Firearms and home invasion/defence, split from Rants

[Toni]

Other countries seem to manage to keep their citizens safe without arming everybody to the teeth. There is not the epidemic of school shootings in other countries as there is here in the US. There are no shootings at malls or movie theaters or concerts. There is no little girl or boy shot dead in their bed at night or while they're doing their homework at the kitchen table.

Only here.

The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put it back in.

Sure there is. It would be ugly but it's certainly possible. Now, I'm in my 60's so I'm an old fart but nonetheless: I find it appalling the way that gun ownership has exploded over the last 30-40 years, particularly the semi-automatic weapons. I really did grow up oldschool as far as gun safety and a high degree of responsibility for owning or even being around firearms.

We really need to make it much, much more difficult to own firearms and frankly to restrict their use to hunting.

 

[bilby]

Other countries seem to manage to keep their citizens safe without arming everybody to the teeth. There is not the epidemic of school shootings in other countries as there is here in the US. There are no shootings at malls or movie theaters or concerts. There is no little girl or boy shot dead in their bed at night or while they're doing their homework at the kitchen table.

Only here.

The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to put it back in.

Widespread gun ownership was the norm in 19th and early 20th century Europe.

Illegal guns are easy to obtain today in most of Europe. Criminals - particularly petty criminals - don't want them, because they're a massive liability.

The degree of difficulty in solving the problem is far lower than the NRA would have you believe.

Australia did it only a couple of decades ago.

Bear in mind that the objective is to reduce as far as possible the use of firearms in commission of a crime. It doesn't matter if every second household has a gunsafe full of shotguns, as long as those guns are licensed, insured, accounted for, and appropriately secured at all times when not in use.

Guns are not banned in Europe; They just aren't unregulated.

 

[steve_bank]

No one at least publicly is seriously discussing the link between violence and culture itself. Grand Theft Auto is avideo gae kids play comiuting crime and shooting. In the 90s there was a video gane where yiu gt points for rape. It is an indicator of the culture we live in. Of course Hollywood and video game makers say if you don't lke it don't watch it.

In TV and movies genraly the criminal in the end loses. Today the criminal is a hero, for example the Fast And Furious movies. Crme is exciting adventure.

When I was a kid guns were far easier to get than today. Mail order no background checks. Thompson sub-machine guns were once in a Sears catalog. It started to tightnen after the JFK assassination.

The USA is unique in some ways. We have no authoritarian top level power to enforce safety compared to China. We have a large decetrilzed population. The country grew from the ground up without a lot of organized law enforcement. Arming the FBI as a national police that coud cross state lines was conr troversial.

A lot of the country is rural with low police per capita. We have a large population spread around the country. Th idea of defending yourself and home is in our DNA. We are not and never have been homogeneous compared to France.

A sense of right and wrong has gone out of the culture. Anything goes.

As to home invasion being low probability, I don't think it matters to victims. Yeteray a multiple armed car jacking. Two guys jacked a car and robbed a store. During a police chase they jacked another car. It is the wild west. Shootngs at malls and large stores are happening, mostly drug related the poilce say.

A few weeks ago a guy found two guys stealing his catalytic converter, they shot at him over that.

IMO it is a general breakdon in culture and civil order with multiple causes. Our new mayor says he is going to do something about crime and gun violens ce. The progressive refrain is always communty involvmnt, changes in piolicing, and anti violence social programs for kids. Pissing in the wind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

 

[skepticalbip]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

 

[bilby]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

"Home invasion" is a recent neologism, created by the media whose main source of income is sensationalism. It's not a thing that routinely happens.

A housebreaker stealing your iPod is a "Home invader" in the same way that the imposition of checkpoints on the Tugun Bypass is "Slamming the border shut".

The news media, and popular fiction, love drama and don't care about causing fear.

Gun culture is a positive feedback loop of needless fear causing homeowners to arm themselves, which causes criminals to arm themselves, which instills further fear in homeowners. Neither the fear nor the firearms are in any way valuable to those employing them. But they are a multi-million dollar entertainment business for both news and drama outlets.

 

[skepticalbip]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions (obviously in Australia) where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion

 

[bilby]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion

Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion

Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.

