thinking about buying a handgun

[Loren Pechtel]

Today's concealed handgun licenses are a joke. A short lecture, qualify from 30 feet if I remember correctly, and several dumb as brick classmates that you know shouldn't be within 10 feet of a gun, of any kind,

Around here it's 8 hours in the classroom plus qualifying on the range.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In countries where homeowners don't have guns the hot burglary rate is around 50%. In the US it's about 1/3 of that.

Bullshit. Link or retract.

 

[Toni]

Best bet in a high crime area is to give poor people more assistance to survive without resorting to crime. It's MUCH cheaper to pay the extra taxes for welfare and support payments, drug rehab programs, and high quality education, than it is to pay for the damage and losses due to crime.

High crime is a symptom of a badly run society.

The crime isn't because they don't have the means to survive. It's because they don't have the means to survive in the fashion they desire. (Note that drugs are a big part of this--an awful lot of crime is driven by the need for money for the next fix, something that would be considerably lessened with legalization.)

Loren, my small city is small town enough that people generally know one another, at least by name and reputation, if not actual interaction. It's also large enough that a socio-economic strata is well defined and includes everything from self made millionaires, millionaires largely by inheriting millions down through doctors, lawyers, college professors, trades people such as plumbers and electricians, factory workers, service providers, and a whole lot of people, including those factory workers who are working 2-3 part time jobs, none which provide any benefits. There is drug and alcohol abuse and addiction at all of these strata. The more wealthy have the means to cover it up, for the most part, and to quietly seek treatment for managing their addictions and the clout to insist that falling family members do the same. The more middle class people often have enough education and insurance to procure at least some of the same treatment/concealment options as the wealthy, but to a lesser extent. And they aren't nearly as likely to be able to keep names out of the paper for arrests for DUI, public intoxication, assault when it comes up, much less get charges dropped. Then those people who are struggling to make ends meet juggling multiple jobs, lack of any benefits: what they get is extreme stress that comes from economic and food and shelter insecurity with no option that seems within their reach to improve their lot. For a brief amount of time, I worked with kids whose parents were in this group and the stress was palpable. I don't know how they managed--except that in fact, I do: mostly alcohol but also drugs. For much longer, I worked with these kids when they were in class with my kids. Even if the parents manage to avoid falling into drugs and alcohol to reduce stress/forget the seeming hopelessness of their situation, there are still so many issues, mostly dealing with lack of time, lack of sleep, lack of opportunity to spend time with their kids reading, going to the park, much less taking them to lessons, etc. Believe it or not, Loren, a lot of people barely have the means to survive and live daily knowing that their extremely fragile, fraying thread like hold on anything remotely like stability will be wiped out by something so simple as their kids illness or their own or a broken arm from tripping down some stairs. Much less a lay off or job loss. One of the problems in funding in our local school district is that while more than 40% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch (and now, breakfast), few parents will apply for those benefits, meaning the school doesn't get the extra funding that would help provide extra services for kids who need them. I worked in an anti-poverty program, alongside parents who were impoverished not through poor choices but through some pretty tragic circumstances that they could not have foreseen or prevented. They were ashamed of their poverty and went to great lengths to conceal that sometimes they visited the food shelf and that they stood in line for the free turkey at holidays.

When I was still in high school, my mother suffered a traumatic brain injury that harmed our family economically but damaged us much more in every other way. We kids all continued our education and went on to college, families, professional careers, etc. But Loren, if it had been my father who had the traumatic brain injury??? I don't know what we would have done. We would have lost our home, possibly been farmed out to various relatives. We certainly would not have all made it to college, despite the fact that we were all honor students and graduated at the top of our class. Yes, my parents taught us to work hard and to reach for the stars and made sure they put as solid a foundation as from which to grow--but sometimes, it's only a cruel bit of fate that can crash you down. Humility and compassion are what is called for. Not judgment and contempt.

There is no such thing as 'those people.' There are only people.

I agree that high crime is a sign and a symptom of a badly run society. But to me, that means not providing a solid foundation for everybody: free education, free health care, decent housing, clean environment for all, not just for the wealthy, opportunity to become what you want to become.

 

[Underseer]

Texas, if I understand correctly, does not have a stand your ground law like Florida. You can only shoot someone if you are in danger and can't get out of the situation (say call the police). Contrary to folks opinion about Texas the vast majority of people never ever want to actually have to hurt anyone. Even the two cops I know who had to take life once can't help but break down crying when asked to talk about it. If the formal law does not punish you for killing someone when morally it wasn't necessary people around here will very much judge you socially speaking in ways that are very legal and very much can hurt you.

It's Texas. As long as the person you kill isn't white, odds are pretty good you'll get away with it.

Unless you're not white, in which case buying a gun virtually guarantees your death in the presence of police.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, having a gun in your home increases the chances that someone living in your home will be killed by gunfire. So this is something you do if you're OK with that, say if you have suicidal tendencies and despise your own family.

