7 ms·

I'm sorry this sounds like a very simplistic and callous question but I'm not from the US. I know there are a lot of guns. Do thieves and robbers get shot on a

I'm sorry this sounds like a very simplistic and callous question but I'm not from the US. I know there are a lot of guns. Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis and it just doesn't make headline news? Or when a gun is being used in self defence against a robbery is it more likely that the potential thief sees the gun, runs away, and isn't shot (because most people don't actually want to shoot someone).

jopython 4y ago
Its not easy to get a concealed carry permit in CA.
CharlesW 4y ago
> Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis and it just doesn't make headline news? It depends on your definition of "regularly". "From 2000 to 2021, fewer than 3% of 433 active attacks in the U.S. ended with a civilian firing back, according to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. The researchers define the attacks as one or more people targeting multiple people." https://www.fox13news.com/news/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-stop-a-shooting https://www.fox13news.com/news/how-often-does-a-good-guy-wit... Obviously, the solution is more good guys with guns.
- tokai 4y ago
  That data is not applicable to gp's question. It's about shooting back at an active shooter, not drawing on a robber.
- badcppdev 4y ago
  I'm just going to sound more callous and clarify that I didn't mean mass shootings just the kind of robberies shown in the article.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    FWIW I don't think you sound callous at all. To clarify my response, the data I shared on mass shootings ("mass" being >3 people) is just meant to illustrate that the "good guy with a gun" scenario is very rare. As another data point, a Harvard University analysis of a National Crime Victimization Survey concludes that people defended themselves with a gun in almost 0.9% of crimes from 2007–2011: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917...
    - badcppdev 4y ago
      That survey is almost the answer to my question so thank you for linking to it. Guns were used in self defence in 0.9% of crimes where the victim of the crime was present. It doesn't state whether the gun was fired or not but given the low percentages of a gun being involved at all I guess there aren't many 'bad guys' being shot (or shot at).
lando2319 4y ago
for the most part, California does not have concealed carry laws
- CharlesW 4y ago
  California does have Concealed Carry laws, and residents can get Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) licenses which has to be renewed yearly. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#4 https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#4
  - kyleyeats 4y ago
    It's very difficult to get one in SF, which is a city and a county.
    - CharlesW 4y ago
      It's very difficult in general compared to "anything goes" states. I found data that shows that California has granted around 121,000 concealed carry licenses as of August 2021, which is 0.31% of the population.
      - kyleyeats 4y ago
        San Francisco (the county) issued three between 2010 and 2015.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    But can you open carry?
    - CharlesW 4y ago
      With few exceptions, my understanding is "no".
- badcppdev 4y ago
  Not from the US. What is a concealed carry law exactly and what does that mean with respect to robberies? Thieves will be able to see whether the person they are trying to rob is armed before they approach them? Is the situation different in other states that do have concealed carry laws?
roody15 4y ago
No. In fact if you shot a person robbing you in San Francisco you would be jailed and likely charged. This is not the case in all states but in California you cannot shot a thief unless he is threatening you will deadly force.
OJFord 4y ago
For shop robberies, it's at least culturally normal/unsurprising enough that it's common in TV & film for the shopkeeper to pull a shotgun or something from under the counter. (Also not from the US.) I think it's a really interesting question though - if the point of allowing firearm ownership is self-defence etc., then surely should be looking at the usage metrics for that - when people own them, do they actually use them in such circumstances, is it effective, do non-owners have worse outcomes, etc.
- starkd 4y ago
  I would submit this would not be a very informative metric. Simply because the purpose of owning a gun to defend yourself is that you don't ultimately have to use it. There are many gun owners who never find themselves in that position, but just the knowledge that there are a lot of guns out there is an implicit threat that keeps the peace.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    To be clear, by 'using' I meant drawing, not (necessarily) discharging. > just the knowledge that there are a lot of guns out there is an implicit threat which makes the comparison against the outcomes of non-owner victims that I suggested valuable right?
    - starkd 4y ago
      Perhaps, but not sure you can separate gun owners from non-owners for such a study. Criminals do not always know beforehand which of their victims have a gun. The element of surprise creates hesitation to commit a crime.
totalZero 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer but I've lived in some very gun-friendly places. Every state has different laws about when/why you are allowed to engage with deadly force against another human being. Generally it is permitted when you face a threat of inescapable, serious bodily harm. Sometimes the law is more permissive than that. Look up "duty to retreat," "stand your ground law," "castle doctrine," and "justifiable homicide." If an unarmed person is stealing your car in California, it's unlikely that shooting at them would be lawful. However, California law imposes no duty to retreat, this article is about "violent robberies," and it specifically discusses getting held up at gunpoint. Someone under those circumstances would likely be permitted, under law, to kill the robber. That may not be true in states with duty to retreat laws. The fact that every state has a unique approach to this question means that there really isn't a satisfying and succinct answer to your question.
