Great Amerian Gun Myth no 3 Guns will ensure my freedom!!

Empirical evidence shows criminals do not want to get shot and adjust thier behavior accordingly.

 

how did the burlers know there were guns in the home to steal in the first place?

 

We can't reject the deterrence effect. The evidence shows, however, that it is dwarfed by incentive effects.

 

source?

 

Source?

 

All those are anecdotal and altered by the media bias in America to reporting those instances

We don't hear of anything like this here - and in fact I would love to have time to do some research because, knowing how lazy journalists are, I would bet that a lot of those stories are "rehash" stories with new names.

WHY ARE THERE SO FEW STORIES LIKE THIS OUTSIDE THE USA???

I just googled it - 1 story from the UK 21 from USA

I just google Australia "Home owner shoots intruder" got 1 (count it 1) story from Australia in 2008 and 1 from the UK (same story as previous) and all the rest USA

And I have to say an awful lot of those shootings in America are fatalities

 

Would the Los Angeles riots have been so dangerous if there were less guns

And this is about "ensuring freedoms" - so how can adding more guns to a riot situation "ensure freedoms"?

 

The study is worthless. Perhaps you are too naive and trusting to see it.

 

If my memory serves me correctly---the Los Angeles riots were dangerous because gangs of people were dragging motorists out of cars and beating them brainless. Shop windows were broke into and businesses destroyed.

The people that I remember having the guns---were the Koreans protecting their businesses. Without those guns---it would have been worse.

 

What? Bias how? They are reporting an incident.

The stories I highlight were totally separate stories of people utilizing guns to protect their homes, family and property. Would you rather they not have guns? You would risk them that way?

WHY ARE THERE SO FEW STORIES LIKE THIS OUTSIDE THE USA???

Why would you expect U.K and Australia to be protecting homes with guns? Ya'll really don't have that option to the extent we do. And why are you more worried about the intruders then the lives of the home-owners? You would take a gun from a home-owner so that the intruder is alive?

Is that what you are saying here?

 

You merely advertise a tantrum reaction to evidence. The paper uses appropriate methodology and you are incapable of offering genuine critique. This is the standard outcome when conversing with those that prefer inane bias to an evidence-based rationality

 

And the Cronulla riots were dangerous because of the same reason - only difference was here we were all saying "Thank Goodness no-one got shot!!"

So let us compare the Los Angeles Riots with the Cronulla riots

Cronulla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots

Los Angeles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Admittedly it is difficult to compare the two because the Australian totals are really from one day and do not include some affrays that broke out afterward but still that is a very significant disparity

Could it be cultural? Maybe Aussies being so laid back just do not riot properly?

UK riots 2011

5 dead - three by being hit by a car, and 31 people injured plus 3 police dogs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots

Hmmmmmm - could keep going but I think we are seeing a pattern here - and it has to be asked "Does the availability of guns make the situation a LOT worse?"

 

No it is that they are reporting THIS type of incident but ignoring others. According to some sources a "mass shooting" occurs every five days in the USA - but ate not reported
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ws-gun-violence-epidemic-sweeping-nation.html
(sorry only source I could find was the "Daily Fail" so feel free to dispute it)
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf
This has better stats

http://rt.com/usa/news/mass-year-people-massacre-710/

Regardless of the source there are a LOT of homicides related to firearms in America but the ones that seem to get most press coverage are "home owner shoots intruder"

 

You live in a make-believe world with bias studies that have make-believe outcomes.

I live in the real world where each month in my own area there is a reported story of a home-owner effectively deterring a burglar from intruding in a home--using a gun.

I would rather live in the real world and acquire real world protection for me and my family. Your studies may suit you in your land. Fine--I won't pressure you to see reality.

 

Bowerbird....key words "homeowner shoots intruder" will pick up those stories---where the home owner shoots intruder. It merely is meant to demonstrate that homeowners have in past and consistantly now DO use guns effectively to keep intruders out of the home.

