8 ms·

> We find that burglaries ... decreased in those with more gun permits Interesting find. Although this doesn't mean guns prevent burglaries just by mere presen

> We find that burglaries ... decreased in those with more gun permits Interesting find. Although this doesn't mean guns prevent burglaries just by mere presence. And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach and it's not necessarily a safer scenario.

theurerjohn3 4y ago
the important thing is that it was: > after the database was publicized It seems they couldn't confirm if burglaries were prevented or merely moved the burglaries to low gun zipcodes, but they felt they had weak evidence for a drop in burglaries in total
MaxLeiter 4y ago
This reminds me of one of my favorite (due to its uniqueness) local laws in the US: > In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm.” “If you're going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you're the criminal – are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-owner...
- 13of40 4y ago
  Gun question not withstanding, am I the head of my household or is my wife?
  - jagged-chisel 4y ago
    Yes.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    I’m not sure how they define it, but it’s also moot; the law was meant to be a political statement, and doesn’t actually mandate ownership of a gun: Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Why does that matter? If one of you buys something, doesn't the other one of you own it too?
    - 13of40 4y ago
      I think the question is which one of us needs to clean the damned thing.
      - prepend 4y ago
        You’re married, decide amongst yourselves. Who owns the weapon wouldn’t matter who has a responsibility to clean. Since you’re married, in Georgia, it’s community property and you both own it and both have the responsibility to clean. Who would you like to help you decide this issue of who cleans the weapon?
  - twothamendment 4y ago
    Just declare it to be a joint partnership and you'll both have to have one. Problem solved!
- joey_bob 4y ago
  Almost every time I've heard this mentioned it's framed as "I live in such a backward place, they have a law that requires everyone to own guns."
teakettle42 4y ago
> And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach and it's not necessarily a safer scenario. It’s safer overall if it means there are fewer people willing to rob a home, whether it’s because (1) they’ve seen what happens to other people when they try, or (2) they themselves tried, and now cannot try again.
kcplate 4y ago
Where I live many households own firearms (likely around 50%+). B&E is nearly non-existent in homes, but we get a fair share of overnight car break ins though. These are usually opportunistic where the cars are unlocked and the theft can be achieved quietly and quickly. Porch pirates as well. I definitely attribute the lack of household break ins to be a correlated to the number of gun households. Areas with a high degree of gun ownership and castle laws, there is a pretty big deterrent to the criminal to find their prey elsewhere. Just too much risk for the minimal rewards you find in most homes.
nyolfen 4y ago
not sure most people are put off by their community being unsafe for burglars
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  give this thread half an hour or so
marcosdumay 4y ago
If it reduces the amount of violence, it reduces the amount of violence. You don't get to take a measured reduction and conclude that it increased. You can still claim a lot of things, but not that.
GravitasFailure 4y ago
Considering that about 266,000[1] people are injured by burglars per year, deaths included, I'm not seeing how the resident being able to shoot back is making anything "less safe" for anyone except for the burglar, which I'm pretty sure anyone getting burgled is usually ok with. Though as to why burglaries went down, I wonder if people got more alarm systems or took other deterrent countermeasures after the database was published? [1] A DOJ special report PDF https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
- eftychis 4y ago
  There is the point of correct close combat training. Shooting in an enclosed proximity is vastly different. For instance you don't want the gun to blind, deafen or grabbed and used against you. That can be alleviated with the right training and choices. You need more information beyond that to assess -- e.g. are people living in remote areas or next to a police officer?
  - yeetawayhn 4y ago
    >For instance you don't want the gun to blind, deafen or grabbed and used against you Sounds like we need to make it easier to obtain suppressors so that the victim's guns do not blind or deafen them as much.
vorpalhex 4y ago
> And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach If you break into my obviously occupied house, then you aren't doing it to steal $100 of shitty electronics. Put another way, you saw that my dwelling was occupied and felt that made it more of a good target than any of the other houses around me. I don't use lethal force to protect stuff. I use lethal force to protect my family.
philjohn 4y ago
Have these zip codes been normalised for socioeconomic factors, otherwise this could very well be correlation and not causality.
- prepend 4y ago
  It could still be correlation and jot causality if normalized. I think you may mean that a socioeconomic factor could be responsible for the correlation.

theurerjohn3 4y ago

the important thing is that it was: > after the database was publicized It seems they couldn't confirm if burglaries were prevented or merely moved the burglaries to low gun zipcodes, but they felt they had weak evidence for a drop in burglaries in total

MaxLeiter 4y ago

This reminds me of one of my favorite (due to its uniqueness) local laws in the US: > In Kennesaw, Georgia, local law says that “every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm.” “If you're going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you're the criminal – are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-ownership/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/us/kennesaw-georgia-gun-owner...

