by an intruder. He had just heard his wife leave the house when there was a loud bang, and then the back door was kicked in. The homeowner grabbed his gun in one hand and the phone to dial 9-1-1 with the other. That’s when a strange man entered his room, hiding his face with a handkerchief and intoning, “I’m going to get you.” According to the resident, “That’s when I shot him.” The wounded intruder and an accomplice fled, and police alerted area hospitals. The homeowner—who said he’s kept a gun in his home for protection for years, but had not fired it outside the range before the incident—said, “I’m thoroughly convinced this guy would have killed me.” (The News Tribune, Tacoma, WA, 06/03/03)
A Phoenix, Ariz., construction equipment company had been hit by a string of burglaries, so the owners decided to take turns standing guard at night to ward off any more thieves. Early one Tuesday morning Douglas Click, one of the owners at Arizona Hi-Lift, was guarding the company armed with a shotgun. He confronted two men who were stealing items from the equipment yard, and they attacked him with a metal rod, according to Phoenix Police Detective Tony Morales. Click responded by firing at his attackers, and one was fatally wounded. Detective Morales said no charges would be filed against Click as, “he was in fear of his life and he was being attacked.” (The Arizona Republic, Phoenix, AZ, 05/20/03)
A 75-year-old Independence Township, Mich., man was sitting on his couch watching television when he heard a loud noise. The homeowner went to investigate, and as he entered the kitchen he discovered three men coming in his back door, which had been kicked open. There was an exchange of gunfire between the resident and intruders, and the would-be burglars fled. Unfortunately, the man wasn’t able to provide good descriptions of the intruders for police. (The Oakland Press, Pontiac, MI, 05/13/03)
A south Houston, Texas, couple was loading items into their car in front of their home when two young men approached them and struck up a conversation. The woman said the men made her uncomfortable, and she immediately backed away from them. She noticed that as one man kept talking the other was moving behind her husband and kept his hand deep in his pants pocket. The woman ran inside and called 9-1-1 and then looked out her front window. One of the men now had a gun pointed at her husband’s head. She then ran into another room and picked up a gun just as the second man burst into her house. He came straight at her, and she fired the gun, striking him in the arm. The wounded man ran from the house, shouting to his partner that he’d been shot. The nefarious duo then ran off in opposite directions. Police had the two 16-year-old suspects in custody within minutes. (Southwest News, Bellaire, TX, 05/13/03)
When two armed men entered the Beyond Wireless phone store on East 38th Street in Indianapolis in an apparent robbery attempt, store manager Earl L. Dixon Jr. pulled out a gun. He then fired at one of the armed suspects, fatally wounding him. Dixon said when the two men entered and drew guns, “I thought I was going to die,” so he dropped down and retrieved a gun he kept at the business and fired two or three times at the men. Indianapolis Police Detective Bob Flack investigated the shooting and said Dixon’s actions were justified. “Weapons were pointed at him … and he defended himself,” Flack stated. (The Indianapolis Star, Indianapolis, IN, 04/29/03)
-
:aok Thanks
-
Still good stuff.
-
criminals in prison hear about this stuff all the time from their buddies.
lazs
-
"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur. "
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur. "
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html
And how many crimes are prevented by the criminal fearing his victim may be armed? If the criminal runs away, chooses not to commit a crime that night, or is injured, it doesn't leave any sensational statistics for you to quote.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur. "
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html
Interesting numbers. But didya notice they only mention the times the defensive gun use caused the death of the assailant? And how many times are guns used to protect the life of the gunowner and no one is killed?
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others
?http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
Don't fall for one of gun-control's main sources of playing with the numbers. They tell you that you're X number of times more likely to be hurt with your own gun in the house than to use it to kill an assailant. Which is true, but only a small portion of the story. I have a gun to defend my family and I, not to kill people. So, if by pointing it at an intruder, the intruder stops what he's doing I have sucessfully defended my family. And if you use those numbers, you'll see that no matter who's numbers you use, the amount of sucessfull defensive gun uses in America every year greatly outnumbers gun deaths of all types.
