PDA

View Full Version : How Dangerous Is My Home?


choprzrul
07-28-2012, 6:29 PM
Of all of the murders, rape, assault, kidnapping, et al; what percentage happen in the home and what percentage happen outside the home?

Is it, statistically, more likely to have the need to defend ourselves in our homes or away from home?

While I fully realize that being armed at all times is highly important, is it more important at home or away?

.

kaligaran
07-28-2012, 7:34 PM
Google 'Where does violent crimes occur'. You'll get lots of reports.

Here's some examples:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/447/Victims-Crime-WHEN-WHERE-DOES-VIOLENT-CRIME-HAPPEN.html

Even state specific examples such as:
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/pdf/virginia-crimes-and-school-discipline-infractions.pdf

kaligaran
07-28-2012, 7:41 PM
This got me looking out of curiosity. Here's some more stuff:
California specific:
http://oag.ca.gov/crime
Nationwide:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr/

Unfortunantly not all crimes are reported such as many sexual assaults and any crime where drugs were involved. But it gives some stats if you click around a bit.

choprzrul
07-28-2012, 8:02 PM
Google 'Where does violent crimes occur'. You'll get lots of reports.

Here's some examples:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/447/Victims-Crime-WHEN-WHERE-DOES-VIOLENT-CRIME-HAPPEN.html

Even state specific examples such as:
http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/pdf/virginia-crimes-and-school-discipline-infractions.pdf

Outstanding.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44

That got me the number I was looking for. 2004-2008 crime statistics.

26.7% of violent crimes occur in the home. That means 3/4 of violent crimes occur where a LTC is required.

.

Rossi357
07-28-2012, 11:30 PM
Statistically, you are more apt to die in your bathtub than from gunfire.

Carnivore
07-29-2012, 12:09 AM
Statistically, you are more apt to die in your bathtub than from gunfire.Well that depends. If you are white then yes, if you are a black male from the age of 16 to 22 then you have a better chance of dieing in the streets. Most murders are crime on crime meaning a drug dealer killing a junkie or rival gangs in a shoot out. We all have a much better chance of dieing in our cars on the way to the super market and a 1000 times greater chance of dieing from what we buy to eat at the supermarket.

odysseus
07-29-2012, 12:27 AM
From my previous readings that the FBI puts out, as well as other statistics in books I have read, crimes of violence such as the murder, rape, kidnapping, and assault you mentioned in majority are committed by someone the victim knew. Meaning as close as a family member to perhaps someone that maybe worked for them in the past. Violent crimes by random stranger are rare - given certain considerations of lifestyle and risk of placing oneself into certain specific scenarios where this risk may become elevated.

For example a liquor store clerk next to a freeway entrance, the guy holding a laptop and nice watch on public transportation everyday, one who is involved in illicit trades like a drug dealer, does open a risk envelope that is higher than someone who rarely exposes themselves to the general public, but certainly they too have a risk profile for other reasons.

choprzrul
07-29-2012, 6:23 AM
So, since the Heller decision gave us this jewel:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

and we are 3:1 more likely to encounter crime OUTSIDE the home, how can anyone make an argument that law abiding citizens should not be armed outside of the home?

Second question: is carrying a firearm for self defense outside of the home considered to be "...traditionally lawful purpose..."? If so, then wouldn't any law restricting carry outside of the home be unlawful under Heller? Since McDonald is in place, states are now completely subject to Heller.

Thoughts on using that clause from Heller as a Supreme Court issued LTC? Has the highest court in the land not said that having a gun for traditionally lawful purposes is within the scope of the 2A?

Yeah, I know, who wants to be the test case with the big bank account. I am looking at this from intellectual standpoint rather than a monetary point of view.

.

dantodd
07-29-2012, 7:11 AM
The point isn't that one should try and break the law by citing the supreme court, especially when they are silent on the specific issue at hand. Rather, the point should be that this is an interesting piece of information to include in a law suit challenging the LTC laws of CA or in Ana amicus brief supporting one of the many extant cases.

