Yeah, yeah that's indeed where I draw the line. I don't think a person is morally obligated to ascribe best-intentions to someone breaking & entering (again, they'll be violent toward you 26% of the time), I don't think a person is morally obligated to be a victim of violence in their own home, I don't think a person is morally obligated to evacuate what is meant to be their safe haven, and I sure as shit don't think anyone else either with a badge or without is coming to be the good guy for you. And as defense, I don't think it is murder.

You are being extremely disingenuous when you say that since you’re only counting household burglaries. And I’m sure you know it.

I'm literally commenting on how the person above me claims American firearms ownership makes "the act of “home invasion” fundamentally different in the UK and the US." by "turning “somebody stole my iPad” into “somebody stole my iPad and then shot me in the spine”." Household burglaries is the context of the conversation.

you would have us believe that only 108 of those happened in someone’s house?

No, I am claiming that ~108 incidents (could be 1 or more victims per) happen by a burglar's hands. You know that, you just said I'm being deceitful for limiting it to those parameters, and now you're lying about them.

the CDC doesn’t track all gun deaths

Correct, and I haven't cited CDC data. As I've said many times now, I've cited Gun Violence Archive's numbers, whose sole mission is to catalog as high of numbers as they can. Their 2016 combined homicide & suicide stats exceed your source's numbers at 38k. I've also been using the higher number of ~60k deaths & injuries from someone else's gun per year instead of ~45k combined homicides & suicides.

Because in a discussion of someone's claim of "essentially zero" risk of harm from someone in a home invasion, the actual risk is currently very close to the widely-agreed-upon, internationally-lambasted, domestic-politics-dominating risk of harm from another's gun. Or hey, we'll count what you purposefully do to yourself as well and say it's 2/3 of the way there.

I really don't understand how saying "home invasion isn't a boogeyman, being harmed from it is as likely as gun violence" has been interpreted as "you're saying gun violence is a boogeyman" other than everyone here taking the top comment at face value and losing all basic literacy when the circlejerk stops.

Every number I pull from the article is backed up by a separate primary source they provide. Their citation for overall burglary numbers, as linked (little blue 1), is from the FBI's crime tracker. Their citation on the specifics for burglaries, including % where the owner is present and stats on violent crime victimization as part of burglaries, comes from a DOJ report that they link. The # of US households was just me googling and pulling the first result, but census data puts it at 125 million.

The 2nd source is just using FBI data as well, extrapolating the reported crime amount from the reported population over the whole population. The official FBI number of 673,261 burglaries divided by .75 (% of population those account for) gives 897,681, and the FBI's chart over time (counted in burglaries per 100,000 population rather than households) does indeed show that burglaries, as with all violent crime, have gotten considerably safer over the past 10-20 years.

Still far from 0, and still more common than the crime that's America's blight onto the world.

You’re still more likely to be shot by someone, it’s just the “someone” might be you

Pardon me for not considering actions I have control over in a discussion on the likelihood of violence one doesn't have control over. And again, I'm citing larger numbers for gun violence victims than what they are citing incorrectly.

But it’ll never be one of your kids with one of your guns, will it buddy

At 1 in ~2000 odds (10 in 10,000 suicide rate, 50% firearms for ages 10-24), or literally the exact same odds that I'm saying a person should be prepared for based on their consequences, those are absolutely odds I would act to minimize if I lived with a minor or anyone suffering mental health issues.

Just here to point out that it'll never be your home, will it buddy?

If they’re supplying them, they’re usually bullshit

No need for hypotheticals here, we've got hard examples of stats & studies that either are or aren't bs. Although the only bit I talk about on gun violence is from the GVA, but you're welcome to call them BS if you wish.

there’s a layer of murder on top of every crime

At ~20,000/year, it's 1 in 17,500 people. Or 1 in 6,180 households to keep comparisons equal.

The point of the comparison isn't to downplay gun violence, as should have been evident by how I'm arguing an equally-likely violent home invasion isn't something to dismiss.

Nearly ~~600,000~~ 900,000 burglaries occur yearly in the US, with 27.6% occurring while occupants were present and 25% of those incidents involving ~~an assault~~ violent crime on the occupants. (https://insurify.com/homeowners-insurance/insights/burglary-statistics/) That comes to ~~37,500~~ ~62,100 ~~break-in assaults~~ victims of violent crimes from break-ins in the US per year, divided by 123.6 million households in the US comes to a 1 in ~~3,296~~ 1,990 chance of a household's occupants being assaulted in a break-in each year. That's ~~68%~~ roughly as many incidents as being injured or killed by a firearm anywhere in the country each year as tallied by the GVA. Hardly zero, unless you also mean to minimize US gun violence.

Though either of these stats are hardly able to be applied broadly across the entire country given their driving force of poverty and its extreme regional & local disparities.

Edit: Actually those 600,000 burglaries only account for 69% of the US population. The actual number is ~900,000 nationally, bumping the math's number of violent crimes including assault, robbery, and rape experienced in homes up to ~62,100 or 1 in 1,990, surpassing being a victim of broad gun violence as tallied by the GVA when removing instances of justified self-defense.

Step 2: show that what they said was wrong.

Quite literally all but 1 came after the 1972 ban.

Also yet another bootlicking judge leaving the guy charged with nothing but resisting arrest.

You had me up until "fund the police state" as if US police unions aren't already the most powerful groups in the country to be a member of, as if any state or municipality has meaningfully cracked down on policing abuses, as if the US doesn't already have incarceration rates 5x the next NATO member, as if the US doesn't already spend more on policing than all but 2 nations do on their militaries, as if police spending ever dropped even 1%, and as if supposed funding cuts aren't just city council members shuffling the numbers around while the departments themselves see steady budget growth year-over-year.

Your experience is simply finding yourself calling in an incident on the wrong street for the wrong person, a call the officers know won't affect their bottom line. It's always been the case, whether passively delaying responses or actively corralling rioters away from wealthy districts. It's not because they're suffering for funding, it's because they know they can get away with it.

I certainly support the scope of that limitation being reduced to violent felony charges, if not all the way to charges related to unlawful possession/use of a firearm with how the state stretches its definitions of laws to oppress people acting against it, like considering organized protest against cop city "domestic terrorism", bail funds for them felony money laundering, and distributing flyers containing public information to members of the public "felony intimidation". Shit, it's a felony to shelter yourself while homeless in Tennessee. I'm against denying any of them the right to arms for life because they pitched a tent as strongly as I'm against denying them the right to vote because of it.

New precedent trumps old precedent. It's why Brown v Board is the law of the land and Plessy v Ferguson isn't. There (to my knowledge) hasn't been a challenge to the NFA that's reached the Supreme Court since that Caetano case in 2016 and the court hasn't explicitly struck down the prior precedent of its legality, so it still stands based on the other points in the ruling. Even the current NFA-related cases against bump stock and pistol brace bans working through courts are based more on whether the ATF can consider them as NFA items rather than whether the NFA itself can be considered constitutional, so it's likely to stick around.

Imagine simping for the fucking Earps