-
well... guess we woud do away with suicide or at least lower em to japans rates if we threw all the guns in the ocean... well... all the guns except our masters that is.
we may have a few thousand middle class white homicides per year but we prevent between 3/4 and 3 million crimes per year with firearms.
The statistic of 1 unintentional homicide for every criminal killed is wrong. When someone says... " i didn't mean to kill the scumbag just scare him off so he wouldn't keep coming at me with that butcher knife." that becomes an "unintentional homicide". Throw out deaths incured durring the commission of a crime to get the true statistic. Most people say.. " I didn't mean to kill him" when asked for police reports. Truth is... they very much did mean to shoot him. And... they were right to do so.
Suicides... I don't care about suicides so far as tool used. I won't make a law against high buildings or bridges thinking that will prevent suicide. Japan has a very high suicide rate... we should see what they are using maybe and suggest they outlaw that tool.
lazs
-
Using suicides as an argument for gun control is silly. If someone's going to kill themselves, they'll find a way.
Ravs
-
ravel... in your country you made laws against owning firearms even though firearms were not causing any problems.
I bring up white middle class crime because it is not a problem... you would punish and leave at the mercy of the lawless those who cause no problem for their fellow man because of the acts of the lawless?
Drug dealers and trafficers will stop doing so if firearms are oulawed? I will be safer if my white middle class neighbors are unarmed?? I don't think so. I am sure that the government (any government) would like people to think so but that is because they look at us as a potential threat to their power.
lazs
-
When you go to register to vote, the government should give you a free Tazer.
:D
-
tazers are unreliable and clumsy... they require too much skill and luck. Not the best tool for the job. They also give people a sense of power that is false and make people think that they are ok since they are "non leathal" fact is... they have been known to be fatal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by OIO
When you go to register to vote, the government should give you a free Tazer.
:D
When you go to register to vote, you should not be allowed to vote unless you own a firearm.
-
Was a nice sunny day in April 99. Wife and I were getting ready for a trip to Gathering of Nations in Albaquerque. My apartment complex was a backwards E with the middle being a courtyard, neighbors across the way were arguing all morning. Everythings in the car, even the parakeet in his travel cage. I start up to go, when my wife says she forgot her bottled water. I also forgot my chips ahoy I had stashed. Im walking to the stair to go up to my apartment when the shouting is outside now, out of the corner of my eye I notice 3 people standing in a line, and this guy walking towards me shouting back at them. Hes also pointing his finger, a very large finger. I turn and am about to laugh at his circus freak finger when he drops his arm to his side, shape pops in my head, desert eagle. Sheisse! hes got a friggen desert eagle, and hes walking to the parking lot where my wife is in my car. I calmly as I can go up to my apartment, close door, and retrieve my Mossberg, I am seriously to the bedroom and back in seconds, Im loaded with 3in buck, plus a slug in my change pocket. I open my door and look out, holding gun outof sight by the pump with my left hand behind the door. OMG he is standing next to my car, breathing heavily like a madman. Thanking the genious that built the gate that lets me have a clear shot at him, I am praying my wife keeps calm. I swore if his hand left his side by more then a few degrees in the direction of my wife I'd shoot him. MY neighbor tells me he called police. The guy tosses his crap in his car and turns around and walks back to his apartment, I wait for the door to close, then we drive off. Neighbor tells me when we return on monday. cops never showed.
-
Originally posted by Dune
And how many times are guns used to protect the life of the gunowner and no one is killed?
I don't know how many. I know that if you have any other weapon than a firearm in the US, statistics show that you can protect you property and prevent injuries to yourself.
So if people were really concerned about protecting thier families and/or property, they would use a bat.
-
ok, I got the point, guns are good for more than rednecks. but I don't care about that magazine.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know how many. I know that if you have any other weapon than a firearm in the US, statistics show that you can protect you property and prevent injuries to yourself.
