I'll go further. I'd rather be burgled than kill someone.

If someone broke into my house and tried to steal my TV, as long as they weren't trying to hurt me or my family, hell, I'd help them carry it.

It's just stuff and it's not worth taking a human life over.

I advocate for more firearm regulations, as does the NRA finally, and more enforcement of them. My home is protected by multiple legal firearms. These two statements of fact are in no way at odds.
Only a provocateur would say any regulation equates to a complete ban. No thinking person would make themselves look so ridiculous by spouting such nonsense.

How about comparing murder rates.....4.8 per 100000 U.S. vs .92 Britain. I'd rather be burgled than murdered.

Sure, that sucks more than usual, but again padlocks aren't for locking up valuable things. They prevent opportunistic casual theft. They're one step above luggage locks--only better than a nylon zip-tie because they can be reused.

If you use this with the intention of keeping out the class of people who might know this trick or bring tools along for their burgling, (like say a $20 bolt cutter that will do for most any padlock) you're doing it wrong.

burgle not burgal (in the tags). also, netrunner, please start posting/commenting again.

" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

Your right but in Zimmerman neighborhood there have been break in by young black men. Hence young black thiefs' set the precedent for Martin to be followed.


If it were young white kids doing the break ins then Zimmerman would have followed them.

Its been later found but not allowed in the trial ( rightly so) that Martin had burgles tools and pot items in his locker, Woman's Jewelery. Also the pictures of him smoking pot and the gun photo on his phone and apparently he took a Swing at a bus driver.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120504/Trayvon-Martin-case-He-suspended-times-caught-burglary-tool.html



In the end Martin is a young man embarking on his criminal carer and decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson and lost.

LOVE the fact he says "Burgled" at 5:19. Awesome.

It apparently came to the author's attention that he made a mistake in calculating the numbers for violent crime for the UK vs the US.

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

Regardless, you are still more likely to be burgled, have your car stolen, be raped, suffer aggravated assault, be shot and murdered in the US than in the UK.

While I'll concede he gives a generally more accurate view of stats than most, he still commits the same basic fallacy of failing to distinguish how each country defines violent crime. You do realise "violent crime" is a blanket term, right?

Take a look at this:

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

In sum, if we concentrate on individual crimes. You're more likely to be carjacked, burgled, raped, suffer aggravated assault, murdered and shot in the US than in the UK.

Cripes the cops got there quick. And yeah, lay off the lady, she's panicking.

Perhaps she's a little TOO on the edge but I've seen tv shows where they pretend to burgle people's houses while the owners look on via CCTV. They almost always start weeping and feeling distressed. Doubt I'd be much different.

Good for her that she installed the camera. I'd imagine it notified her based on motion.

Speaking to the Law, respectfully, there is no Law.

In the states with Castle Doctrine laws, it is indeed varied. In Texas, deadly force maybe used against one having forced entry into or using force to attempt to enter a dwelling or place of business. Refer to the video. Here, it could have been tragically different in outcome. In fact, my response was to the gentleman poster's representation of similar activities as great fun.

In Texas, one may use deadly force, at night, in instances of vandalism and theft as well.

Other jurisdictions have eschewed Castle Doctrine so as not to limit the scope of actions that one may take to protect themselves and their properties. Others, otherwise. I am not seeking to enter into a philosophical discussion about such, but merely to address the inherent dangers of certain perceived fun.

Personally speaking, I live in a nice neighborhood with largely retired professionals and upper middle class with young professionals moving in. That said, I can stand on my front porch and see the site of a home invasion that nearly cost the life of an ex-judge, a house broken into three times with the occupant home each time and assaulted(elderly female), a daylight armed robbery of an individual watering a lawn, I could continue.... I witnessed three teens kicking a door of and elderly neighbor, pursued and detained them three weeks ago. I managed to get their home address and escorted them there and confronted their parents without having to call the police. The neighbor was approaching the door when I scared them off and would have opened fire if they had been successful. Her neighbor's house was burgled Sunday afternoon the following week.

I apologize if too much.

Some turds need to be burgled
Others need to be flushed

^It's nice that your list excludes all of the CEO's and other useless corporate executives/bureaucrats that skim profit off the top without providing any actual health care value, because that is precisely what a decent universal health care system would do. Bryce is clearly saying that the priorities of a health care system should not revolve around making profit, but rather providing health care. Obviously, health care professionals will always need to be compensated.

I don't see what you intend to gain by siding with the corporations and conservative drones on this one. Our corporate run system already burgles more tax dollars per capita than any of the public systems you'd find in Canada, England, Israel, etc. You don't stand to gain anything by this, other than giving corporate America another notch in its belt. Do you think they will somehow reward you for your loyalty? Again, the unbending principals of the American libertarian party laugh in the face of logic, reason and grim, meat-hook reality.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. I never took your actions as anything other than defense of the community. Burgle on!

lol!
I had actually posted that one too...
http://www.videosift.com/video/How-I-Burgle-My-Turds


In reply to this comment by rasch187:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Burdturgler-s-new-dog