I would question the veracity of that statistic. I would agree that a quarter of recorded robberies might occur at night, but it would seem many or most of those cases are people either:
Going into homes at night that they know to be empty.
Breaking into homes for purposes of rape/murder, but committing robbery while they’re there.
They do think that the homes are empty for a part; others think they’re stealthy.
As for the rest, no. People breaking into homes to kill or rape strangers are far rarer than you seem to think. In France, and again I have no reason to believe the situation is very different in the United States, more than 80% of rape victims knew their attacker. These are not typically people who break into homes at night. Of the remaining 20%, only a fraction involve home invasions.
At worst, that amounts to a few thousand cases per year in the United States, and probably fewer than the number of firearm-related intrafamilial homicides (which also number a few thousand, but are at least slightly more common than rapes committed during home invasions) and vastly fewer than firearm suicides.
Owning a firearm does not statistically make you safer, on the contrary. If you have enough money to buy a weapon, buy a security system and an alarm instead. They will be far more effective and much less risky.
Sorry. But if someone is breaking into my home at night, I have no means to judge their intent. As far as I’m concerned, you forfeit your right to life when you choose to break into someone else’s home. You’re right on the relative riskiness of gun ownership, but that’s irrelevant to this conversation. We’re talking about incidents of shootings of home invaders, not whether it’s a good idea to own a firearm in general.
I’m sorry, but I have no problem with home intruders being shot dead. If you have so little concern for the safety and well-being of others that you would put their lives at risk in such a brazen way, you deserve whatever consequences you receive. It’s instant karma.
No it’s not. It’s very relevant, because it shows you prefer a more dangerous solution over a less dangerous one which is just as efficient, if not more. Why?
I would question the veracity of that statistic. I would agree that a quarter of recorded robberies might occur at night, but it would seem many or most of those cases are people either:
They do think that the homes are empty for a part; others think they’re stealthy.
As for the rest, no. People breaking into homes to kill or rape strangers are far rarer than you seem to think. In France, and again I have no reason to believe the situation is very different in the United States, more than 80% of rape victims knew their attacker. These are not typically people who break into homes at night. Of the remaining 20%, only a fraction involve home invasions.
At worst, that amounts to a few thousand cases per year in the United States, and probably fewer than the number of firearm-related intrafamilial homicides (which also number a few thousand, but are at least slightly more common than rapes committed during home invasions) and vastly fewer than firearm suicides.
Owning a firearm does not statistically make you safer, on the contrary. If you have enough money to buy a weapon, buy a security system and an alarm instead. They will be far more effective and much less risky.
Sorry. But if someone is breaking into my home at night, I have no means to judge their intent. As far as I’m concerned, you forfeit your right to life when you choose to break into someone else’s home. You’re right on the relative riskiness of gun ownership, but that’s irrelevant to this conversation. We’re talking about incidents of shootings of home invaders, not whether it’s a good idea to own a firearm in general.
I’m sorry, but I have no problem with home intruders being shot dead. If you have so little concern for the safety and well-being of others that you would put their lives at risk in such a brazen way, you deserve whatever consequences you receive. It’s instant karma.
No it’s not. It’s very relevant, because it shows you prefer a more dangerous solution over a less dangerous one which is just as efficient, if not more. Why?