- - - Updated - - -

On the plus side, if you have a small penis, this might help you feel less bad about that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In countries where homeowners don't have guns the hot burglary rate is around 50%. In the US it's about 1/3 of that.

Bullshit. Link or retract.

A trivial google:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

In countries where homeowners don't have guns the hot burglary rate is around 50%. In the US it's about 1/3 of that.

Bullshit. Link or retract.

A trivial google:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

Resulted in a trivial non-correlative response based almost entirely on research from 1997 done by Gary Kleck, who, as I’m sure you know, has been caught several times manipulating his data (here and here and here and most famously by Hemenway here and my favorite here because it’s Kleck shooting himself in his own foot in his defense against the previous links and then being schooled again by the same authors in response).

Regardless, here is your source in its entirety:

Summary
Although there is no evidence to indicate gun ownership deters overall burglary rates, gun ownership may be a factor in deterring burglars from entering occupied dwellings ("hot" burglaries).

Discussion
In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)

By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)

Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.

So, bullshit.

The first section states only that guns “may” be a deterrent factor to entering an occupied home and that’s only supported by anecdotes from some prisoners talking about why they don’t break into a house at night (because they can’t see anything). As you well know from countless other such threads—and basic common sense—all this means is that those criminals simply prefer to avoid ANY confrontations with owners and instead break-in when you’re not home during the day.

Iow, someone being home is the deterrent, not specifically the gun.

As to the second point about “hot burglary” rates in Britain and the Netherlands from 1997, we can unpack that one too, but for now this suffices:

Firstly, let me note that a “home invasion” (I took this to be a peculiarly American expression, but apparently it gets used in Australia too) doesn't really enter my head as a serious possibility. It's barely above being abducted by aliens, and I haven't got any special defences against that either. Rather, what might happen (but is still pretty unlikely) is a burglary.

If someone breaks into my home, they almost certainly just want my stuff. If you're getting in situations where the Mafia are trying to whack you, you have bigger problems than UK gun laws. If they want my stuff, the odds are they will just run away when confronted. This is because escalating from burglary to GBH or attempted murder is a huge deal. Most burglars are just desperate addicts or career thieves, not stone cold killers. If they don't run away or if they mean to do me harm, I would grab a kitchen knife and try to defend myself if need be. Or grab whatever makeshift weapon was available (eg. A hammer from my tools cupboard). But that would be a last resort. My TV isn't worth stabbing someone over (and it certainly isn't worth me getting stabbed!). Possessions can be replaced. My life cannot. Frankly, the way some people on Quora seem to fetishise the idea of dealing out hot leaden justice to a burglar is a bit sick. Just deluded fantasies from people who have watched too many Death Wish movies.

The above assumes a situation where I don't have time to call the police.

Additionally, bear in mind that there is virtually zero chance of a burglar in the UK having a gun. Guns get used in organised crime hits. Last time I checked, I was not involved in organised crime.

 

[laughing dog]

In countries where homeowners don't have guns the hot burglary rate is around 50%. In the US it's about 1/3 of that.

Bullshit. Link or retract.

A trivial google:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

The source you quoted is from 1997. That is over 20 years ago. Got anything more recent//relevant?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A trivial google:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

The source you quoted is from 1997. That is over 20 years ago. Got anything more recent//relevant?

And is evidently just an updated version of his previous book from 1991.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The first section states only that guns “may” be a deterrent factor to entering an occupied home and that’s only supported by anecdotes from some prisoners talking about why they don’t break into a house at night (because they can’t see anything). As you well know from countless other such threads—and basic common sense—all this means is that those criminals simply prefer to avoid ANY confrontations with owners and instead break-in when you’re not home during the day.

The point is our burglars care about avoiding any confrontation, European burglars don't care. While it's not proven that it's because of guns got a better explanation?

Iow, someone being home is the deterrent, not specifically the gun.

Why is it only a deterrent here? What's the difference?

If someone breaks into my home, they almost certainly just want my stuff. If you're getting in situations where the Mafia are trying to whack you, you have bigger problems than UK gun laws. If they want my stuff, the odds are they will just run away when confronted. This is because escalating from burglary to GBH or attempted murder is a huge deal. Most burglars are just desperate addicts or career thieves, not stone cold killers.

Doesn't change the fact that plenty of the victims get harmed if they encounter the burglar.

- - - Updated - - -

A trivial google:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

The source you quoted is from 1997. That is over 20 years ago. Got anything more recent//relevant?

And why should we think the numbers have changed?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The point is our burglars care about avoiding any confrontation, European burglars don't care.

False. This is from an article in the British news organization Independent from 2017. They are quoting statistics from a study conducted by a home insurance company, no less:

Eighty-six per cent of thieves do all they can to avoid bumping into the occupant, with three-quarters abandoning a robbery attempt altogether because they had heard someone in the house or returning home.

