TonyStew

Can we put numbers to that and prove it to convince at least some? Or is it a religious topic?

You replied to a thread where I literally did

Yeah, yeah that's indeed where I draw the line. I don't think a person is morally obligated to ascribe best-intentions to someone breaking & entering (again, they'll be violent toward you 26% of the time), I don't think a person is morally obligated to be a victim of violence in their own home, I don't think a person is morally obligated to evacuate what is meant to be their safe haven, and I sure as shit don't think anyone else either with a badge or without is coming to be the good guy for you. And as defense, I don't think it is murder.

You are being extremely disingenuous when you say that since you’re only counting household burglaries. And I’m sure you know it.

I'm literally commenting on how the person above me claims American firearms ownership makes "the act of “home invasion” fundamentally different in the UK and the US." by "turning “somebody stole my iPad” into “somebody stole my iPad and then shot me in the spine”." Household burglaries is the context of the conversation.

you would have us believe that only 108 of those happened in someone’s house?

No, I am claiming that ~108 incidents (could be 1 or more victims per) happen by a burglar's hands. You know that, you just said I'm being deceitful for limiting it to those parameters, and now you're lying about them.

the CDC doesn’t track all gun deaths

Correct, and I haven't cited CDC data. As I've said many times now, I've cited Gun Violence Archive's numbers, whose sole mission is to catalog as high of numbers as they can. Their 2016 combined homicide & suicide stats exceed your source's numbers at 38k. I've also been using the higher number of ~60k deaths & injuries from someone else's gun per year instead of ~45k combined homicides & suicides.

Because in a discussion of someone's claim of "essentially zero" risk of harm from someone in a home invasion, the actual risk is currently very close to the widely-agreed-upon, internationally-lambasted, domestic-politics-dominating risk of harm from another's gun. Or hey, we'll count what you purposefully do to yourself as well and say it's 2/3 of the way there.

I really don't understand how saying "home invasion isn't a boogeyman, being harmed from it is as likely as gun violence" has been interpreted as "you're saying gun violence is a boogeyman" other than everyone here taking the top comment at face value and losing all basic literacy when the circlejerk stops.

Hillary, who you voted for, wanted to eliminate the Castle Doctrine, which makes this sort of thing legal.
So I think you need to decide whose side you’re on.

No, I'm not some fucking lib toeing the democratic party line, and criticizing someone for that is "RINO republican" bullshit with a D at the front. I also think her policy against police abuse of waxing poetic about its tragedies while advocating for further funding is bootlicking bullshit, I think her stance against abolishing the death penalty while downplaying its minimum 4% false positive rate in killing innocent people fueled by a 69% rate of official misconduct and 15% rate of judges overruling jury decisions to enforce the death penalty as "very unfortunate & discriminatory" is blatantly prioritizing bootlicking over actual justice, I don't think her stance at that time to merely reschedule marijuana as schedule II rather than full legalization is sufficient, and her policy of "the cops can have a little stop & frisk, as a treat" is more of the above. And no, I don't support eliminating the castle doctrine or passing duty to retreat laws for one's own home either.

But I'm sure if I instead cited these disagreements as why I didn't vote for any candidate you'd be perfectly understanding, right?

And what about this situation makes you think "this sort of thing" was legal here? The shooter was charged with manslaughter & armed criminal action with a bail of $100k.

Every number I pull from the article is backed up by a separate primary source they provide. Their citation for overall burglary numbers, as linked (little blue 1), is from the FBI's crime tracker. Their citation on the specifics for burglaries, including % where the owner is present and stats on violent crime victimization as part of burglaries, comes from a DOJ report that they link. The # of US households was just me googling and pulling the first result, but census data puts it at 125 million.

The 2nd source is just using FBI data as well, extrapolating the reported crime amount from the reported population over the whole population. The official FBI number of 673,261 burglaries divided by .75 (% of population those account for) gives 897,681, and the FBI's chart over time (counted in burglaries per 100,000 population rather than households) does indeed show that burglaries, as with all violent crime, have gotten considerably safer over the past 10-20 years.

Still far from 0, and still more common than the crime that's America's blight onto the world.

Bernie -> Hillary -> Bernie -> Biden since I've been eligible to vote, so just barely. You realize about 1/3 of gun owners vote left, right?

You’re still more likely to be shot by someone, it’s just the “someone” might be you

Pardon me for not considering actions I have control over in a discussion on the likelihood of violence one doesn't have control over. And again, I'm citing larger numbers for gun violence victims than what they are citing incorrectly.