- starkd 4y ago
  And, depending on the state, if you do use force in self-defense, it may be an open question if you will or will not be prosecuted, and (more importantly), if a jury is willing to convict.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Seems to me that when robbery becomes robbery with a gun its too late to be a hero shooting robbers. Not many people want to test if unknown person pointing at them from 1-2m is slower than you getting your own gun from some hidden holster, clicking safety / loading a bullet ie on glocks, pointing and actually hitting back with immediate deadly force. Its either 'redneck' approach when any such encounter is a gun encounter (with its consequences), or just give them wallet/phone and accept the loss&hassle in exchange of much higher chance of surviving.
  - slowhand09 4y ago
    The part you glossed over totally (or just didn't consider) is the ASSUMPTION that the guy robbing or assaulting you or your family will honor the CONTRACT that you imagined he agreed to, that being to just take your stuff and leave you all unharmed. Many perps aren't completely stupid. They realize you'll call cops if they missed your phone. You'll cancel credit cards immediately. An APB will be issued for your vehicle. You can IDENTIFY them. Everything they took may be rendered useless in minutes. So instead, they may shoot you, or take your daughter hostage, or ignore your cries that the baby is in the child seat in back. If you give them complete power maybe they take you to three ATMs, then force you and your family back into your home, and terrorize you, doing or threatening unspeakable things. Think this is made up crap, cherry-picking stuff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_a... 30 yrs ago a young single woman I know had most of this happen to her. She was held captive, bound, gagged, blindfolded, tased, and raped for 3 days. She escaped by total dumb luck while the perp was paying for a pizza delivery from her purse. Her life is fucked up forever. She moved to the midwest, in with her parents. She's terrified of people.
bombcar 4y ago
Even most ardently pro-gun people do not recommend killing to protect property; only to protect human life. It does occur and it isn’t usually terribly newsworthy (here’s a recent one: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/calumet-heights-shooting-attempted-carjacking/ https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/calumet-heights-shootin... ) unless there is something else around it.
- dtech 4y ago
  If the robber has a gun - like here - isn't it usually easy to argue shooting back was to preserve life? Your comment is also directly contradicted by the numerous Stand-your-ground laws [1], quoting Wikipedia: "Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
  - bombcar 4y ago
    In that case it can be - assuming the victim has a gun, and legally. Stand your ground laws exist but even then the training literature is quite clear - you run the risk of ruining your life at least financially by pulling the trigger so you better have that as the better option compared to death or serious bodily harm.
  - matwood 4y ago
    > isn't it usually easy to argue shooting back was to preserve life? Depends on the particular laws of where you are. The reality is that even if the laws favor shooting back, if the criminal ends up injured or killed it means years of legal issues for the shooter. This is true for any physical altercation regardless of if weapons are used.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kkielhofner 4y ago
    I don’t think OP was referring to the letter of the law. My understanding is that “Stand your ground” /can/ at a minimum be applied to any situation where “a reasonable person would be in fear for their life” - which likely (technically) would cover almost any scenario where any kind of violence or even “crime” is targeted towards you. That said, as OP was saying the overwhelming take (from what I’ve seen) in the gun/conceal carry community has a pretty high standard for deadly force. In reality the standard for “fear for your life” is actually really high for most people. As you say “shooting back” - which implies you were shot at first. I think in that case “fear for your life” is very reasonable and push come to shove anyone with a gun would use it. This take even stretches into robberies like this. If someone comes up to you on the street and demands your camera (even with a weapon) it’s best just to cooperate and hand it over. All but the most fervent gun people at their core realize that real life isn’t Hollywood. The vast majority of people who say otherwise are keyboard warriors/wanna be tough guys that have never been in such a situation and have some delusional fantasy of themselves channeling John Wick when/if it happens to them. Obviously that’s not reality. Clearly the US has a ton of guns and there are many millions of people who are armed at all times. Stories in the news of people using a gun to defend themselves are few and far between because 1) violent crime is actually exceedingly rare statistically and 2) even most gun people realize it’s not OK to kill someone over a camera/wallet/etc even though you may have the means to and the law is technically on your side.
rayiner 4y ago
In the places where most robberies happen, cities like San Francisco, only the criminals have guns. In the parts of the country with lots of gun-owning households, like Idaho, robberies are rare. I’m not saying it’s a cause-effect relationship, it’s just that the issue doesn’t come up that often.
- asveikau 4y ago
  Are you failing to take per capita measurements in that assessment? I think per capita violent crime, gun violence in particular, is high in rural areas. Seems to me what you're saying is "a lot of people live in cities".
