Feeling threatened? Shoot them.

[Bjorn]

no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them

But in Mississippi, breaking into homes is not burglary. It's ... it's ... something else .

 

[shanek]

But in Mississippi, breaking into homes is not burglary. It's ... it's ... something else .

Bjorn, I have responded to that point numerous times. Why are you ignoring my responses?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Why are you ignoring my responses?

Because they're bollox.

 

[shanek]

Because they're bollox.

And you are under no obligation to explain why? Or do you just get to insult them and dismiss them that way?

 

[Bjorn]

Bjorn, I have responded to that point numerous times. Why are you ignoring my responses?

Maybe because your answer to "So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?" was to give statistics for a lot of other crimes, but not burglary?

Maybe because when it was pointed out to you that burglary was the crime in question, you answered: "No, it wasn't"?

Maybe because your explanation of the contradiction was that "how is a homeowner going to shoot the intruder when he's not home"?

I don't know the answer to the last one, but it sure doesn't stop people from breaking into more homes in Mississippi than in the average state .... which was what your original statement was about, wasn't it?

How can you insist that your statement that

the situation makes it so that the criminals are going to tend to switch to less risky crimes, such as breaking in when someone's not there

is not contradicting

no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them

when you're also saying that

90% of burglaries in the US occur when people are away from home

Or maybe, just maybe, the reason I haven't accepted your point of view is the non-answers like

I didn't use the word robbery, but I didn't use the word burglary, either. Stop putting words in my mouth, people. What I said was crystal clear.

Sure ....

 

[Ian Osborne]

And you are under no obligation to explain why? Or do you just get to insult them and dismiss them that way?

Because even if the terms 'housebreaking' and 'burglary' are not synonymous, if 'no one in their right mind would break into a house in Mississippi', one could reasonably infer that burglaries (a masive portion of which are housebreakings) in that state would be below average. As Bjorn has already proved, they're not.

 

[shanek]

Maybe because your answer to "So there is no burgulry in Mississippi, right?" was to give statistics for a lot of other crimes, but not burglary?

I had thought it was obvious that burglary was not the crime to use here. So I presented statistics for crimes that were more germaine. I forget who said the part you quoted, but the onus should be on him to show why burglary is relevant.

I don't know the answer to the last one, but it sure doesn't stop people from breaking into more homes in Mississippi than in the average state .... which was what your original statement was about, wasn't it?

No, it was about how the possibility of meeting an armed victim deterred crime.

Or maybe, just maybe, the reason I haven't accepted your point of view is the non-answers like

I didn't use the word robbery, but I didn't use the word burglary, either. Stop putting words in my mouth, people. What I said was crystal clear.

Sure ....

That's not a non-answer. Anyone with a logical brain can see the relationship. You just don't have an answer for it, so you stick to your original point as if no one said anything.

 

[shanek]

Because even if the terms 'housebreaking' and 'burglary' are not synonymous, if 'no one in their right mind would break into a house in Mississippi', one could reasonably infer that burglaries (a masive portion of which are housebreakings) in that state would be below average.

One could not reasonable infer that because again you're dishonestly leaving out the rest of the sentence, which involves meeting an armed homeowner. So if you're going to insist on using burglaries, you must limit yourself in the statistics to using hot burglaries, which was not done.

 

[LW]

One could not reasonable infer that because again you're dishonestly leaving out the rest of the sentence, which involves meeting an armed homeowner. So if you're going to insist on using burglaries, you must limit yourself in the statistics to using hot burglaries, which was not done.

I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I thought to pop in to mention that when I read your original post, I understood it to mean all burglaries and I still feel that it was a reasonable interpretation.

 

[Bjorn]

I had thought it was obvious that burglary was not the crime to use here.

The statement was about breaking into houses, and you thought it was obvious that burglary was not the crime to use?

No, it was about how the possibility of meeting an armed victim deterred crime.

It certainly wasn't deterring people from breaking into houses in Mississippi .....

You just don't have an answer for it, so you stick to your original point as if no one said anything.

As if no one said anything? Hehe. If that was the case, why do you think I actually qouted your words a handful of times?

 

[merphie]

Because even if the terms 'housebreaking' and 'burglary' are not synonymous, if 'no one in their right mind would break into a house in Mississippi', one could reasonably infer that burglaries (a masive portion of which are housebreakings) in that state would be below average. As Bjorn has already proved, they're not.

According to the FBI they are. The IBR code is 220 "Burglary/Breaking and entering"

 

[shanek]

I haven't been following this thread too closely, but I thought to pop in to mention that when I read your original post, I understood it to mean all burglaries and I still feel that it was a reasonable interpretation.

Perhaps the original post alone could be read that way...but what about the numerous clarifications I've given since that time? Is it reasonable for people to continue to insist that that's what I meant?

 

[Suddenly]

Okay, trying to get this thread back on track...

Some people were dissatisfied with Mississippi as a single indication of whether or not guns prevent crime. So here's what I did:

I got a list of the states that had unrestricted gun possession, shall-issue permit states, and gun restricted states from keepandbeararms.com. I got their crime data for 2003 from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. I took the different categories, state by state, and took the population and the rate of violent crimes per 100,000 population. I made a weighted average, an average of the violent crime rate weighted by population. Here's what I came up with:

States that restrict the carrying of guns (CA, DE, HI, IA, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, IL, KS, NE, WI): Total population 103,939,261; violent crime rate 494.2 (4% above the national average of 475).

Shall-issue permit states (all of the rest except AK and VT): Total population 181,167,608; violent crime rate 459.2 (3% below the national average).

Unrestricted gun carry states (AK and VT): Total population 1,267,925; violent crime rate 357.5 (25% below the national average).