Are you saying that they should not report such things or that those people were not killed?

 

[skepticalbip]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion

Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.

Are you saying that they should not report such things because there are no sociopaths in Australia or that those people were not killed?

 

[bilby]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion

Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.

Are you saying that they should not report such things or that those people were not killed?

Given the insignificance of these crimes, they should not report them in a way that gives them greater prominence than they deserve.

But they do, of course, because 'if it bleeds, it leads'.

"News" media is now basically just entertainment designed for the enragement of boomer men who are seeking invitations to outrage to support their firm belief that the world is going to hell now that they aren't young or in charge of everything anymore.

It's a complete waste of time watching Channel 9 News, if you are seeking to be informed about current events.

 

[Jarhyn]

This guy has been arrested... a lot. Clearly seems to have mental health complications... and there seems that there is little to be done to keep him from assaulting someone at our office if he comes back during the day. Generally, he has been a weekend guy. We aren't certain why he keeps coming to our place. We don't have much of value in our office... and he has yet to steal that flat panel tv that has been sitting in our office for a few years now. But we have reached a point where we feel, there isn't much we can do to protect our workers, other than hope we don't cross paths.

This is the sort of situation that makes people carry concealed firearms.

Nah, all you need is a real goon in the office. I'm that goon. At my job people don't like my street mentality until situations like what Jimmy mentioned. Then all of a sudden they all crowd my desk talking about some shirtless dude sleeping by the mailbox. I just go out and say "yo yo yo you can't be out here bruh!" while tugging up at my belt and they usually say sorry and leave.

Edit: And if they really want a fight I got it all gift wrapped and ready to unpack.

I'm really glad I've never worked somewhere where that would end up having to be me. To be fair, I'm not a 'goon'.

I'd probably just give them a bus card and say "knock yourself out, the 5's like, 2 blocks that way. I'll leave a bus card out at (drop location on my commute @time), as long as you aren't hanging around here. You should be able to get some better sleep there anyway."

 

[skepticalbip]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion

Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.

Are you saying that they should not report such things or that those people were not killed?

Given the insignificance of these crimes, they should not report them in a way that gives them greater prominence than they deserve.

But they do, of course, because 'if it bleeds, it leads'.

"News" media is now basically just entertainment designed for the enragement of boomer men who are seeking invitations to outrage to support their firm belief that the world is going to hell now that they aren't young or in charge of everything anymore.

It's a complete waste of time watching Channel 9 News, if you are seeking to be informed about current events.

Dude, all news outlets skew their reporting. Most of the skewing is in selecting which events they want to report and which they refuse to report. One outlet may want to an image of society where everything is sunshine and lollypops so refuse to show any news that may shock their audience. Another may decide to try to paint a more gloomy view of society so show the blood and gore but don't show something like a community coming to the aid of someone.

There is the same divide in politically driven news outlets. A right leaning outlet will only show the fuck-ups of left leaning politicians and right leaning politicians during their "reasonable" moments. A left leaning outlet will only show the fuck-ups of the right leaning politicians and left leaning politicians during their "reasonable" moments.

If you only pay attention to one outlet's view of reality then you are missing half of reality, the half that the news outlet you rely on want to deny exists.

An example could be something like the reporting of a burning apartment complex. Both type outlets will report but one will focus on the displacement and needs of the occupants that lost their home and those who are helping them. The other type focus on the need to find arsonist that set the fire, his history of previous arsons, etc. Both are true but both omit part of the story... there are people who pitched in to help people displaced by the fire and there are people who intentionally set the fire to cause the displacement.

 

[steve_bank]

Home invasions are usually violent. Crash the door or force their way in when the door is opened.


It is not selective reportinaround here. A 14 year old kid was just arrested for two murders.

Someone in my buding just had his car stolen by someone who got into a lockd building garage. Car breaking happen periodically.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is not selective reportinaround here. A 14 year old kid was just arrested for two murders.

I remember the reporting of the goings on in Seattle during the summer of 2020. There was definitely selective reporting. CNN and MSNBC both reported that it was peaceful demonstrations. FOX reported that that there were riots. They were both right in what they reported but they both omitted the other half of what was happening. There were both peaceful demonstrations and there were riots where several people were killed or injured and many stores looted and burned.

