100 homicidal home invasions

[Blind groper]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... on/266613/

In the USA, there are about 100 home invasions each year which lead to a homicide.

Gun nutters are obsessed with self defense in the home. But having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of a member of your family using it to kill him/herself by a factor of 2 to 10 fold (depending on how securely it is stored).

Is it smart to keep a gun at home for self defense when the risk of being killed by a home invader is so small that on an individual basis it is nearly zero, when that same gun drastically and dramatically adds to the risk of a son or daughter suiciding?

[Seth]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... on/266613/

In the USA, there are about 100 home invasions each year which lead to a homicide.

And there are millions of home invasions that do not happen each year in the USA because homeowners are armed.

Gun nutters are obsessed with self defense in the home. But having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of a member of your family using it to kill him/herself by a factor of 2 to 10 fold (depending on how securely it is stored).

Lie.

Is it smart to keep a gun at home for self defense when the risk of being killed by a home invader is so small that on an individual basis it is nearly zero, when that same gun drastically and dramatically adds to the risk of a son or daughter suiciding?

False dilemma fallacy.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Do you not feel qualms of guilt when you call valid arguments lies?

[cronus]

I'm not sure I could manage that many. A dozen could be stashed about the place. Not a hundred.

[cronus]

I'm not sure I could manage that many. A dozen could be stashed about the place. Not a hundred.

[Seth]

Seth

Do you not feel qualms of guilt when you call valid arguments lies?

Yes, I do, but since you don't post valid arguments I don't feel a bit guilty calling your lies what they are: Lies.

[Blind groper]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506

The research that led to the claim that having a gun at home INCREASES risk of being killed was carried out by reputable researchers, was peer reviewed, and published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the most prestigious medical journals on the planet. It is not a lie.

Therefore, Seth, you are in the wrong by claiming it to be a lie. The fact that some stooge of the NRA claims it to be wrong does not make it wrong.

[Seth]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506

The research that led to the claim that having a gun at home INCREASES risk of being killed was carried out by reputable researchers, was peer reviewed, and published in The New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the most prestigious medical journals on the planet. It is not a lie.

Therefore, Seth, you are in the wrong by claiming it to be a lie. The fact that some stooge of the NRA claims it to be wrong does not make it wrong.

It's a lie that has been proven to be a lie by many peer reviewers. Your personal opinion about their credentials is merely an ad hominem evasion.

Fact: More guns, less crime.

[Tero]

The number of guns does not reduce crime by professional criminals one bit. Only when the cops are called is there anything done.

And we don't need a Seth anecdote here.You guys are just fucking amateurs. Where is your fucking militia? Zimmerman!

[Hermit]

Fact: More guns, less crime.

So what can we conclude from that? Let's have a look at total violent crimes per 100,000 of the US population between 1960 and 2014. Graph based on FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports via DisasterCenter.com.



Assuming more guns, less crime

1. There were over twice as many guns in circulation in 1960 compared to 2014.
2. By 1992 three quarters of all guns that were in circulation in 1960 had disappeared.

Am I doing it right?

[Blind groper]

http://portland.suntimes.com/national-w ... er-shotgun

Obviously, in the US of A, even dogs have the right to use arms!

To Hermit

The serious interpretation of your graph is simple. It reflects the age distribution of the population. Most crimes are committed by young men, from ages 18 to 30 approximately. The number of young men increased in the 1960's due to the baby boomer generation growing up, and the number of young men fell after 1990 due to the baby boomers getting older. Pretty simple.

The details are :

The baby boomers were those born between 1946 and 1964. Crime rates are higher for young men, meaning maximum criminal behaviour between 18 and 30 years of age.
1946 plus 18 years = 1964, which is when crime began to rise. The end of this period was 1964 plus 30 years = 1994, when the crime rate fell.

Not quite as simple as that, since men a little younger than 18 and a little older than 30 are also more criminal, though not as much as 18 to 30.


This makes total sense, which Seth's idiotic theory does not.

[Hermit]

The serious interpretation of your graph is simple. It reflects the age distribution of the population. Most crimes are committed by young men, from ages 18 to 30 approximately. The number of young men increased in the 1960's due to the baby boomer generation growing up, and the number of young men fell after 1990 due to the baby boomers getting older. Pretty simple.

And wrong. Yes, with the baby boomers growing up the number of people most likely to commit violent crimes rose from 1960 onwards, but this does not explain a 300 per cent rise between then and 1992.

[Tero]

Here is the real reason baby boomers had to have guns and violence:
http://aetherforce.com/psychological-ef ... blank-m-d/

[Seth]

Fact: More guns, less crime.

So what can we conclude from that? Let's have a look at total violent crimes per 100,000 of the US population between 1960 and 2014. Graph based on FBI UCS Annual Crime Reports via DisasterCenter.com.



Assuming more guns, less crime

1. There were over twice as many guns in circulation in 1960 compared to 2014.
2. By 1992 three quarters of all guns that were in circulation in 1960 had disappeared.

Am I doing it right?

No. Where did you get the silly notion that guns "disappear"?

I've got one from 1940 that still shoots just fine, and another circa 1920.

[Seth]

http://portland.suntimes.com/national-w ... er-shotgun

Obviously, in the US of A, even dogs have the right to use arms!

To Hermit

The serious interpretation of your graph is simple. It reflects the age distribution of the population. Most crimes are committed by young men, from ages 18 to 30 approximately. The number of young men increased in the 1960's due to the baby boomer generation growing up, and the number of young men fell after 1990 due to the baby boomers getting older. Pretty simple.

The details are :

The baby boomers were those born between 1946 and 1964. Crime rates are higher for young men, meaning maximum criminal behaviour between 18 and 30 years of age.
1946 plus 18 years = 1964, which is when crime began to rise. The end of this period was 1964 plus 30 years = 1994, when the crime rate fell.

Not quite as simple as that, since men a little younger than 18 and a little older than 30 are also more criminal, though not as much as 18 to 30.

So, if you are correct, it still doesn't change the fact of more guns, less crime. What we do NOT see is more guns, more crime. Therefore, the claim that the number of guns in our society is the cause of violent crime is specious and false, as you yourself have admitted in the past.

This being the case under your argument, specious as it is, there is no rational need or reason to ban or restrict gun ownership or possession by law abiding citizens.
This makes total sense, which Seth's idiotic theory does not.