(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:
Please use some basic reasoning skills and stop misrepresenting my comments in an attempt to suppo...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:
Please use some basic reasoning skills and stop misrepresenting my comments in an attempt to support your political position.
The presence of firearms does not increase the risk of a house being targeted for theft of firearms; having the address on a list of houses identified as having firearms does. Note that firearms may not be present in all homes on the list for various reasons (occupants no longer own firearms, have moved, etc.).
While the presence of firearms may increase the level of violence in some attacks, they may decrease it in others (e.g., criminals give up when confronted by firearm-wielding occupant). In some cases where the level of violence does increase, it will be at the expense of the intruder -- a risk he or she accepted when they decided to commit the crime.
As for how the anti-gun protesters behave - we'll have to wait and see. Is anyone aware of similar situations in other locations and how they played out?
The statistics I have seen regarding violent crime rates and firearms ownership are pretty conclusive: overall, violent crime decreases when firearms ownership is increased,and it increases significantly when general ownership of firearms is banned (e.g., Australia).
I am sure that we both agree that it may not be the actual presence of the firearms that increases the risk of a house being targeted for theft of firearms, but the knowledge that firearms exist (or are likely to exist) in a house...whether that be by the existence of a published map, or the blabbing of people who know of the existence of firearms in the house, or other characteristics of the house & yard or people who live there (i.e. NRA bumper sticker, deer hanging in the garage, military/police occupant, etc)
I disagree that the escalated violence of firearms in the home is usually at the expense of the intruder...I'm not sure if you were suggesting that or not, but I think you were, even if your exact wording was "in some cases" which is pretty much meaningless as that could mean in 1% of cases or 99% of cases. Not to mention that having extensive gun ownership for reasons other than casual hunting, sport shooting, or varmint control in rural areas, much increases the possibility of accidental or "crime of passion" shootings.
I haven't heard of any mass shootings in Australia, and very few in Canada or the UK. I have heard of several in the USA.
In any case, I feel fortunate to have always lived in areas where I did not FEAR my government and fellow humans to the extent that it seems many of you in the USA do. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe I've lived in areas where common sense and respect for others is abundant.