But it’ll never be one of your kids with one of your guns, will it buddy

At 1 in ~2000 odds (10 in 10,000 suicide rate, 50% firearms for ages 10-24), or literally the exact same odds that I'm saying a person should be prepared for based on their consequences, those are absolutely odds I would act to minimize if I lived with a minor or anyone suffering mental health issues.

Just here to point out that it'll never be your home, will it buddy?

the act of “home invasion” is fundamentally different in the UK and the US

Yes, I alluded to this by rhetorically asking why US burglars are half as willing to break in while an occupant is home. Still wondering why that would ever be.

turning “somebody stole my iPad” into “somebody stole my iPad and then shot me in the spine”.

Household burglaries ending in homicide make up 0.004% or 1 in 25,000 break-ins, and with national firearm injury rates being roughly double homicide rates that should mean roughly 1 in 8,333 break-ins leave the homeowner injured or killed to guns. That would math to 108 households in 2021 with occupants killed/injured by guns in 2021, or over 1 in a million yearly odds. Compared to the near-identical odds between the 2 countries of being assaulted or having other violent crime done against you if you see the burglars (27% vs 26%), it's a weird edge case to focus on while dismissing the entire collection of crime it's a minuscule subset of.

Also wild to see "you'll be shot while complying" in this argument, normally it's people saying anyone practicing self-defense thinks they're Rambo and that they'd be better off just ascribing best-intentions to the assailant and giving them what they want.

Again, the point of this isn't to say that concern about gun violence is wrong or nutty, it's to argue that concerns about violent home invasion are even less paranoid than that.

If they’re supplying them, they’re usually bullshit

No need for hypotheticals here, we've got hard examples of stats & studies that either are or aren't bs. Although the only bit I talk about on gun violence is from the GVA, but you're welcome to call them BS if you wish.

there’s a layer of murder on top of every crime

At ~20,000/year, it's 1 in 17,500 people. Or 1 in 6,180 households to keep comparisons equal.

The point of the comparison isn't to downplay gun violence, as should have been evident by how I'm arguing an equally-likely violent home invasion isn't something to dismiss.

where does the “37,500 break-in assaults” number come from when it’s 3x higher than what your source lists?

Specifying assault specifically was a mistake on my part, as I said the math came from the article's citations on all violent crimes experienced by occupants during break-ins multiplied against the year's 583,000 burglaries. Of that 26% number, 18% is assault while 6% is armed robbery and 2% is rape. I'm not sure where the article's 11,000 claim comes from, as that number is uncited and would represent a substantial decrease vs the numbers they have citations for, which showed consistent values year-to-year in the mid-2000s though at a significantly higher overall rate of burglaries at 3.7 million/year. The closest number I can think of would be if they're just counting specifically aggravated assault, which using the cited percentage of occurring in 4.5% of occupied break-ins would come to 10,125 instances in 900,000 break-ins.

And actually, re-reading the article shows the 600,000 burglary number only accounts for 69% of the US population whose law enforcement reports numbers to the FBI, real numbers from the FBI are 900,000 for the past couple years making that number's discrepancy even worse with the math's number of 62,100. I'm not able to find any more recent data on either a % or a hard-number of home invasions resulting in assault or other violent crime victimization, if you have any please share.

Meaning you’re 4x more likely to be shot by someone than assaulted during a burglary

Coming at me citing suicide stats in a crime discussion, nice! And not even applying them correctly, using the number of deaths as a stat for being shot at all. I already referenced a more accurate, if still flawed, number by summing injuries & deaths from the GVA above.

you take as the given that individual gun violence is a likely threat in most of the country

I don't. As I said, poverty & organized crime is a driving factor in both burglaries & gun violence moreso than any other metric and heavily skews those statistics between localities. Many regions will have rates 3-4x that. I also feel like you're minimizing the part where it's 1 in 3300 1990 per year, which applied over even just 50 years comes to 1.6% 2.5% of people experiencing it in their lives. Hell, the total burglary number of 600,000 900,000 is nearly thrice the rate of house fires in the US.

It would absolutely be inconsistent to cite gun violence stats as a cause of concern for the average person (2) (3) while dismissing being assaulted in a burglary, nevermind being burgled at all, as an essentially zero chance.

As an interesting point of reference, UK home break-ins occur at a rate of 578,000 yearly for a population with just 27.8 million households. That works out to 2% of households yearly being burgled, and per the first source over half of those occur while someone is present in the house (twice as often as happens in the US). Here's another source citing a 1.27% rate of domestic burglary for the year ending in June 2023, and that's vs the US rate of 0.728% (1.7-2.7 times higher). I can't find any sources for what percentage of these break-in lead to assaults on the occupants, but for even the more conservative number of 1.27% from earlier and 50% of those being occupied homes, a rate higher than 6.90% of those occupied burglaries leading to assault would place the odds of being assaulted in your home in the UK higher than in America. This article working off of 2020 ONS data cites that of the 64.1% of incidents where someone is home 46% were aware and saw their burglars, and of those 48% reported being threatened and 27% reported force or violence being used against them. Plugging that into the most recent rate of 1.27% being burgled, that comes out to a 1 in 989 chance yearly of being a victim of violent crime by burglars in your own house, double that of the US.

