Regarding "are in your home explicitly to do you harm, not rob, not do anything profit-related", how would you know that? Why would you believe that whatever their original motive for entering might have been, they would not become very dangerous if encountered?
Considering that we have not had a break-in of an occupied home in our neighborhood for years, one might tend to downplay the risk.There is the "ninjas jumping through my window" block buster movie scenario. I would expect that if the poster knows the relative odds of that happening in his neighborhood....
That the likelihood of a violent break-in may be low tells us nothing whatsoever about what would unfold in the event. Why would more time be afforded to the resident because a break-in is less likely?....and has decided that a few seconds of unlocking is sufficient then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Since criminals are very mobile, and since valuables are more likely to be found in "better" neighborhoods, that's an iffy assessment to make.There are neighborhoods where I would carry all the time, even at home. Apparently, that poster doesn't live in one of those.
Yes, and for almost fifty years I "thought" that keeping the gun in the bedroom was "best".We all do what we think is best.
Since criminals are very mobile, and since valuables are more likely to be found in "better" neighborhoods, that's an iffy assessment to make.
The Poverty-Crime Connection
High Crime Rates Among Poor: Why
It is a fact that neighborhoods where the poor are concentrated are more prone to high crime rates, and poor residents are the most common victims of crimes. Beyond a simplistic answer of "poor people want/need more stuff so they have to take it," what are other, more researched answers? Oscar Newman offered several in "Creating Defensible Space" (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996, $15):
#• A one-parent household headed by a female is more vulnerable to criminal attack.
• Families with only one adult present are less able to control their teenage children.
• Young teenage mothers are often victimized by their boyfriends.
• The criminal activity by the poor is tolerated, if not condoned, among the poor.
• The poor, and particularly the poor members of racial minorities, are unable to demand as much police protection.
• Committing crimes against residents in rundown and "ghetto" areas requires minimal skill and risk.
We were not discussing crime rates in general. We were discussing the unlawful entry of occupied residences.Why is it an "iffy" assessment? I would think that it would be obvious without a government study that "worse" neighborhoods have higher crime rates.
It is a fact that neighborhoods where the poor are concentrated are more prone to high crime rates, and poor residents are the most common victims of crimes.
Committing crimes against residents in rundown and "ghetto" areas requires minimal skill and risk.
oldmarksman said:We were discussing the unlawful entry of occupied residences ... In "better" neighborhoods, there is a higher likelihood that homes will contain cash, jewels, salable electronics, credit cards, and even someone who can be taken to an ATM than homes "where the poor are concentrated".
Greater chance on a better return on investment, and burglars know that.
From 1994 to 2011, households with an income of $14,999
or less were victimized at a higher rate than households
with higher incomes.
The average offenders travel less than a mile to commit the crime," Spelman said. "Offenders usually don't steal outside their front door because they are too vulnerable. But they don't want to go too far away because they don't want to go (to the) trouble. The average victims are almost as poor as the offender.
Victims of crime: Who is at greatest risk?
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income under $7,500: 67.0
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $7,500-$14,999: 44.2
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $15,000-$24,999: 38.9
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $25,000-$34,999: 37.1
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $35,000-$49,999: 30.9
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $50,000-$74,999: 24.1
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income of $75,000 or more: 23.1
The largest change occurs between incomes of $150,000 and $200,000. Those households making more than $200,000 per year are significantly less likely to be burglarized. Above this level, home owners may install more sophisticated security protection, they may work out of home offices, or they may have housekeepers at home most of the day. Whatever the case, a relatively large drop occurs in the proportion of homes burglarized at these higher income levels, with no significant difference in the lower income categories.
There is the "ninjas jumping through my window" block buster movie scenario. I would expect that if the poster knows the relative odds of that happening in his neighborhood and has decided that a few seconds of unlocking is sufficient then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
There are neighborhoods where I would carry all the time, even at home. Apparently, that poster doesn't live in one of those.
We all do what we think is best.
Of course not. Why would anyone think otherwise? I'ts not where they live, it's where they work.Research tends to discredit your theory, I doubt that you'll find very many burglars living in high-income neighborhoods.
oldmarksman said:there is no real reduction in burglary rate as the value of the home increases.
Residential Burglaries
Those households making more than $200,000 per year are significantly less likely to be burglarized.
The only category that saw an increase was robberies. Numbers show 26 robberies were reported in 2013, compared to 15 in 2012 and 20 in 2011. Nationally, the rate for solving violent crime in 2012 was 46.8 percent, according to the FBI. The sheriff's office clearance rate that year was 89.1 percent
oldmarksman said:Not long ago I happened to be sitting near some tracks unarmed in a great neighborhood
oldmarksman said:The likelihood of a home invasion where I live is less than remote; the stakes are what define the risk
That's very basic risk management.The likelihood of a home invasion where I live is less than remote; the stakes are what define the risk
Interesting viewpoint. Screwy statement. How do the stakes define the risk?
That's silly in the extreme.Approximately twice as many people commit suicide by guns every year as are murdered in total by every other means. If the stake is your life and you believe that the stake defines the risk, the best thing you can do concerning firearms to minimize the risk to your life is to make sure that there are no guns available to you.
That is a very serious risk, for me.Your loved ones are about as likely to die from a fall as from an assault. Do they wear a bubble suit and helmet all the time? Remember, the stakes define the risk, right?
You are somehow assuming that a helmet would be an effective means of mitigation.Do you wear a helmet in your car? Doing so would do IMMENSELY more to decrease the risk of death (50% to 70% of deaths in car accidents are from traumatic brain injury) than any amount of guns you may carry. I don't believe that I've EVER seen anyone wearing a helmet in a car on the road.
Your loved ones are about as likely to die from a fall as from an assault. Do they wear a bubble suit and helmet all the time? Remember, the stakes define the risk, right?
Approximately twice as many people commit suicide by guns every year as are murdered in total by every other means. If the stake is your life and you believe that the stake defines the risk, the best thing you can do concerning firearms to minimize the risk to your life is to make sure that there are no guns available to you.
Don't forget people who have to take anti-coagulants.I'll wager the VAST majority of deaths due to "falls" are....
I recently found out that a walking stick can help. Try Brazos Walking Sticks...... dunno if it supports the "odds" or the "stakes" crowd, but these are the folks that often rely on canes and walkers...... and for good reason.
oldmarksman said:One characterizes risk in two dimensions: the likelihood of occurrence, and the severity of the potential consequences.
You are somehow assuming that a helmet would be an effective means of mitigation.
If it were, we would likely see more of them.
oldmarksman said:Now, if you could have a system that would restrain the helmet from moving in the event of a collision, that would be effective. That's the current state of the art in motor racing.
Bu I cannot use one in my car, so it is not on the list of possible mitigation techniques.