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    > I think per capita violent crime, gun violence in particular, is high in rural areas. This is very much false. Rural areas have very little violent crime, in both absolute and per-capita terms. I encourage you to spend some time looking into this, with the focus on “why did I ever think this could be true”.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      It's a claim I've seen before. Here's some stuff that shows up in Google searches. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new... https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rural-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rur...
      - rayiner 4y ago
        Those articles both conflate murders with auto accidents and gun suicides, which is bizarre. It’s true that New York City was exceptionally safe from 2000 to 2018 or so. But the same data shows big cities have double the homicide rate of no metro areas.
brk 4y ago
"On a regular basis" may not be quite the level occurrence, but yes, it does happen, and it often will not become a news story when it does. As others have pointed out, some states like California have laws and enforcement policies that at times appear to favor criminals over self defense. Other states, like Florida or Texas, tend to better enable self defense with lethal force. The whole thing is an equation you really do not want to find yourself in. Even with justifiable/legal use of deadly force in a defensive situation you are likely to wind up embroiled in a lot of hassles, law suits, and associated costs.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  And I have been told that no matter how precious the lives you were protecting were to you, killing someone isn't a memory you want in your head. Either it will bother you forever, or worse, you'll find you liked it, and that changes you.
  - iwillbenice 4y ago
  - tolleydbg 4y ago
    I don't know who this is true for, but I am proud of the fact that I was armed and able to protect my pregnant wife. I feel absolutely no remorse for it. I didn't enjoy it and the entire situation was unpleasant at the time. Had the situation had been different, say I was alone and it was merely a robbery by some kid or something, sure, I would feel differently if I killed them (and I wouldn't). I just don't accept the initial premise of your statement for my experience and those I have spoken to in similar situations.
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      Yeah, I have met a couple people like that, I shouldn't have tried to lump the mindset of all humanity into two lumps. I was merely pointing out that using lethal force to protect property that isn't critical to your family's well-being could have emotional as well as monetary costs. Because it can have those costs even if you are protecting loved ones, and you won't know until it happens. Edit: also why is the other post expressing the same sentiment dead? Along with all the other posts by that person? The part about banning healthy violence resonates with me. Young people fight, young animals fight, if it doesn't cause permanent damage it is a healthy part of learning how to relate to each other. And if non lethal violence was less taboo I suspect letha violence would be less common.
imperialdrive 4y ago
It really varies by state. In Texas it's more like the old days, shoot on sight more or less. Not so much in California, where one would likely be jailed/sued for protecting liberties. You can sort of tell by interacting with the police. In one state they're rather kind/respectful, in the other they are burnt out by all the bs. All in all, America is still so wonderful though. As long as the average citizen retains the right to bear arms I think we'll make it out alive in the long run.
ihatepython 4y ago
> and it just doesn't make headline news? It would only make headline news if the perpetrator was white. In the event that the perpetrator was black, the story would be quickly buried.
tolleydbg 4y ago
This is exactly how most confrontations end, especially if the assailant is not armed with a firearm as well - this is their most effective use. The armed victim shows the gun and they run away. It never turns into the Hollywood bloodbath opponents of firearms think that it will.
- badcppdev 4y ago
  Surely majority of opponents just point to school shootings as good reason to ban guns
jt2190 4y ago
The other replies are correct, but I’ll just add that you’re mixing two things here: - self defense - robbery For self defense (including cases where the defendant is being personally robbed) there is definitely a deterrent effect of guns. For robbery where the owner isn’t present (the case you replied to, and also the vast majority, obviously) there doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent.
kryogen1c 4y ago
> headline news? this is really the crux of your question. gun violence in America is a multifaceted problem, but if your source of information is headline news, you will get 0 meaningful information. > Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis this depends drastically on the local/state laws. San Francisco, for example, does not issue permits to carry concealed firearms and openly carrying firearms is illegal. California is simply a very gun unfriendly state, so you will almost never see a citizen defend themselves from a robber with a gun there. Even if you can carry a gun somewhere else, as a sibling goes into more detail, there are various laws with wildly different requirements to be able to employ lethal force. They range from requiring you to attempt to run away first to allowing lethal violence in defense of your property (like a vehicle with cameras in it). for what its worth, gun violence in america has little to do with so-called mass shootings that make the headlines or the hated "assault rifles". the story of gun violence in america is something like 90% pistol shootings in economically damaged, inner city slums.