So if people were really concerned about protecting thier families and/or property, they would use a bat.
:rolleyes:
It was a rhetorical question. The answer is in my post. The US Dept. of Justice gave an estimate of 1.5 million.
jeeezz.
-
So if people were really concerned about protecting thier families and/or property, they would use a bat.
Never take a bat to a gunfight. Ever.
If someone could guarantee me that I would never meet a criminal who was armed with a firearm, I would be a happy person. Failing that, the bat suggestion is unrealistic.
Firearms are a fact of life in the USA, and they always will be. Our criminals are all to often armed, and pass all the laws you want, that will NOT change. Some of us just choose to keep the chances of survival even.
As some have pointed out, any new gun laws only effect the law abiding honest citizen. You have to be a deluded California liberal to think that passing some new gun law will disarm the criminals. All another unrealistic gun law would do would be to help make the decent honest people more defenseless and better target/victims.
Oh, by the way, if you shoot a criminal and kill him in defense of your family or life, it will end there in most cases. Hit him with a bat, and you will soon be in court defending yourself from the inevitable lawsuit he will file against you. Result: he is free to continue his life of crime, and you are screwed. Better he is dead, and you get to keep your home.
dago
Armed and Dangerous! :aok
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I don't know how many. I know that if you have any other weapon than a firearm in the US, statistics show that you can protect you property and prevent injuries to yourself.
So if people were really concerned about protecting thier families and/or property, they would use a bat.
Typical response from someone that refuses to look at the facts and form his opinion, but is more than willing to use flawed statistics to promote his agenda/ideology.
Bleh:(
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Typical response from someone that refuses to look at the facts and form his opinion, but is more than willing to use flawed statistics to promote his agenda/ideology.
Bleh:(
What? Compared to the way funked is using inductively biased anecdotal evidence to promote his agenda/ideology?
I changed my stance on US gun law ages ago (yes, I know, I'm sure you will sleep more peacefully at night ;) ). It's cultural, Americans want their guns for a varity of reasons and have a right to them, cool.
The thing that I worry about is that want firearms in there house because they believe it's the best all around home defense system. Apparently it isn't, and I want people consider that. That's my agenda. Dune and I had this debate a few months ago. The guys who's statistics he was using said that the statistics show that weapons, other than firearms where best for protecting against injury and loss of property.
I'll try and search for the thread.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What? Compared to the way funked is using inductively biased anecdotal evidence to promote his agenda/ideology?
He gives it as anecdotal evidence, not as study gathered fact.
I changed my stance on US gun law ages ago (yes, I know, I'm sure you will sleep more peacefully at night ;) ). It's cultural, Americans want their guns for a varity of reasons and have a right to them, cool. [/B]
No offense, but I don't care what someone that lives outside the US thinks about our laws. Again, nothing personal.
The thing that I worry about is that want firearms in there house because they believe it's the best all around home defense system. Apparently it isn't, and I want people consider that. That's my agenda. Dune and I had this debate a few months ago. The guys who's statistics he was using said that the statistics show that weapons, other than firearms where best for protecting against injury and loss of property.
I'll try and search for the thread. [/B]
What's apparent, is that the study that you cited is flawed by it's exclusionary method.
I don't disagree or agree with you on your stance, just the evidence you presented.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
No offense, but I don't care what someone that lives outside the US thinks about our laws. Again, nothing personal.
None taken.
What's apparent, is that the study that you cited is flawed by it's exclusionary method.
Fair enough.
I don't disagree or agree with you on your stance, just the evidence you presented.
Again, fair enough, I'll try to find the other study.
-
Man, you're quick. LOL
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Man, you're quick. LOL
I have no life outside of my BBSes. :(
;)
-
re: "For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur. "
Originally posted by Dune
Interesting numbers. But didya notice they only mention the times the defensive gun use caused the death of the assailant? And how many times are guns used to protect the life of the gunowner and no one is killed?
