Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like. A more systematic exploration requires data on local rates of gun ownership and of residential burglary, and such data have only recently become available. In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns. The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.
Think about it: Most burglaries take place during the day when most people are at work. That being the case, being confronted by a homeowner with a gun isn't usually a concern for a burglar. Additionally, since guns are valuable items to steal, having a gun in the house is a further inducement to rob that house, since there will be extra booty.
Can anyone tell me why we are talking about this at all?
You have a right to do anything you want as long as you don't initiate force on others. Who cares why people have guns, don't have guns, take their guns apart and eat them, etc.
It's none of your business.
But how can they run our lives using force if we the people are going to protect ourselves?
One might say that in general an armed society is actually safer because the bad guys know that if they start something there could be a guy or gal with a concealed gun right next to him and it won't end well for them.
We have seen so many mass shootings take place in supposedly "gun free zones" and the reason for this is the criminal knows they will not face any opposition until the cops arrive.
In Vegas the guy knew that no one would be armed and even if they were they could not reach him with handguns.
Guns are a deterrent to crime because most criminals are opportunistic animals that prey on the weak and unsuspecting. A gun really levels the odds.
We could blame our society for spreading fear through the media outlets. Every night the news shows horrible events from the day that might be from across the country but in the ever shrinking world it feels like it could be the next town over.
We could also blame movies. I watched the original "death wish" last night and in that the cops were a bit reluctant to admit that having a roving vigilante actually resulted in a reduction of crime.
Guns in the hands of good people give the criminals a bit of fear and it gives the good people comfort.
Actually for the substantial number of gun deaths like those in South Chicago, both the perpetrator and victim are usually armed. They are already armed because they know "the other guy" is going to be armed. Doesn't seem to stop them.
People who live in a household that contains a gun have a HIGHER risk of dying from gun homicide because of the incidence of domestic violence. For women and children, it's statistically safer to live in a household that does not contain a gun.
Has it ever occurred to you that I have just cited research that proves the opposite of what you believe?
You mean the same research that makes zero distinction between lawfully and unlawfully owned firearms, lawful and unlawful use of deadly force, justified homicides and criminal homicides, even between homicide and suicide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggiedog9
Bowling for Columbine it said the MSM wants to make a certain minority appear frightening so you need a gun
Or could it be that the quotient of said minority is most positively correlated with violent crime, and that jurisdictions in which said minority are absent are frequently safe to the point that residents don't even bother to lock their doors? Despite what Michael Moore says, the tail doesn't wag the dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Actually for the substantial number of gun deaths like those in South Chicago, both the perpetrator and victim are usually armed. They are already armed because they know "the other guy" is going to be armed. Doesn't seem to stop them.
People who live in a household that contains a gun have a HIGHER risk of dying from gun homicide because of the incidence of domestic violence. For women and children, it's statistically safer to live in a household that does not contain a gun.
Again no distinction between criminals and law-abiding gun owners. People who live in a household that contains an abuser have a HIGHER risk of being killed by said abuser. For women and children it's statistically safer to live in a household that doesn't contain a wifebeater but does contain a firearm. AGAIN THE TAIL DOESN'T WAG THE DOG!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
So why would the conclusions from that research still not be relevant? It's not like he's citing research from the 1800s.
Because said research is intellectually dishonest such that it implies guns cause criminality, and not the other way around. I've said it twice but I'll say it for a third time, the tail doesn't wag the dog.
Absolutely. I would find out when they aren't home, and I would steal the guns along with whatever else of value they have.
So by your own admission you're a criminal in possession of stolen firearms and you support gun control because you want your victims disarmed and defenseless? You hit the nail on the head. A recent survey of prison inmates incarcerated for gun crimes showed that 99.9% of said offenders supported more gun control. Either you're being intellectually dishonest or you're on of these people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