jopython 4y ago

Its not easy to get a concealed carry permit in CA.

CharlesW 4y ago

> Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis and it just doesn't make headline news? It depends on your definition of "regularly". "From 2000 to 2021, fewer than 3% of 433 active attacks in the U.S. ended with a civilian firing back, according to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. The researchers define the attacks as one or more people targeting multiple people." https://www.fox13news.com/news/how-often-does-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-stop-a-shooting https://www.fox13news.com/news/how-often-does-a-good-guy-wit... Obviously, the solution is more good guys with guns.

tokai 4y ago
That data is not applicable to gp's question. It's about shooting back at an active shooter, not drawing on a robber.
badcppdev 4y ago
I'm just going to sound more callous and clarify that I didn't mean mass shootings just the kind of robberies shown in the article.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  FWIW I don't think you sound callous at all. To clarify my response, the data I shared on mass shootings ("mass" being >3 people) is just meant to illustrate that the "good guy with a gun" scenario is very rare. As another data point, a Harvard University analysis of a National Crime Victimization Survey concludes that people defended themselves with a gun in almost 0.9% of crimes from 2007–2011: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743515001188 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00917...
  - badcppdev 4y ago
    That survey is almost the answer to my question so thank you for linking to it. Guns were used in self defence in 0.9% of crimes where the victim of the crime was present. It doesn't state whether the gun was fired or not but given the low percentages of a gun being involved at all I guess there aren't many 'bad guys' being shot (or shot at).