And night-time burglars - termed "creepers" - admit they would hide to avoid discovery.
...
Martin Scott, head of Churchill Home Insurance said: “Most burglars target properties they believe to be unoccupied, meaning encounters are rare.
...
Around half of burglars know of occupants’ increased rights to protect property, however, two thirds said this change had made little difference to the way they approached burglary as they were very careful not to meet their victims in any case.

A fifth of burglars said that the change in the law had made them undergo additional occupancy checks to ensure they didn’t meet the householder and risk confrontation.

The research also shows the lengths burglars will go to try and avoid detection.
...
Martin Scott added: “Burglars will usually target properties which look unoccupied and provide an easy entry and exit point, so that they can get away undetected.

“The chances of meeting a burglar are very slim but we urge householders to follow some simple steps to make burglars avoid their home.

“Making the property look occupied, having locks on doors and windows, remembering to lock all access points including garages and sheds and removing valuables from sight are all basic measures to help prevent burglary.”

Taking the 86% number, we see that in Britain at least the percentage of home break-ins where the homeowner is there is only around 14%. Conversely, in the US according to the US Department of Justice (from 2010, as that was the only pub I could find that specified it) it's 28%. So, no, you're just flat out wrong in regard to percentages of break-ins that happen in spite of homeowners being home in (at least) Britain vs the US. It's evidently double here and we have all the guns.

Even more interesting, however, is the fact that from 1994 to 2011, household burglary overall decreased in the US by 56%, but:

From 1994 to 2011, households with an income of $14,999 or less were victimized at a higher rate than households with higher incomes.
...
From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglary decreased by at least half across households headed by persons of all races and Hispanic origin (table 4). During this period, completed burglaries decreased 57% among households headed by a white non-Hispanic person (from 48.3 to 20.8 victimizations per 1,000 households) and 52% among households headed by a black non-Hispanic person (from 67.3 to 32.2 victimizations per 1,000 households). The greatest decline (67%) in the rate of burglary victimization was among households headed by a Hispanic person, (from 76.0 to 24.9 victimizations per 1,000 households). In 2011, households in which the head of household was a non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native (59.8 per 1,000 households) or two or more races (80.5 per 1,000 households) were victimized at a higher rate than households headed by a person of any other race.

Burglary rates also declined by at least 50% for households headed by persons of all age groups. In 2011, households headed by a person age 19 or younger had the highest rate of victimization (49.7 per 1,000 households) compared to any other age group.
...
Among various types of household composition, households composed of married couples experienced the greatest decrease (60%) in burglary victimizations from 1994 (42 per
1,000 households) to 2011 (16.6 per 1,000 households). In 2011, households composed of two or more adults (21.0 per 1,000) had a lower rate of burglary than households comprised of a single male (26.8 per 1,000) or female (27.6 per 1,000) adult.
...
In 1994, 2001, and 2011, households with an income of $14,999 or less were victimized at a higher rate than households with higher incomes. In 2011, households with an income of $14,999 or less experienced a burglary rate of 45.1 per 1,000 households, compared to 29.7 per 1,000 households earning $15,000 to $34,999, and 12.7 per 1,000 households earning $75,000 or more.

Consistent across all three years, households that were renting the residence were burglarized at a higher rate than households that owned the residence. In 2011, the rate of completed burglary was 18.3 per 1,000 households that owned the property and 32.7 per 1,000 households that rented.

So could more household guns account for all of this? Well, according to Gallup, there not only was a significant drop in household gun ownership during this same time period, it remained more or less the same throughout. It peaked at 54% in 1994 and then declined sharply to 40% by 1997 and then bounced slightly up and down between 40 and 45% all the way through the same time period, ending at 41% in 2011, a decline of a full 13% from 1994, so that can't be the reason.

And while we're at it, statistics from 2016 (the latest I could find), show US household burglaries at 49.7%, so bang goes your 50%/13% number regardless.

While it's not proven that it's because of guns got a better explanation?

Yes, actually, beside the fact that it's fundamentally flawed and based primarily on a difference of defining the crime between countries, according to the same Independent article above, most Brit's don't know that they are allowed to use reasonable force against an intruder:

Less than half of Brits understand there is a legal definition of reasonable force, meaning millions of people don’t know how assertive they can be when protecting themselves or other occupants if they encounter an intruder in their home.

And more than one in eight said they didn’t think there are any laws addressing their right to protect themselves or their family against an intruder.

This is despite the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) being very specific in their guidance regarding the use of force against intruders.

While highlighting that wherever possible, householders should call the police, the CPS state “anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime”.

However, the level of force used must always be reasonable in the circumstances the householder believes them to be.

It's no wonder since the laws allowing the use of force did not come into being in Britain until 2013.

Why is it only a deterrent here?

It isn't. At least not in any statistically significant manner, which is the point. The deterrent--in both countries--is you being there regardless of weaponry at your disposal.

And why should we think the numbers have changed?

Because intelligence.

 

[barbos]

I vote for cameras, lots and lots of cameras.