 

[bilby]

Of course all reporting is selective; I never suggested otherwise - indeed, that's rather my point.

Why are you hearing about home invasions in Australia, for example, but not about lawyers going on the (literal) attack against doctors, smashing up a hospital and indirectly causing three deaths?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

The point is our burglars generally avoid confrontations, but in most of the world they're nowhere near as cautious..

 

[steve_bank]

It is not selective reportinaround here. A 14 year old kid was just arrested for two murders.

I remember the reporting of the goings on in Seattle during the summer of 2020. There was definitely selective reporting. CNN and MSNBC both reported that it was peaceful demonstrations. FOX reported that that there were riots. They were both right in what they reported but they both omitted the other half of what was happening. There were both peaceful demonstrations and there were riots where several people were killed or injured and many stores looted and burned.

Yes the CHOP kak riot was soft sold by some, but there was also objective reporting. KUOW especialy ignored the violence and destruction.


I scan the local news. There is ongoing reporting on crime and violence, but there is far more fluff.

The issue is acknowledged by state and local govt, and law enforcement.

1 14 year old kid charged with murdering two adults he does not appear to have known, what does that tell you?

Just before the pandemic there was the gunfight near 3rd and Benaroya Hall with automatic weapons that hit bystanders. Young adults in a gang dispute.

I get my meds at Walgreens at Pike and 3rd. I was walking out the door when somebody went by me on a motorized skate board stolen goods in hand. I said 'tough job' in jest to the security guard. He shrugged his shoulders and said there was nothing he could do with current guidelines. There have been a number of store videos of people calmly walking into a store, raking goods, and calmly walking out the doore. At a Walmart somebody clmly walked out with a loaded cart.

With increasing police response times you are on yiur own if your home is robbed or invaded.

 

[fromderinside]

It is not selective reportinaround here. A 14 year old kid was just arrested for two murders.

I remember the reporting of the goings on in Seattle during the summer of 2020. There was definitely selective reporting. CNN and MSNBC both reported that it was peaceful demonstrations. FOX reported that that there were riots. They were both right in what they reported but they both omitted the other half of what was happening. There were both peaceful demonstrations and there were riots where several people were killed or injured and many stores looted and burned.

Yes the CHOP kak riot was soft sold by some, but there was also objective reporting. KUOW especialy ignored the violence and destruction.


I scan the local news. There is ongoing reporting on crime and violence, but there is far more fluff.

The issue is acknowledged by state and local govt, and law enforcement.

1 14 year old kid charged with murdering two adults he does not appear to have known, what does that tell you?

Just before the pandemic there was the gunfight near 3rd and Benaroya Hall with automatic weapons that hit bystanders. Young adults in a gang dispute.

I get my meds at Walgreens at Pike and 3rd. I was walking out the door when somebody went by me on a motorized skate board stolen goods in hand. I said 'tough job' in jest to the security guard. He shrugged his shoulders and said there was nothing he could do with current guidelines. There have been a number of store videos of people calmly walking into a store, raking goods, and calmly walking out the doore. At a Walmart somebody clmly walked out with a loaded cart.

With increasing police response times you are on yiur own if your home is robbed or invaded.

My take is the Seattle's destructive Wokes are having a contest with the Portland's destructive Wokes. As a result, about four blocks around poorer business districts with a police station in both towns are being savaged with waste and busted-down cars.

Easy access for news, little risk of real damage, and almost nothing being accomplished by either side beyond a pride moment or two a week.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is not selective reportinaround here. A 14 year old kid was just arrested for two murders.

I remember the reporting of the goings on in Seattle during the summer of 2020. There was definitely selective reporting. CNN and MSNBC both reported that it was peaceful demonstrations. FOX reported that that there were riots. They were both right in what they reported but they both omitted the other half of what was happening.

I doubt either of these claims is true. Fox would have reported on the peaceful protests and then had 20 hours a day coverage on the riots or late night damage fests. Meanwhile CNN and MSNBC would have likely reported on both things.

