5 ms·

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 brok

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
    > 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. Which ofc is why I have an intense fear of jaywalkers.
    - Gud 4y ago
      There is an obvious difference between walking against a red light when there is no traffic and breaking into someone’s home.
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        Ok? I never said otherwise.
  - plugger 4y ago
    And I think you're American ;) > 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. I disagree. if the above was true the mailbox baseball (remember, a federal offense) to mass murderer pipeline would be much better documented. Also, the vast majority of burglars are non-violent offenders, not blood thirsty home invading rapists. > A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society. I think it's more that they're willing to bend the rules of civil society to meet a personal want or need, and they would most likely evaluate that as a risk/reward proposition like any other person does when entering into a risky activity. >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. Interestingly this is the exact conclusion that was presented to me the last time I had this discussion. And my response is the same now as it was then. Statistically speaking you are much more likely to have a family member die from that firearm in your home you claim is there for protection when compared to the threat of the hypothetical burglar you are protecting your family against.
    - claytongulick 4y ago
r3trohack3r 4y ago
2019 crime statistics for the U.S.: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-crime-statistics https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/fbi-r... Approximately 10k homicides with firearms in 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... In 2019, there were 28 live shooter incidents with 12 meeting the definition of “mass shooting.” In total, active shooters claimed 247 lives that year: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2019-042820.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents... Compare that with this report from the Obama administration: http://nap.edu/18319 http://nap.edu/18319 Annually, firearms in America are used in self defense between 500k and 3M times (real page 26, labeled as 15). Taking these numbers as true, the rate firearms are used in self defense vs. homicide is between 50x and 300x. Americans are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be unlawfully killed by one. They are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be killed in a mass shooting.

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
  > 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. Which ofc is why I have an intense fear of jaywalkers.
  - Gud 4y ago
    There is an obvious difference between walking against a red light when there is no traffic and breaking into someone’s home.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      Ok? I never said otherwise.
- plugger 4y ago
  And I think you're American ;) > 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. I disagree. if the above was true the mailbox baseball (remember, a federal offense) to mass murderer pipeline would be much better documented. Also, the vast majority of burglars are non-violent offenders, not blood thirsty home invading rapists. > A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society. I think it's more that they're willing to bend the rules of civil society to meet a personal want or need, and they would most likely evaluate that as a risk/reward proposition like any other person does when entering into a risky activity. >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. Interestingly this is the exact conclusion that was presented to me the last time I had this discussion. And my response is the same now as it was then. Statistically speaking you are much more likely to have a family member die from that firearm in your home you claim is there for protection when compared to the threat of the hypothetical burglar you are protecting your family against.
  - claytongulick 4y ago

r3trohack3r 4y ago

2019 crime statistics for the U.S.: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-crime-statistics https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/fbi-r... Approximately 10k homicides with firearms in 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... In 2019, there were 28 live shooter incidents with 12 meeting the definition of “mass shooting.” In total, active shooters claimed 247 lives that year: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2019-042820.pdf/view https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents... Compare that with this report from the Obama administration: http://nap.edu/18319 http://nap.edu/18319 Annually, firearms in America are used in self defense between 500k and 3M times (real page 26, labeled as 15). Taking these numbers as true, the rate firearms are used in self defense vs. homicide is between 50x and 300x. Americans are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be unlawfully killed by one. They are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be killed in a mass shooting.