4 ms·

So criminals can look up addresses before deciding which homes to break and enter? How is this not a good thing for criminals? Sure, less criminals may get shot

So criminals can look up addresses before deciding which homes to break and enter? How is this not a good thing for criminals? Sure, less criminals may get shot. But then who are we trying to actually protect here? Consider an absurd second order effect where, if it's true that you're less likely to be robbed by being on this register, it encourages more people to buy guns, even if it means they don't have to use them.

_-david-_ 4y ago
Criminals might case a house and specifically rob a house that has guns to rob them when they leave. Might as well get a gun in the theft.
AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
Or so that criminals know whose house to break into (when unoccupied) to steal guns. This seems intended just to shame and intimidate lawful gun owners (in response to the SCOTUS ruling?).
- Thorentis 4y ago
  Yes that too. There was a violent case of this in Perth, Australia recently[1], after the gun ownership database was leaked. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-stolen-high-wycombe-home-invasion/101107844 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-s...
woodruffw 4y ago
A sufficiently motivated burglar can already prioritize their victims by selecting those with the highest donation amounts on public FEC reports, or simply selecting properties with the highest tax obligations. I wouldn't be surprised if the more enterprising ones already do, which is to say that this doesn't change much.
pengaru 4y ago
You actually think criminals smart enough to inform themselves with such a list are dumb enough to avoid the houses practically guaranteed to contain some of the easiest to liquidate at FMV objects out there? (guns and ammo)
- zer01 4y ago
  The thing I never understand about this argument is that there’s a much higher likelihood of significant injury or death (getting shot) robbing the houses with guns, no? Guns may be “easy to liquidate” (not sure if that’s actually the case) but surely selling Xboxes and MacBooks on eBay is just as profitable?
swatcoder 4y ago
These threads are always so interesting for how they illustrate the mental space some people invest in criminal threat. I’ve had a house burgled, two cars broken into, and know several victims of violent crime and still can’t relate even a little bit to the anxiety expressed here or the idea that any of those encounters would have turned out better with an extra gun around. I don’t mean to challenge your point of view, just to note how huge the divide is between how people fundamentally conceive of this stuff.
- plugger 4y ago
  I've encountered something similar to this recently as well. There seems to be a conflation of 'petty burglary' with 'home invasion/violent assault/kidnap/rape/murder' in the minds of the average American when it comes attempting to understand their threat model. Most Americans haven't had their home burgled, and the extreme few that have (statistically) are victims of theft, not violent offences against the person. Most Americans can't wrap their heads around the possibility that they're being burgled by someone who a) is in need of cash b) is not interested in killing, torturing, raping or maiming the victim c) would ideally like to get in and out for a quick financial win Where I live (Australia) our burglary rate is 5x greater per capita than America. And yet our "murdered by burglar rate" is effectively nil, much like it is in the states. But there are scores of yanks that will talk about their need to have a firearm for home defence to ensure their family isn't murdered by someone who's most likely looking for a bit of cash for a drug fix.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    I think it's reasonable. When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law. A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society. Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives? I'm not.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
jethkl 4y ago
In Dec 2012, details of gun permits issued in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties just north of NYC were posted on an interactive map [1]. This was a nearly perfect test of the theory that criminal behavior would get worse in response to easy access to this kind of information. I found no news reports indicating people had been targeted one way or the other, and official stats [2] indicate serious crime decreased. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748/n-y-website-posts-map-of-people-with-gun-permits-draws-criticism https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748... [2] https://westchesterindex.org/community/serious-crimes https://westchesterindex.org/community/serious-crimes
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  For comparison's sake, it looks like serious crimes decreased in Westchester by 6.8% while the decreased nationally by 5%. IMO, especially considering that difference comes out to a fairly small amount crimes in Westchester, I don't think you can assume there's any causative effect there.
scarmig 4y ago
In all likelihood, CCW-holders will be more likely to be robbed than the general populace, as they possess an item that is in very high demand for criminals, that has a high selling price, and that can be easily and quickly unloaded onto the black market. That's why most don't publicly announce their possession: it's not a deterrent but something that puts a target on your back.

