So criminals can look up addresses before deciding which homes to break and enter? How is this not a good thing for criminals? Sure, less criminals may get shot. But then who are we trying to actually protect here?
Consider an absurd second order effect where, if it's true that you're less likely to be robbed by being on this register, it encourages more people to buy guns, even if it means they don't have to use them.
In Dec 2012, details of gun permits issued in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties just north of NYC were posted on an interactive map [1]. This was a nearly perfect test of the theory that criminal behavior would get worse in response to easy access to this kind of information. I found no news reports indicating people had been targeted one way or the other, and official stats [2] indicate serious crime decreased.
For comparison's sake, it looks like serious crimes decreased in Westchester by 6.8% while the decreased nationally by 5%. IMO, especially considering that difference comes out to a fairly small amount crimes in Westchester, I don't think you can assume there's any causative effect there.
You actually think criminals smart enough to inform themselves with such a list are dumb enough to avoid the houses practically guaranteed to contain some of the easiest to liquidate at FMV objects out there? (guns and ammo)
The thing I never understand about this argument is that there’s a much higher likelihood of significant injury or death (getting shot) robbing the houses with guns, no?
Guns may be “easy to liquidate” (not sure if that’s actually the case) but surely selling Xboxes and MacBooks on eBay is just as profitable?
In all likelihood, CCW-holders will be more likely to be robbed than the general populace, as they possess an item that is in very high demand for criminals, that has a high selling price, and that can be easily and quickly unloaded onto the black market. That's why most don't publicly announce their possession: it's not a deterrent but something that puts a target on your back.
A sufficiently motivated burglar can already prioritize their victims by selecting those with the highest donation amounts on public FEC reports, or simply selecting properties with the highest tax obligations. I wouldn't be surprised if the more enterprising ones already do, which is to say that this doesn't change much.
These threads are always so interesting for how they illustrate the mental space some people invest in criminal threat.
I’ve had a house burgled, two cars broken into, and know several victims of violent crime and still can’t relate even a little bit to the anxiety expressed here or the idea that any of those encounters would have turned out better with an extra gun around.
I don’t mean to challenge your point of view, just to note how huge the divide is between how people fundamentally conceive of this stuff.
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.
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?
> 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.
> 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".
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.
Compare that with this report from the Obama administration: http://nap.edu/18319
Annually, firearms in America are used in self defense between 500k and 3M times (real page 26, labeled as 15). Taking these numbers as true, the rate firearms are used in self defense vs. homicide is between 50x and 300x. Americans are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be unlawfully killed by one. They are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be killed in a mass shooting.
Consider an absurd second order effect where, if it's true that you're less likely to be robbed by being on this register, it encourages more people to buy guns, even if it means they don't have to use them.