lando2319 4y ago

for the most part, California does not have concealed carry laws

CharlesW 4y ago
California does have Concealed Carry laws, and residents can get Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) licenses which has to be renewed yearly. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#4 https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#4
- kyleyeats 4y ago
  It's very difficult to get one in SF, which is a city and a county.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    It's very difficult in general compared to "anything goes" states. I found data that shows that California has granted around 121,000 concealed carry licenses as of August 2021, which is 0.31% of the population.
    - kyleyeats 4y ago
      San Francisco (the county) issued three between 2010 and 2015.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  But can you open carry?
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    With few exceptions, my understanding is "no".
badcppdev 4y ago
Not from the US. What is a concealed carry law exactly and what does that mean with respect to robberies? Thieves will be able to see whether the person they are trying to rob is armed before they approach them? Is the situation different in other states that do have concealed carry laws?

roody15 4y ago

No. In fact if you shot a person robbing you in San Francisco you would be jailed and likely charged. This is not the case in all states but in California you cannot shot a thief unless he is threatening you will deadly force.

OJFord 4y ago

For shop robberies, it's at least culturally normal/unsurprising enough that it's common in TV & film for the shopkeeper to pull a shotgun or something from under the counter. (Also not from the US.) I think it's a really interesting question though - if the point of allowing firearm ownership is self-defence etc., then surely should be looking at the usage metrics for that - when people own them, do they actually use them in such circumstances, is it effective, do non-owners have worse outcomes, etc.

starkd 4y ago
I would submit this would not be a very informative metric. Simply because the purpose of owning a gun to defend yourself is that you don't ultimately have to use it. There are many gun owners who never find themselves in that position, but just the knowledge that there are a lot of guns out there is an implicit threat that keeps the peace.
- OJFord 4y ago
  To be clear, by 'using' I meant drawing, not (necessarily) discharging. > just the knowledge that there are a lot of guns out there is an implicit threat which makes the comparison against the outcomes of non-owner victims that I suggested valuable right?
  - starkd 4y ago
    Perhaps, but not sure you can separate gun owners from non-owners for such a study. Criminals do not always know beforehand which of their victims have a gun. The element of surprise creates hesitation to commit a crime.

totalZero 4y ago

I'm not a lawyer but I've lived in some very gun-friendly places. Every state has different laws about when/why you are allowed to engage with deadly force against another human being. Generally it is permitted when you face a threat of inescapable, serious bodily harm. Sometimes the law is more permissive than that. Look up "duty to retreat," "stand your ground law," "castle doctrine," and "justifiable homicide." If an unarmed person is stealing your car in California, it's unlikely that shooting at them would be lawful. However, California law imposes no duty to retreat, this article is about "violent robberies," and it specifically discusses getting held up at gunpoint. Someone under those circumstances would likely be permitted, under law, to kill the robber. That may not be true in states with duty to retreat laws. The fact that every state has a unique approach to this question means that there really isn't a satisfying and succinct answer to your question.

starkd 4y ago
And, depending on the state, if you do use force in self-defense, it may be an open question if you will or will not be prosecuted, and (more importantly), if a jury is willing to convict.
saiya-jin 4y ago
Seems to me that when robbery becomes robbery with a gun its too late to be a hero shooting robbers. Not many people want to test if unknown person pointing at them from 1-2m is slower than you getting your own gun from some hidden holster, clicking safety / loading a bullet ie on glocks, pointing and actually hitting back with immediate deadly force. Its either 'redneck' approach when any such encounter is a gun encounter (with its consequences), or just give them wallet/phone and accept the loss&hassle in exchange of much higher chance of surviving.
- slowhand09 4y ago
  The part you glossed over totally (or just didn't consider) is the ASSUMPTION that the guy robbing or assaulting you or your family will honor the CONTRACT that you imagined he agreed to, that being to just take your stuff and leave you all unharmed. Many perps aren't completely stupid. They realize you'll call cops if they missed your phone. You'll cancel credit cards immediately. An APB will be issued for your vehicle. You can IDENTIFY them. Everything they took may be rendered useless in minutes. So instead, they may shoot you, or take your daughter hostage, or ignore your cries that the baby is in the child seat in back. If you give them complete power maybe they take you to three ATMs, then force you and your family back into your home, and terrorize you, doing or threatening unspeakable things. Think this is made up crap, cherry-picking stuff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_a... 30 yrs ago a young single woman I know had most of this happen to her. She was held captive, bound, gagged, blindfolded, tased, and raped for 3 days. She escaped by total dumb luck while the perp was paying for a pizza delivery from her purse. Her life is fucked up forever. She moved to the midwest, in with her parents. She's terrified of people.