_-david-_ 4y ago

Criminals might case a house and specifically rob a house that has guns to rob them when they leave. Might as well get a gun in the theft.

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago

Or so that criminals know whose house to break into (when unoccupied) to steal guns. This seems intended just to shame and intimidate lawful gun owners (in response to the SCOTUS ruling?).

Thorentis 4y ago
Yes that too. There was a violent case of this in Perth, Australia recently[1], after the gun ownership database was leaked. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-stolen-high-wycombe-home-invasion/101107844 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-s...

woodruffw 4y ago

A sufficiently motivated burglar can already prioritize their victims by selecting those with the highest donation amounts on public FEC reports, or simply selecting properties with the highest tax obligations. I wouldn't be surprised if the more enterprising ones already do, which is to say that this doesn't change much.

pengaru 4y ago

You actually think criminals smart enough to inform themselves with such a list are dumb enough to avoid the houses practically guaranteed to contain some of the easiest to liquidate at FMV objects out there? (guns and ammo)

zer01 4y ago
The thing I never understand about this argument is that there’s a much higher likelihood of significant injury or death (getting shot) robbing the houses with guns, no? Guns may be “easy to liquidate” (not sure if that’s actually the case) but surely selling Xboxes and MacBooks on eBay is just as profitable?

swatcoder 4y ago

These threads are always so interesting for how they illustrate the mental space some people invest in criminal threat. I’ve had a house burgled, two cars broken into, and know several victims of violent crime and still can’t relate even a little bit to the anxiety expressed here or the idea that any of those encounters would have turned out better with an extra gun around. I don’t mean to challenge your point of view, just to note how huge the divide is between how people fundamentally conceive of this stuff.

plugger 4y ago
I've encountered something similar to this recently as well. There seems to be a conflation of 'petty burglary' with 'home invasion/violent assault/kidnap/rape/murder' in the minds of the average American when it comes attempting to understand their threat model. Most Americans haven't had their home burgled, and the extreme few that have (statistically) are victims of theft, not violent offences against the person. Most Americans can't wrap their heads around the possibility that they're being burgled by someone who a) is in need of cash b) is not interested in killing, torturing, raping or maiming the victim c) would ideally like to get in and out for a quick financial win Where I live (Australia) our burglary rate is 5x greater per capita than America. And yet our "murdered by burglar rate" is effectively nil, much like it is in the states. But there are scores of yanks that will talk about their need to have a firearm for home defence to ensure their family isn't murdered by someone who's most likely looking for a bit of cash for a drug fix.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  I think it's reasonable. When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law. A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society. Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives? I'm not.
  - the_only_law 4y ago

jethkl 4y ago

In Dec 2012, details of gun permits issued in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties just north of NYC were posted on an interactive map [1]. This was a nearly perfect test of the theory that criminal behavior would get worse in response to easy access to this kind of information. I found no news reports indicating people had been targeted one way or the other, and official stats [2] indicate serious crime decreased. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748/n-y-website-posts-map-of-people-with-gun-permits-draws-criticism https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748... [2] https://westchesterindex.org/community/serious-crimes https://westchesterindex.org/community/serious-crimes

Rebelgecko 4y ago
For comparison's sake, it looks like serious crimes decreased in Westchester by 6.8% while the decreased nationally by 5%. IMO, especially considering that difference comes out to a fairly small amount crimes in Westchester, I don't think you can assume there's any causative effect there.

scarmig 4y ago

In all likelihood, CCW-holders will be more likely to be robbed than the general populace, as they possess an item that is in very high demand for criminals, that has a high selling price, and that can be easily and quickly unloaded onto the black market. That's why most don't publicly announce their possession: it's not a deterrent but something that puts a target on your back.