I wonder what's different about American households that so dramatically shifts both the number of break-ins as well as how/when they occur. Poverty certainly plays a role, where the UK's poverty rate after housing expenses is twice that of the US (22% vs 11%). Doesn't explain the nature of the break-ins though.

Edit: See math from earlier post, actual number is 1 in 1,990 yearly, or a 2.5% chance of experiencing violent crime in a home invasion over 50 years. Also makes the rate of burglary nearly thrice the rate of house fires in the US. Updated the math throughout the UK paragraph to match.

Nearly 600,000 900,000 burglaries occur yearly in the US, with 27.6% occurring while occupants were present and 25% of those incidents involving an assault violent crime on the occupants. (https://insurify.com/homeowners-insurance/insights/burglary-statistics/) That comes to 37,500 ~62,100 break-in assaults victims of violent crimes from break-ins in the US per year, divided by 123.6 million households in the US comes to a 1 in 3,296 1,990 chance of a household's occupants being assaulted in a break-in each year. That's 68% roughly as many incidents as being injured or killed by a firearm anywhere in the country each year as tallied by the GVA. Hardly zero, unless you also mean to minimize US gun violence.

Though either of these stats are hardly able to be applied broadly across the entire country given their driving force of poverty and its extreme regional & local disparities.

Edit: Actually those 600,000 burglaries only account for 69% of the US population. The actual number is ~900,000 nationally, bumping the math's number of violent crimes including assault, robbery, and rape experienced in homes up to ~62,100 or 1 in 1,990, surpassing being a victim of broad gun violence as tallied by the GVA when removing instances of justified self-defense.

"You made us make this inane law"

Quite literally all but 1 came after the 1972 ban.

Also yet another bootlicking judge leaving the guy charged with nothing but resisting arrest.

911 funding is a convoluted mess between municipalities and states that's separate from "funding for law enforcement" and HAS been woefully under budgeted, especially as systems need upgrading.

Calling cops to an overdose instead of EMS is part of the fucking problem.

You had me up until "fund the police state" as if US police unions aren't already the most powerful groups in the country to be a member of, as if any state or municipality has meaningfully cracked down on policing abuses, as if the US doesn't already have incarceration rates 5x the next NATO member, as if the US doesn't already spend more on policing than all but 2 nations do on their militaries, as if police spending ever dropped even 1%, and as if supposed funding cuts aren't just city council members shuffling the numbers around while the departments themselves see steady budget growth year-over-year.

Your experience is simply finding yourself calling in an incident on the wrong street for the wrong person, a call the officers know won't affect their bottom line. It's always been the case, whether passively delaying responses or actively corralling rioters away from wealthy districts. It's not because they're suffering for funding, it's because they know they can get away with it.

I certainly support the scope of that limitation being reduced to violent felony charges, if not all the way to charges related to unlawful possession/use of a firearm with how the state stretches its definitions of laws to oppress people acting against it, like considering organized protest against cop city "domestic terrorism", bail funds for them felony money laundering, and distributing flyers containing public information to members of the public "felony intimidation". Shit, it's a felony to shelter yourself while homeless in Tennessee. I'm against denying any of them the right to arms for life because they pitched a tent as strongly as I'm against denying them the right to vote because of it.

"Go to" as if I didn't just cite that its most stringent supreme court interpretation from 100 years ago establishes it as a right of the individual. And I ain't no fucking fascist.

New precedent trumps old precedent. It's why Brown v Board is the law of the land and Plessy v Ferguson isn't. There (to my knowledge) hasn't been a challenge to the NFA that's reached the Supreme Court since that Caetano case in 2016 and the court hasn't explicitly struck down the prior precedent of its legality, so it still stands based on the other points in the ruling. Even the current NFA-related cases against bump stock and pistol brace bans working through courts are based more on whether the ATF can consider them as NFA items rather than whether the NFA itself can be considered constitutional, so it's likely to stick around.

Wild to see liberal interpretation go from "militia means military" to "arms doesn't even mean guns". At least acknowledges it as a right of the individual, which is a step in the right direction I guess. Hell of a take when even the strictest court precedent in US v Miller acknowledges it as the right of the individual to military arms, curious how this take spins the militia line.