You said home owners protecting themselves with guns was a myth in an earlier thread.

And as far as "things' being more important then people. You favor and trust the criminal more then the victim by assuming an intruder won't harm the homeowner occupants. I suppose if an intruder would break into your home---you run right??? You run because you are terrified the intruder will hurt you. Don't assume other people should be trusting where you wouldn't be.

 

This is an extraordinary silly remark. I follow the obvious best practice: construct hypothesis and, rather than just blindly assume its true (which is what you fellows do), ensure that the real world data is used to test its validity. You made inaccurate remarks over the Cook and Ludwig paper. You of course needed to attack it as you made unsupported claims inconsistent with that evidence. Fair enough. Adopt a dishonest approach, if that helps!

 

I thought since "homeowner shoots burglar" doesn't work to find U.K homeowners protecting themselves and family with guns----then I would post the good intentions of burglars in U.K .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-killed-home-cash-hid-didnt-trust-banks.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20309502

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20375868

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-murder-pensioner-bludgeoned-death-home.html

We all know that the life of the burglar is worth more then the risk they present to the homeowner.

 

And I could post stories like this from the USA - means NOTHING

(((((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))

These are ANECDOTAL evidence and therefore subject to varying factors

A) that all are reported
b) that all are reported accurately
c) that other incidents NOT following the pattern are reported equally i.e. Homeowner robbed despite having gun

 

And I could post stories like this from the USA - means NOTHING

(((((((((((((((sigh)))))))))))))))))))

These are ANECDOTAL evidence and therefore subject to varying factors

A) that all are reported
b) that all are reported accurately
c) that other incidents NOT following the pattern are reported equally i.e. Homeowner robbed despite having gun

And you are thinking in terms of "bad men/good men" or white hats and black hats

What if the "burglar" is your neighbours 15 year old son that you have just shot dead?

 

ad hom strawman
what if what if what if....what if someone drop a nuke 5 miles from your house.........what if that 15 year old had a gun in his hands when he broke in. And wtf was in doing in someone elses' house to begin with?
He should have knocked, he could have called out to let someone know he was in there for good reason, otherwise, without permission, he's trespassing.
.......as usual, you make up the most out of this world scenarios and then expect guess work for an answer, just so you can set up the next guy.
techniqually, that's baiting. you are a baiter instead of a debater........silly person

 

We don't have that with burglary though. We have empirical analysis showing the risk of being a victim increases with gun prevalence. A result rather inconsistent with the standard internet warrioring that goes hand in hand with the pro-gun position

 

You're not making sense. Of course you could post stories like this from the USA. Because worldwide---a home intruder can realistically put you are in danger. So my point was----you are willing to have---someone else (not you I'm sure)----trust that a home intruder only wants the goods in the house and shouldn't be killed. Its best to risk the homeowner be killed, raped, torchured, etc.

Remember what you said???? YOU was worried about a fatal shot to a burgler/intruder.

Geeze---we googled "homeowners shoot intruder" to demonstrate that such a thing happening is not a myth. Remember??
For U.K home intruders turn murderers---I googled "U.K Homicides"--to show that to assume home intruders won't hurt you is stupid.


These are stories happening every day. Its not anecdotal that home intrusions happen. Its a fact. Its not anecdotal that homeowners with guns kill burglars. Its a fact. Its not anecdotal that people are killed during home invasions. That is a fact.

 

As shown, you need to adopt a tabloidism approach where individual stories are used to celebrate an individual bias. The reality, where data analysis is used objectively, demonstrates a rather uncomfortable finding: gun prevalence increases the risk of being a victim.

 

Your study is untrustworthy and has no credibility. You seem to think these people who float numbers and make big assumptions are gods not to be questioned. That isn't what I do. But feel free to live in a world of corrupt studies.

By the way---do you think crime happens---or are these stories of daily crime incidents only anecdotal and can't be trusted to mean anything.