bombcar 4y ago

Even most ardently pro-gun people do not recommend killing to protect property; only to protect human life. It does occur and it isn’t usually terribly newsworthy (here’s a recent one: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/calumet-heights-shooting-attempted-carjacking/ https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/calumet-heights-shootin... ) unless there is something else around it.

dtech 4y ago
If the robber has a gun - like here - isn't it usually easy to argue shooting back was to preserve life? Your comment is also directly contradicted by the numerous Stand-your-ground laws [1], quoting Wikipedia: "Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
- bombcar 4y ago
  In that case it can be - assuming the victim has a gun, and legally. Stand your ground laws exist but even then the training literature is quite clear - you run the risk of ruining your life at least financially by pulling the trigger so you better have that as the better option compared to death or serious bodily harm.
- matwood 4y ago
  > isn't it usually easy to argue shooting back was to preserve life? Depends on the particular laws of where you are. The reality is that even if the laws favor shooting back, if the criminal ends up injured or killed it means years of legal issues for the shooter. This is true for any physical altercation regardless of if weapons are used.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kkielhofner 4y ago
  I don’t think OP was referring to the letter of the law. My understanding is that “Stand your ground” /can/ at a minimum be applied to any situation where “a reasonable person would be in fear for their life” - which likely (technically) would cover almost any scenario where any kind of violence or even “crime” is targeted towards you. That said, as OP was saying the overwhelming take (from what I’ve seen) in the gun/conceal carry community has a pretty high standard for deadly force. In reality the standard for “fear for your life” is actually really high for most people. As you say “shooting back” - which implies you were shot at first. I think in that case “fear for your life” is very reasonable and push come to shove anyone with a gun would use it. This take even stretches into robberies like this. If someone comes up to you on the street and demands your camera (even with a weapon) it’s best just to cooperate and hand it over. All but the most fervent gun people at their core realize that real life isn’t Hollywood. The vast majority of people who say otherwise are keyboard warriors/wanna be tough guys that have never been in such a situation and have some delusional fantasy of themselves channeling John Wick when/if it happens to them. Obviously that’s not reality. Clearly the US has a ton of guns and there are many millions of people who are armed at all times. Stories in the news of people using a gun to defend themselves are few and far between because 1) violent crime is actually exceedingly rare statistically and 2) even most gun people realize it’s not OK to kill someone over a camera/wallet/etc even though you may have the means to and the law is technically on your side.

rayiner 4y ago

In the places where most robberies happen, cities like San Francisco, only the criminals have guns. In the parts of the country with lots of gun-owning households, like Idaho, robberies are rare. I’m not saying it’s a cause-effect relationship, it’s just that the issue doesn’t come up that often.

asveikau 4y ago
Are you failing to take per capita measurements in that assessment? I think per capita violent crime, gun violence in particular, is high in rural areas. Seems to me what you're saying is "a lot of people live in cities".
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  > I think per capita violent crime, gun violence in particular, is high in rural areas. This is very much false. Rural areas have very little violent crime, in both absolute and per-capita terms. I encourage you to spend some time looking into this, with the focus on “why did I ever think this could be true”.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    It's a claim I've seen before. Here's some stuff that shows up in Google searches. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new... https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rural-america/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gun-violence-in-rur...
    - rayiner 4y ago
      Those articles both conflate murders with auto accidents and gun suicides, which is bizarre. It’s true that New York City was exceptionally safe from 2000 to 2018 or so. But the same data shows big cities have double the homicide rate of no metro areas.