Cylarz
07-30-2012, 12:50 AM
Statistically, you are more apt to die in your bathtub than from gunfire.

And statistically more likely still to die from cancer or heart disease.

Still, I do what I can. Avoid cancer by not smoking and limiting your exposure to sunlight and carcinogens. Avoid heart disease by exercising and eating right. Avoid bathtub fatalities by being careful when getting in and out. Avoid gunfire deaths by carrying at all times and always using your firearms responsibly.

DonFerrando
07-30-2012, 2:44 AM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suspect that the largest part of all violent crimes committed at home are between people who know each other (domestic violence, intramarital rape, etc., not necessarily intruders), which is why I believe a right to carry is essential because outside of your castle is where most of the bad stuff happens. I do admit however that this assumption is based on absolutely nothing.

davbog44
07-30-2012, 2:52 AM
I could be wrong, but I don't think most of us here are thinking about or concerning ourselves with things like bath tub accidents, or our likelihood / unliklihood of getting shot by during a drug transaction.

As I read the OP, I think the point is this: The gun control debate doesn't seem too much about owning a gun to protect your home anymore. Sometimes it seems even the antis have accepted that premise.

The debate now seems to end up in one of two areas; what kind of weapon you can own (not really relevant in this discussion) and can you carry a firearm (and defend yourself with it) outside of the home.

Thus, the odds on where the average citizen is likely to be potential crime victim is relevant. If one concedes we have a right to keep a gun in the home for protection, then logic seems to argue we should be allowed to carry one with us when we have to go out and about in and amongst the criminally minded.

Personally, I think arguments based on the likelihood you could become a victim are based on a false and immoral premise. True, the guy delivering pharmaceutical cocaine to open all night drug stores while servicing his privately owned string of ATMs may be at a higher risk than I am, but his life is no more (or less) valuable.

nicki
07-30-2012, 3:40 AM
We have been at a stall in the 9th circuit because of the case and Alameda throwing the case is stalling us for the short term.

The 9th circuit though did provide us clues in the vacated Nordyke decisions regarding the second amendment.

The thing that struck me was the terms, undue burden and self defense.

In ruling for the county, the 9th circuit 3 judge panel was saying unless the ban on gun shows could be shown to burden the right of self defense which is the core purpose of the second amendment, the ban would pass constitutional muster.

What we got out of Heller was the following:

1. Handguns are common arms and they are as Justice Scalia wrote, the quintesensial self-defense tool.

2. We have a right to have "functional" arms, "functional" being defined as "loaded", ready for use in cases of "immediate confrontation.

3. Heller would not have gone into the whole "sensitive zone" issue if the 2nd amendment was limited only to the home.

4. Both the Peruta and Richards court ruled that since we could "open carry", that we had a means to bear arms when we were outside of the home, and that allowed them to avoid ruling on CCW issues.

Of course our state legislature banned open carry shortly after these rulings, so things should get interesting in federal court here shortly.

It isn't like there was an oversight at the legislature. The attorney for Peruta, Chuck Michel told the state judiciary panel that if they voted for AB144, Californians would have no way to exercise their second amendment right to bear arms and this action would make it easier to get a court to impose shall issue statewide and they still voted for AB144.

The SCOTUS will take eventually take a carry case, I figure that will happen by fall of 2013. The last states standing in these battles will be Ca, Hawaii, Illonis, Mass, New York and New Jersey.

I predict that Delaware and Rhode Island will fold.

We will get shall issue, but it will be another 18 to 24 months.

Nicki

leadstorm
07-30-2012, 7:45 AM
Statistically, you are more apt to die in your bathtub than from gunfire.It turns out that the death rate is pretty much 100%. ;)

I think what the OP is getting at is the odds of violence.

Wherryj
07-30-2012, 9:07 AM
Statistically, you are more apt to die in your bathtub than from gunfire.

Why hasn't there been legislation restricting assault tubs? I propose a limit of 10 gallons per tub...