 

[atrib]

Housebreakers and burglars usually respond to detection by fleeing. They aren't there to get in a fight. They are certainly not there to commit rape (that's a pure Hollywood fantasy - opportunist rape by strangers is almost unheard of, with almost all rape being either by someone known to the victim, or as a premeditated act). And outside the US, they are almost certainly not armed.

I agree most will flee. No need to shoot those.

As for rape--I would agree so long as drugs aren't involved.

According to a United States Department of Justice report, 38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion. I agree that only a very small percentage of the population have ever or will ever be in a situation where they are facing home invaders but it is a greater percentage of the population than the percentage killed in automobile accidents.

That may be true, but you didn't complete the thought.

Is this the case outside the US? Is this the result of the cultural expectation that firearms might be present in any situation, and the (foolish and nonsensical) belief that having your own gun can somehow protect you from someone else's?

Look at the hot burglary rate--there's a big difference between US burglars and non-US burglars. Our burglars are much more afraid of the occupants. Thus the home invasion rate in the US is going to be lower than it is elsewhere.

There is a big difference between home burglaries and home invasions. Burglars don't want to be seen so generally break in when the residents are not home. Residents are seldom injured as the burglars want to escape if seen. Home invasions are generally by sociopaths who want to confront and control the residents so break in when they know the residents are home, possibly to force the residents to lead then to any hidden valuables. It is during home invasions that there are beatings or rapes or killings.

If you come home from having had dinner and find that much of your "stuff" has been taken, then you were the victim of a home burglary.

If you are home eating dinner and several people barge into your home then you are experiencing the start of a home invasion.

Perhaps it's different in the US, but in English and Welsh law, Burglary is considered more serious than Housebreaking, with both being the same activity, but Burglary taking place at night, when homes are expected to be occupied, and Housebreaking during the day when they are expected to be vacant.

Both classes of thief typically bolt if spotted. Theives are lazy bastards, and fighting is hard, dangerous work.

It isn't just a U.S. thing. There are sociopaths around the world. Even Australia has cases where the "burglar" breaks in intentionally to confront the residents to get whatever it is they are after. As I said above, there are burglaries and then there are home invasions.

I linked this Sydney news compilation earlier that has several stories of home invasions where the residents were seriously injured or killed:
:https://www.9news.com.au/home-invasion

Quoting Channel 9 News as an attempt at an argument against sensationalism in Australian media is frankly fucking hilarious.

Yes, the media say this is real, important, and significant. But it's not - and they know it's not. It certainly gets their ratings up, though. So their shareholders and advertisers are happy.

Are you saying that they should not report such things or that those people were not killed?

Given the insignificance of these crimes, they should not report them in a way that gives them greater prominence than they deserve.

But they do, of course, because 'if it bleeds, it leads'.

If it happened every day, it wouldn't be news. The reason the networks cover such stories is because people watch them and boost the network's ratings, which positively impacts the network's ad revenues. The networks are giving people what they want. Its the same way in the US.

The fact remains that such events of random violence do happen in the US, infrequent though they may be. Owning a gun and knowing how to use it could save a person's life if they were to find themselves in a situation where their life is threatened. And I can take my guns to the range and have fun shooting at targets for sport.

 

[bilby]

Owning a gun and knowing how to use it could save a person's life if they were to find themselves in a situation where their life is threatened

Sure, it could. But it almost certainly wouldn't.

Owning a gun (regardless of whether you know how to use it) could also lead to a large number of very bad consequences. It could be taken from you and used against you. It could be found by a child, and accidentally used to kill someone you love. It could give you an unwarranted confidence that causes you to fail to de-escalate a situation that needn't have become violent, but did.

What could happen is a poor argument for anything. Particularly when you focus on only the good things that could happen.

Owning a gun for self defence purposes is statistically a bad idea. Regardless of the fact that it could save your life.

Not getting vaccinated against Covid could save you from fatal side-effects of the vaccine. But it's far more likely to lead to your death from the disease.

 

[steve_bank]

A second murder in 12 months in a park a block away.

It is not infrequent.

 

[bilby]

A second murder in 12 months in a park a block away.

It is not infrequent.

It is in places that don't have your jurisdiction's insane Second Amendment.