True enough, but that little point has 2 ends. It also doesn't count the number of times a gun is used for a crime without causing a death, or accidently wounds someone in the house, or just goes off by accident without any injuries, or is used for a suicide without fatal results.
-
Found it, the discussion actually took place on another BBS.
Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:
"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291)
"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
When you go to register to vote, you should not be allowed to vote unless you own a firearm.
No stupid hanging chads if you shoot that card through with your gun, eh?
Hell that might even bring me to the polls!
-
thrawn... I will bet that if you and I had a fight with baseball bats.... I would smash you to a pulp... it doesn't matter if I am right only that I think that way... that is how criminals would think.... how they think in england. that is why they break into homes when people are home. firearms are why they don't do it here.
I would love to see the study that showed 80 year olds defending their home with a baseball bat against 1 or more armed thugs... I would love to see the study that showed women defending themselves with a bat.
What is funny about this is that we allways knew that defending yourself was the best policy... the liberals used to say that the best policy was to just give in and do whatever you were told.. still do mostly. Now you are saying we need baseball bats?
The facts don't bear out that guys study. apparently guns were the most effective method in 3/4 to 3 millon incidents a year.
also.. even the kleck guy admits that resisting with a firearm is the most effective method... imagine how poorly the other methods would do if we had no guns at all in this country... it would then be.... whoever is the strongest and swiftest... like england say.
How many times per year were crimes prevented by.... by .... baseball bat wielders? what was that number again?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
that is why they break into homes when people are home. firearms are why they don't do it here.
That's a very good point, and indeed I could see it being valid. Has anyone done a study on it?
I would love to see the study that showed 80 year olds defending their home with a baseball bat against 1 or more armed thugs
I wouldn't need to though for me to believe that a 80 would probably be better servered defending themselves with a firearm. But generally you aren't.
Now you are saying we need baseball bats?
Nah, Kleck is saying that the statistic prove it.
The facts don't bear out that guys study. apparently guns were the most effective method in 3/4 to 3 millon incidents a year.
Kleck took that into account in his study.
also.. even the kleck guy admits that resisting with a firearm is the most effective method
That's not what I read.
"For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon."
So, statistics show that you can best protect your property is with a non-firearm weapon, and the second best way is to attack the burglar with a firearm.
Here's some info that supports your "prevention because of the possible presence of firearms" hypothesis. Thanks Dune for posting this info elsewhere.
"If defensive gun use is common then many criminals should certainly have encountered armed resistance. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994])."
However, it should be noted that the possible presence of firearms didn't deter the criminals polled. I'll look for futher info.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
tazers are unreliable and clumsy... they require too much skill and luck. Not the best tool for the job. They also give people a sense of power that is false and make people think that they are ok since they are "non leathal" fact is... they have been known to be fatal.
lazs
How about free handgrenades... that'll get those perps!
-
Research Summary
Brookings Institution Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy
1775 Massachusetts Ave NW
Washington DC 20036
Phone: 202-797-6139
http://www.brookings.edu/urban
Guns have both virtuous and vicious uses. Gun use by criminal assailants increases the scope and lethality of violent crime. On the other hand, gun use by potential victims can scare off assailants and prevent injury. The balance between virtuous and vicious uses has traditionally favored keeping a gun at home over carrying one in public, with the latter subject to more stringent regulation. Guns in the home do not directly threaten the public at large and may enhance the capacity for defending against intruders. Furthermore, armed households arguably provide a deterrent to residential burglary, and particularly to burglaries of occupied dwellings, or "hot" burglaries.
The deterrence may also extend beyond the household. If burglars lack "inside" knowledge about which households are armed, this crime-control benefit can extend to the entire community. Recently, we conducted the first systematic study of the claim that guns deter hot burglaries. Our conclusion: Increasing the prevalence of guns in a community may, if anything, slightly increase the chance of burglary victimization, and has no effect on hot burglaries. One possible explanation for the findings is that guns are valuable "loot," and that gun-rich communities are especially profitable to burglars.
