3 ms·

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/

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
    > 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. I think this depends a lot of where you are. Most of the statistics I've seen has fairly overwhelming support for preventative effects of being armed. Also, handguns are one of the most powerful forces for equality we've had in modern history. A smaller woman or man is no longer dependent on a stronger person for defense. Guns are a great equalizer. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society".
    - plugger 4y ago
      I think my point still stands. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to have a love one hurt or killed from a firearm accident when compared to falling victim to a violent criminal offence in the home. And I'm not sure how you possessing a handgun would stop a burglary preventatively unless you advertise that you are indeed in possession of a handgun.

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
  > 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. I think this depends a lot of where you are. Most of the statistics I've seen has fairly overwhelming support for preventative effects of being armed. Also, handguns are one of the most powerful forces for equality we've had in modern history. A smaller woman or man is no longer dependent on a stronger person for defense. Guns are a great equalizer. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society".
  - plugger 4y ago
    I think my point still stands. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to have a love one hurt or killed from a firearm accident when compared to falling victim to a violent criminal offence in the home. And I'm not sure how you possessing a handgun would stop a burglary preventatively unless you advertise that you are indeed in possession of a handgun.