Summations Only

If more criminals get shot during home invasions they're going to stop invading homes.

crashfrog writes:Your notion that criminals just have to break into them houses is nonsensical.

crashfrog writes: Sure, but of what possible relevance is that?

And yet, police training did change because of the incident. Failure of training.

They're trained to open fire under appropriate circumstances.

I will if you'll list the civilians that you want accidentally killed in the name of safety.

It isn't a strawman if that is what he is advocating.

He is advocating the right to shoot and killing someone for breaking into a house and stealing.

Show evidence this is true. Crime statistics do not support this.

But true.

Your claim is that criminals respond to guns by going straight.

crashfrog writes:But now you appear to be arguing against the training that, previously, you said was so important. Which is what I've been saying all along - police aren't trained in such a way as to give them superior judgement, they're trained to give them superior proficiency when it comes time to use their firearms.

crashfrog writes:But it's both obvious and supported by the evidence that crime rates are lowered by expanding handgun ownership, for instance by concealed-carry laws.

They were toward prevention of accidental discharges, which is a good thing in itself and is also directed toward prevention of bad reactions due to poor judgement.

Contrary to what you seem to be saying, police officers are not trained to open fire at the sound of a gunshot.

What I'm saying is that when homeowners have guns, even if the overall crime rate is reduced, the ones who stay in the game will be tougher, more ruthless and better armed.

You may be reducing the "crime rate" - however you measure that - but you're raising the level of intensity.

crashfrog writes:Shooting isn't the only function of proficiency.

crashfrog writes:Officers are trained to fire on those firing on them, and the four officers in that situation sadly had ample (if improbably deceptive) evidence that they were under fire. An uncooperative suspect drawing from under his jacket. A gunshot. An officer stumbling as if hit.

It's far more likely that criminals will simply not burglarize homes or burglarize homes they consider unlikely to be armed. And, according to much research, that's exactly what they tend to do - private gun ownership does have a positive effect on crime (at the expense of a far greater incidence of accidental gun injuries.)

In the United States, most residential burglariesabout 60 percent of reported offensesoccur in the daytime, when houses are unoccupied.(11)Occupancy. Most burglars do not target occupied houses, taking great care to avoid them. Some studies suggest burglars routinely ring doorbells to confirm residents' absence. How long residents are away from home is a strong predictor of the risk of burglary...(26)Burglarized houses often have unlocked or open windows or doors.(40)Studies show that alarms, combined with other security devices, reduce burglaries. Burglars are less likely to gain entry when a house has two or more security devices (including window locks, dead bolts, security lights, and alarms).(42) Studies of offenders show that burglars may avoid houses with good locks, burglar bars or other security devices.Burglars often know their victims,(74) who may include casual acquaintances, neighborhood residents, people for whom they have provided a service (such as moving or gardening), or friends or relatives of close friends. Thus, offenders have some knowledge of their victims, such as of their daily routine.(75)(11)Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000).
(26)Residential Burglary: the limits of prevention, by Stuart Winchester and Hilary Jackson,HOME OFFICE RESEARCH STUDY NO. 74, First published 1982
(40)Waller and Okihiro (1978); Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(42)Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(75)(Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins)?,Wright and Decker (1994).

Our findings suggest that the use of violence against offenders could reduce crime, but the extent of such reduction remains opaque. Increasing crime's harm, and the knowledge of it, may have limited effects on offenders who believe they are immune to harmful consequences; these people may have "stickier" perceptions that require considerable contradiction before they change. Moreover, if these offenders believe that most crime victims will use violence, they may be more likely to use preemptive violence, thereby increasing victim costs.
Crime victims may incur other costs if they rely on violence or its threat to deter offenders. Game theory research indicates that relying on individuals to prevent and respond to crime can discourage police activity, thereby creating greater opportunities for offending (Cressman, Morrison, and Wen 1998).
Mead's (1918) discussion of punitive justice points to further, macro-level consequences of punishments based on an "attitude of hostility" that may underlie individual violent responses to crime. These effects include support for the narrow beliefs that crime is caused exclusively by individual characteristics and a corresponding decrease in concerns for the social conditions that contribute to it. Sanctions communicate a society's views on crime and punishment, but they also convey assumptions about individual rights and citizenship (Duff 1996). Treating people as citizens requires that punishment create prudential incentives to obey the law, but it must supplement and not replace rational, moral persuasion. As Bentham reminds us (in the gender-specific language of the time), "it has been too frequently forgotten, that the delinquent is a member of the community, as well as any other individual. . . His welfare is proportionately the welfare of the community-his suffering the suffering of the community" (quoted in Zimring and Hawkins 1973:42). Thus, although perceptions about danger may inform the decision to offend, a sanction system that resorts to fear of pain is not a panacea for crime.

An estimated 259,800 households were victims of at least one break-in during the 2005 reference period, down from 354,500 in 2002.

crashfrog writes:And again there's no reason to suspect this escalation will occur, since criminals have all the opportunity in the world not to commit crimes.

crashfrog writes:I'm not sure what "intensity" could possibly mean or how it could be measured - what, are they gonna take your stuff extra-hard?