Guns and Burglary: Previous "Evidence"
Advocates assert the idea that guns deter burglary frequently and with great confidence. However, the empirical support for this assertion is surprisingly weak. The available evidence consists of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual international comparisons, and some hard-to-interpret results from surveys. National victimization surveys have found that the frequency of gun use in self-defense ranges from as high as 503,000 incidents in the preceding year to as low as 32,000 incidents, depending on how the survey is conducted and what questions are asked.
In one sample of state prisoners, 74 percent agreed that one reason burglars avoid residences when people are at home is that they fear being shot. At the same time, burglars also report that guns are of considerable value to them. Nearly half of the respondents in the prison survey indicated that they had stolen a gun during their lifetimes. Interviews with active burglars suggest that they typically prefer items that are easy to carry, easily concealed, and have high "pound for pound" value. As one burglar reported: "A gun is money with a trigger".
The most influential evidence in support of a burglary-deterrent effect comes from crossnational differences in burglary patterns. In the United Kingdom, where relatively few households have guns, crime victimization surveys suggest that 45 percent or more of burglaries are of occupied dwellings. Compared with the U.K., the proportion of "hot" burglaries in the United States is much lower and guns in the house much more common. However, American and British households differ in a number of other ways beyond gun ownership that are likely to affect the cost-benefit calculus facing burglars; home invasion burglars in Britain face a much more lenient prison sentence if caught, and households in Britain are less likely to have a dog or a man living in them. Without controlling for these other differences that may be important, it is difficult to attribute the disparity in hot burglary rates to gun prevalence.
Better Evidence
Our review provides the first systematic evidence on the effects of guns on hot burglary by comparing burglary patterns across states and counties within the United States. Unlike previous international comparisons, our analysis explicitly attempts to address many of the other ways in which counties and states within the United States may differ from one another beyond gun prevalence. Any such unmeasured differences across areas can bias the results, leading analysts to either understate or overstate the effects of gun ownership on crime. The analysis is made possible by a new geo-coded version of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for the years 1994 through 1998, which provides the only nationally representative information about hot burglaries in the United States. The NCVS collects victimization reports from 50,000 to 60,000 households each year, and surveys every household resident age 12 and older for a total of 90,000 to 100,000 survey respondents. The response rate for the NCVS is typically about 95 percent. The authors merge information from the NCVS with a measure of gun prevalence in the respondent's county.
Complementary analyses are conducted using annual county- or state-level data on crimes reported to the police, as recorded by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (1977-1998). Unfortunately, the UCR data, unlike the NCVS, do not distinguish between burglaries of occupied and unoccupied buildings. Because the United States does not maintain a registry of guns in private hands, and surveys do not provide data for each of the 50 states, the authors use a proxy variable--the percentage of suicides committed with a gun--to explore the effect of gun prevalence at the state and county levels. The percent of suicides with guns has been shown to be a reliable proxy, outperforming such measures as the percentage of homicides committed with a gun, the prevalence of membership in the National Rifle Association, or subscription rates to gun-oriented magazines.
Findings
Results from the Uniform Crime Reports and NCVS data suggest that gun prevalence may increase the odds of being burglarized. Our analyses find that a 10-percent increase in a county's gun ownership rate is associated with a 3-percent to 7-percent increase in the likelihood that a home will be burglarized. The likelihood that a burglary is "hot" (that is, that a resident is at home during the break-in) does not appear to be affected by the prevalence of gun ownership. The finding that gun prevalence increases the odds of burglary appears to be fairly robust no matter what the choice of data or method.
The main findings from the NCVS come from a cross-section regression that controls for a detailed set of individual- and household-level characteristics and, in some specifications, local-area crime rates and socio-demographic measures. Omitted state-level policy actions or social factors do not seem to explain the findings since similar results hold when the authors focus only on within-state, across-county comparisons. Finally, analysis of panel data from the UCR yields similar findings, even after controlling for unmeasured county-level variables. Testing the possibility of reverse causation with the UCR panel, we find that gun prevalence drives burglary, but burglary does not drive gun prevalence.