13of40 4y ago
Gun question not withstanding, am I the head of my household or is my wife?
- jagged-chisel 4y ago
  Yes.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  I’m not sure how they define it, but it’s also moot; the law was meant to be a political statement, and doesn’t actually mandate ownership of a gun: Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Why does that matter? If one of you buys something, doesn't the other one of you own it too?
  - 13of40 4y ago
    I think the question is which one of us needs to clean the damned thing.
    - prepend 4y ago
      You’re married, decide amongst yourselves. Who owns the weapon wouldn’t matter who has a responsibility to clean. Since you’re married, in Georgia, it’s community property and you both own it and both have the responsibility to clean. Who would you like to help you decide this issue of who cleans the weapon?
- twothamendment 4y ago
  Just declare it to be a joint partnership and you'll both have to have one. Problem solved!
joey_bob 4y ago
Almost every time I've heard this mentioned it's framed as "I live in such a backward place, they have a law that requires everyone to own guns."

teakettle42 4y ago

> And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach and it's not necessarily a safer scenario. It’s safer overall if it means there are fewer people willing to rob a home, whether it’s because (1) they’ve seen what happens to other people when they try, or (2) they themselves tried, and now cannot try again.

kcplate 4y ago

Where I live many households own firearms (likely around 50%+). B&E is nearly non-existent in homes, but we get a fair share of overnight car break ins though. These are usually opportunistic where the cars are unlocked and the theft can be achieved quietly and quickly. Porch pirates as well. I definitely attribute the lack of household break ins to be a correlated to the number of gun households. Areas with a high degree of gun ownership and castle laws, there is a pretty big deterrent to the criminal to find their prey elsewhere. Just too much risk for the minimal rewards you find in most homes.

nyolfen 4y ago

not sure most people are put off by their community being unsafe for burglars

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
give this thread half an hour or so

marcosdumay 4y ago

If it reduces the amount of violence, it reduces the amount of violence. You don't get to take a measured reduction and conclude that it increased. You can still claim a lot of things, but not that.

GravitasFailure 4y ago

Considering that about 266,000[1] people are injured by burglars per year, deaths included, I'm not seeing how the resident being able to shoot back is making anything "less safe" for anyone except for the burglar, which I'm pretty sure anyone getting burgled is usually ok with. Though as to why burglaries went down, I wonder if people got more alarm systems or took other deterrent countermeasures after the database was published? [1] A DOJ special report PDF https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

eftychis 4y ago
There is the point of correct close combat training. Shooting in an enclosed proximity is vastly different. For instance you don't want the gun to blind, deafen or grabbed and used against you. That can be alleviated with the right training and choices. You need more information beyond that to assess -- e.g. are people living in remote areas or next to a police officer?
- yeetawayhn 4y ago
  >For instance you don't want the gun to blind, deafen or grabbed and used against you Sounds like we need to make it easier to obtain suppressors so that the victim's guns do not blind or deafen them as much.

vorpalhex 4y ago

> And if anything it ends in bloodshed because thieves get shot at upon a breach If you break into my obviously occupied house, then you aren't doing it to steal $100 of shitty electronics. Put another way, you saw that my dwelling was occupied and felt that made it more of a good target than any of the other houses around me. I don't use lethal force to protect stuff. I use lethal force to protect my family.

philjohn 4y ago

Have these zip codes been normalised for socioeconomic factors, otherwise this could very well be correlation and not causality.

prepend 4y ago
It could still be correlation and jot causality if normalized. I think you may mean that a socioeconomic factor could be responsible for the correlation.