4 ms·

Yet again, you dodge the question, and yet again, you refer to media articles that quote no actual data. I read each of the "studies" you refer to in the years

by masonic 10y ago

Yet again, you dodge the question, and yet again, you refer to media articles that quote no actual data. I read each of the "studies" you refer to in the years they were released, and many, many more. I've been studying criminology for 23 years. Repeating the "I'm not anti-gun" mantra whilst referring only to anti-RKBA sources (and misquoting those) reinforces intellectual dishonesty. And as for "Their chance of being a victim of violent crime such as home invasion or car jacking is unbelievably tiny", you really haven't examined the data. There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone. If you rely only on media reports, they are typically reported only as "burglaries". What is actually "unbelievably tiny" is one's odds of being killed by an "assault weapon", yet phony claims to the contrary drive the media narrative. Drownings excluding those in swimming pools exceed homicide by "assault weapon" in the U.S.

ux-app 10y ago
> There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone and how many of those result in murder? Or do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok? If this is the case then we have no common ground. My position is that being scared and losing your TV isn't grounds for ending a burglar's life.
- masonic 10y ago
  do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok? When an armed party has broken into a home, knowing residents are present, only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk. There's a fundamental difference in home invasion from, say, breaking into an unoccupied vehicle.
  - ux-app 10y ago
    > only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk this is a classic example of emotion clouding better judgement. A more rational approach would be to look at the data: - In 2010, there were an estimated 2,159,878 burglaries [1] - In 2013 there were 94 murders associated with burglary This is a 0.00435% chance that you will be killed in the course of a burglary. I'm sure this number will go down dramatically as long as you don't grab a gun ;) [1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime/burglarymain https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

by masonic 10y ago

ux-app 10y ago

> There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone and how many of those result in murder? Or do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok? If this is the case then we have no common ground. My position is that being scared and losing your TV isn't grounds for ending a burglar's life.

masonic 10y ago
do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok? When an armed party has broken into a home, knowing residents are present, only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk. There's a fundamental difference in home invasion from, say, breaking into an unoccupied vehicle.
- ux-app 10y ago
  > only a fool would assume that only personal property is at risk this is a classic example of emotion clouding better judgement. A more rational approach would be to look at the data: - In 2010, there were an estimated 2,159,878 burglaries [1] - In 2013 there were 94 murders associated with burglary This is a 0.00435% chance that you will be killed in the course of a burglary. I'm sure this number will go down dramatically as long as you don't grab a gun ;) [1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime/burglarymain https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-...