As a final check on the possibility that these results are driven by unmeasured, confounding factors, we use an instrumental-variables approach to isolate variations of gun prevalence related to differences in each area's rural tradition (as measured by the proportion of the state that was rural in 1950). Because rural areas, on average, have less crime and more guns than other jurisdictions, this procedure is likely to overstate the "deterrence" effects of guns on burglary and understate any effect that guns may have on increasing burglary rates. The analysis still yields a positive relationship between guns and burglary, and as a result, one may be fairly confident that the true relationship is not negative. One possible reason why the risk of burglary increases with gun prevalence is that guns are valuable loot. Providing some support for this theory is the fact that in 14 percent of the burglaries in the NCVS data in which a gun was stolen, it was the only item stolen. On the other hand, the likelihood of a gun being stolen in a residential burglary in the NCVS is just 5 percent. An increase of 10 percentage points in gun prevalence would therefore increase by 1 percentage point the probability that a gun would be stolen during a burglary, which would increase the average payoff to a burglary by 5 percent and the median burglary value by 20 percent.
Conclusion
Keeping a gun at home is unlikely to provide a net benefit to the rest of the community in the form of burglary deterrence. If anything, residences in a neighborhood with more guns may be at greater risk of being burglarized. The upshot is ironic: Guns are often kept to protect the home, but the aggregate effect of keeping guns at home may be to increase the victimization rate.
Source: "Guns and burglary" by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, in: Evaluating Gun Policy, Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"For every person killed by a firearm in the home as an act of self-protection, 1 unintentional death, 5 homicides, and 37 suicides by firearm occur. "
http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/injury/violence/firearmv.html
As a former police officer, I can tell you (as I'm sure you're all well aware of anyway) that statistics can be bent this way and that to suit whoever's purpose they are serving at the time.
The vast majority of homicides that occured in my area were of the criminal vs. criminal variety. Drive by shootings over drug turf, etc... You can throw it into the homicide category if you wish, but I maintain that it's really scumbag alleviation. That should be a new statistical category.
"2000 people were scumbag alleviated this year by handguns".
-
And at the same time, the number of person crimes have dropped. Just as more and more states allow for concealed carry permits. So criminals, rather than face off with a person who may be armed, go after a home where someone may or may not be home. And that person may or may not be armed. So property crime is up while person crimes are down. And since more people own guns than ever before, the finding is that gun ownership does not prevent property crime?
Well, it sure keeps us from having levels like that of Britain.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf
-
The vast majority of homicides that occured in my area were of the criminal vs. criminal variety. Drive by shootings over drug turf, etc... You can throw it into the homicide category if you wish, but I maintain that it's really scumbag alleviation. T
Another good reason to keep firearms available, helps improve the gene pool when the criminals/gangstas/druggies/morons keep killing each other.
dago
-
nexus... hand grenades are not too good at close confrontations in small rooms... I"m sure that if you keep guessing tho that you will eventually come up with the perfect tool.
thrawn... that appears to be a non study to me... it appears that the guy is saying that some countries have more burglaries than others... that is true but... he then makes the leap that the reason for the burglaries is to steal a gun. even if this were true... he admits that countries that have armed citizens don't have burglaries while the owner is there.... that seems like a pretty good deal to me. better they come when I'm not there... I can replace "stuff" and I don't particularly care how the crooks get guns... they will allways get em... if they wanna carry off my 800 lb safe then they are pretty resourcefull and determined in any case.
as for the kleck thing... he admitted that firearms were the best way to resist. I didn't see how many incidents a year there were of criminals being stopped by baseball bats but... even so... the ones that were stopped with firearms... the 3/4 to 3 million a year.... who is to say that a baseball bat woulda worked in those instances. Like I said.... I think I could beat you to death with one and take all your stuff.... doesn't matter if that is true.... only that I believe it. Like most crooks tho... I don't think I can take you with my bat if you have a gun... in fact.... I don't think I will even take the chance.
lazs