brk 4y ago

"On a regular basis" may not be quite the level occurrence, but yes, it does happen, and it often will not become a news story when it does. As others have pointed out, some states like California have laws and enforcement policies that at times appear to favor criminals over self defense. Other states, like Florida or Texas, tend to better enable self defense with lethal force. The whole thing is an equation you really do not want to find yourself in. Even with justifiable/legal use of deadly force in a defensive situation you are likely to wind up embroiled in a lot of hassles, law suits, and associated costs.

galangalalgol 4y ago
And I have been told that no matter how precious the lives you were protecting were to you, killing someone isn't a memory you want in your head. Either it will bother you forever, or worse, you'll find you liked it, and that changes you.
- iwillbenice 4y ago
- tolleydbg 4y ago
  I don't know who this is true for, but I am proud of the fact that I was armed and able to protect my pregnant wife. I feel absolutely no remorse for it. I didn't enjoy it and the entire situation was unpleasant at the time. Had the situation had been different, say I was alone and it was merely a robbery by some kid or something, sure, I would feel differently if I killed them (and I wouldn't). I just don't accept the initial premise of your statement for my experience and those I have spoken to in similar situations.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    Yeah, I have met a couple people like that, I shouldn't have tried to lump the mindset of all humanity into two lumps. I was merely pointing out that using lethal force to protect property that isn't critical to your family's well-being could have emotional as well as monetary costs. Because it can have those costs even if you are protecting loved ones, and you won't know until it happens. Edit: also why is the other post expressing the same sentiment dead? Along with all the other posts by that person? The part about banning healthy violence resonates with me. Young people fight, young animals fight, if it doesn't cause permanent damage it is a healthy part of learning how to relate to each other. And if non lethal violence was less taboo I suspect letha violence would be less common.

imperialdrive 4y ago

It really varies by state. In Texas it's more like the old days, shoot on sight more or less. Not so much in California, where one would likely be jailed/sued for protecting liberties. You can sort of tell by interacting with the police. In one state they're rather kind/respectful, in the other they are burnt out by all the bs. All in all, America is still so wonderful though. As long as the average citizen retains the right to bear arms I think we'll make it out alive in the long run.

ihatepython 4y ago

> and it just doesn't make headline news? It would only make headline news if the perpetrator was white. In the event that the perpetrator was black, the story would be quickly buried.

tolleydbg 4y ago

This is exactly how most confrontations end, especially if the assailant is not armed with a firearm as well - this is their most effective use. The armed victim shows the gun and they run away. It never turns into the Hollywood bloodbath opponents of firearms think that it will.

badcppdev 4y ago
Surely majority of opponents just point to school shootings as good reason to ban guns

jt2190 4y ago

The other replies are correct, but I’ll just add that you’re mixing two things here: - self defense - robbery For self defense (including cases where the defendant is being personally robbed) there is definitely a deterrent effect of guns. For robbery where the owner isn’t present (the case you replied to, and also the vast majority, obviously) there doesn’t seem to be much of a deterrent.

kryogen1c 4y ago

> headline news? this is really the crux of your question. gun violence in America is a multifaceted problem, but if your source of information is headline news, you will get 0 meaningful information. > Do thieves and robbers get shot on a regular basis this depends drastically on the local/state laws. San Francisco, for example, does not issue permits to carry concealed firearms and openly carrying firearms is illegal. California is simply a very gun unfriendly state, so you will almost never see a citizen defend themselves from a robber with a gun there. Even if you can carry a gun somewhere else, as a sibling goes into more detail, there are various laws with wildly different requirements to be able to employ lethal force. They range from requiring you to attempt to run away first to allowing lethal violence in defense of your property (like a vehicle with cameras in it). for what its worth, gun violence in america has little to do with so-called mass shootings that make the headlines or the hated "assault rifles". the story of gun violence in america is something like 90% pistol shootings in economically damaged, inner city slums.