Seems like a clear trend to me!

How dare you muddy the waters with facts and evidence? Don't you realize this thread is about that offhand comment that you made 298 pages ago and later clairified? Your rhetoric is out of control, you Badnarik weenie.




Seriously though, the AK stat caught me off guard, as I keep hearing that they have a high murder rate, but a murder rate isn't the same as a high violent crime rate, maybe in Alaska when someone gets violent they do a clean job... Or maybe 1993 was a mellow year there...

My guess is that, as guns become more available, the following will happen:

1) Murder rate goes up, as loonies have more guns and because of the perverse side of (2) below, that if you are going to bother to rob someone better just kill in case they are armed or reach for it, also a "wild west" problem where some stickup victim has seen too many movies and decides he can outdraw the guy who already has his gun drawn and aimed...

2) Other violent crime falls as, well, why attack the possibly armed? Just walk away... An armed society is a polite one, or a bloodbath depending on local culture and just how mad people get...

3) Property crime increases, as two-bit stickup men who aren't willing to kill become two-bit burgulars, forgers, and scammers.

Do I have data to support this? Nope, but it seems to follow from other data in this thread...

 

[shanek]

According to the FBI they are. The IBR code is 220 "Burglary/Breaking and entering"

We've covered this. Breaking and entering does not have to be a house; you can burgle a car, for example. And it only applies when the breaking and entering is the main crime. If someone breaks in to kill someone, then that's counted as murder, not burglary.

 

[Ian Osborne]

One could not reasonable infer that because again you're dishonestly leaving out the rest of the sentence, which involves meeting an armed homeowner. So if you're going to insist on using burglaries, you must limit yourself in the statistics to using hot burglaries, which was not done.

Your quote in full:

I have a friend who works a lot with prisoners. It really is true that prisons are like graduate schools for crime. They all exchange knowledge, tips, etc. about how to commit more effective crimes. And they also share knowledge about what kind of crimes to avoid. One of those is that, no criminal in his right mind would break into a home in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them, regardless of what circumstances surround this.

Remember all those times you broke down the second amendment into its component parts to demonstrate the 'well regulated militia' was a justification, not a requirement? Do it here...

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm still trying to figure out why a criminal would break into a house, if not to steal something....

Use the loo? Sure, when you gotta go, you gotta go, but.....

Use the new X-box? Hey, I can understand the attraction, but.....

Vandalism? If you hold a grudge, sure, but.....

Come on, shanek: The major reason why people break into houses is to steal. Admit it, and admit that your case is lost.

 

[shanek]

Seriously though, the AK stat caught me off guard, as I keep hearing that they have a high murder rate, but a murder rate isn't the same as a high violent crime rate, maybe in Alaska when someone gets violent they do a clean job... Or maybe 1993 was a mellow year there...

Alaska's was the higher of the two. The Vermont statistic pulled the average in that category down, even though Alaska has a slightly larger population.

My guess is that, as guns become more available, the following will happen:

1) Murder rate goes up, as loonies have more guns and because of the perverse side of (2) below, that if you are going to bother to rob someone better just kill in case they are armed or reach for it, also a "wild west" problem where some stickup victim has seen too many movies and decides he can outdraw the guy who already has his gun drawn and aimed...

I don't think there's any reason to assume that. Criminals can get guns already, so there's no reason to assume that appreciably more of them will have guns when they're legalized.

Although if you like, I can redo the statistics using just the murder rate and see what we get.

3) Property crime increases, as two-bit stickup men who aren't willing to kill become two-bit burgulars, forgers, and scammers.

Probably some truth to that, although I think it's more along the lines of people moving from crimes against people (who could now shoot at them) to inanimate objects. Again, I could do the statistics looking at property crime if you like and see if there's a relationship there.

 

[Suddenly]

According to the FBI they are. The IBR code is 220 "Burglary/Breaking and entering"

Generally speaking, a "Burglary" is the breaking into a residence with the intent to commit a crime (at common law a larceny or felony).

Whereas "Breaking and Entering" is the breaking into any building not a residence with similar intent...

So the FBI numbers include non-residences... If someone broke into a McDonalds at 4AM to steal a gallon of special sauce, it winds up in the numbers....

The reason why "housebreaking" and "burglary" are often seperate is that classically "burglary" was limited to those breakings that occured at night and with the intent to commit a felony or other crime.

Some jurisdictions expanded on this by just redifining the term by statute, some created a "daytime" burglary statute, there are "entering without breaking" laws and so on... "Housebreaking" is very likely one of these, a law that extends the burglary concept past the common law and may have slightly different penalties...

 

[Bjorn]

Perhaps the original post alone could be read that way

I gave you a very reasonable imaginary scenario to allow you to back out a little:

originally posted by shanek2
no one in his right mind breaks into a house in Mississippi, because no jury there would ever convict a homeowner of shooting them

originally posted by bjorn2/ion2
but they do break into houses in Mississippi, a lot in fact

originally posted by shanek2
Oh, well it looks like you're right.

But they have far less violent crime, look at these statistics I found

originally posted by bjorn2/ion2
that might be correct

Easy, isn't it?

...but what about the numerous clarifications I've given since that time? Is it reasonable for people to continue to insist that that's what I meant?

... maybe you should have taken my hint and said "Perhaps the original post alone could be read that way"?

 

[merphie]

We've covered this. Breaking and entering does not have to be a house; you can burgle a car, for example. And it only applies when the breaking and entering is the main crime. If someone breaks in to kill someone, then that's counted as murder, not burglary.

Chances are they would be charged with 220 (B/E) and 09A (Murder)