Despite being awash in guns Houston TEXAS ranks number one for burglaries

[memphis]

In my view, if the property is empty, it's a burglary. If it's not, it's a robbery.

Not on this side of the Atlantic. A house (or other place) is burglarized. A person is robbed. Huge distinction. A robbery is a violent and much more serious crime. And yes, most burglaries happen when nobody is home. Why on earth would a burgler choose otherwise?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

In my view, if the property is empty, it's a burglary. If it's not, it's a robbery.

Not on this side of the Atlantic. A house (or other place) is burglarized. A person is robbed. Huge distinction. A robbery is a violent and much more serious crime. And yes, most burglaries happen when nobody is home. Why on earth would a burgler choose otherwise?

I feel like our opinions on how bad crime really is winds up being formed by the news media and stories we heard 20 years ago.

[pbrower2a]

Some States have defined certain burglaries as "home invasions"  -- burglaries in which the intruder intends to confront the occupants. Burglary for the purpose of stealing cash or jewels in a house or in the form of a smash-and-grab theft  after breaking a shop window is a triviality in contrast to a break-in that results in rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, or murder of persons there -- or arson intended to kill someone living there.

Firearms that confront an unarmed burglar who intends only to steal possessions probably work. So does the family's dog that can turn a man's home into what might as well be a  jungle with a resident Big Cat for someone who does not belong there. The home invader already has weapons and the willingness and readiness to use them. The home invaders may be using your spouse or children as human shields.

The only reasonable way in which to deal with a home invasion is escape. The home invader intent on turning one's castle into a dungeon or torture chamber  is as dangerous as a fire that turns every flammable object and even the structure of a building into a deadly weapon.  

[DemPGH]

Interesting. Of those states, 3/4 allow concealed and carry: in Arizona you don't even need a permit, in Texas you have to get a permit, in NY you have to establish cause, and only Illinois does not grant concealed and carry, although I understand it is disputed, and in Illinois' case, the SCOTUS eviscerated the city of Chicago's ability to control firearms. This is an indictment against concealed and carry, IMO.

In the real world where you have facts, the city of Chicago has issued roughly 8000 permits for 2.8 million people, banning guns from 99% of the people.

Krazen, am I to understand that you think people should be allowed to just walk around packing heat? In a culture like this, that is idealistic and unrealistic. I have no problem with regulated gun ownership, but inundating a culture that loves cowboys and is quick to see confrontations as a solution to problems is stupid. Chicago has seen no appreciable decrease in gun violence since the SCOTUS disallowed the handgun ban in 2010. And why would anyone expect any different? In fact, I've read where the gun violence went up in 2011. And a vast majority of it is gang-related, which is purely senseless. More guns = more killing. It's one of the few things in life that is simple.

As to robberies, if robberies and burglaries (I don't haggle over a difference) occur while most people are away, which I believe is the case, then ALL the guns don't make any difference! I mean, in your time as a civilian, how many shootouts have you been the hero of? Me? None. Never been in one, never needed a gun. Don't know anyone who has. Most of this is NRA propaganda. "You need a gun! LOTS of them!" That's because the NRA is in bed making furious, intense love with the gunmakers.

In the end, the point is that if a person with no criminal record and sound psychology wants to have a few rifles or pistols around the house, no big deal. But assault weapons, arsenal-building, limited background checks, and conceal and carry, etc. are all just crazy. There is no good to come of any of that.

[memphis]

In my view, if the property is empty, it's a burglary. If it's not, it's a robbery.

Not on this side of the Atlantic. A house (or other place) is burglarized. A person is robbed. Huge distinction. A robbery is a violent and much more serious crime. And yes, most burglaries happen when nobody is home. Why on earth would a burgler choose otherwise?

I feel like our opinions on how bad crime really is winds up being formed by the news media and stories we heard 20 years ago.

I live in a high crime city. I have been the victim of burglary more than once. Luckily, I've never been the victim of a robbery. If you stop and think about what each experience would be like, you can easily see the key difference.  Local news is out of control though. No doubt about it. Everybody over 40 thinks things "are so bad today" because of the tv. And they are totally impervious to facts. It is an awful fundamentalism of decline. 

[krazen1211]

Interesting. Of those states, 3/4 allow concealed and carry: in Arizona you don't even need a permit, in Texas you have to get a permit, in NY you have to establish cause, and only Illinois does not grant concealed and carry, although I understand it is disputed, and in Illinois' case, the SCOTUS eviscerated the city of Chicago's ability to control firearms. This is an indictment against concealed and carry, IMO.

In the real world where you have facts, the city of Chicago has issued roughly 8000 permits for 2.8 million people, banning guns from 99% of the people.

Krazen, am I to understand that you think people should be allowed to just walk around packing heat? In a culture like this, that is idealistic and unrealistic. I have no problem with regulated gun ownership, but inundating a culture that loves cowboys and is quick to see confrontations as a solution to problems is stupid. Chicago has seen no appreciable decrease in gun violence since the SCOTUS disallowed the handgun ban in 2010. And why would anyone expect any different? In fact, I've read where the gun violence went up in 2011. And a vast majority of it is gang-related, which is purely senseless. More guns = more killing. It's one of the few things in life that is simple.

As to robberies, if robberies and burglaries (I don't haggle over a difference) occur while most people are away, which I believe is the case, then ALL the guns don't make any difference! I mean, in your time as a civilian, how many shootouts have you been the hero of? Me? None. Never been in one, never needed a gun. Don't know anyone who has. Most of this is NRA propaganda. "You need a gun! LOTS of them!" That's because the NRA is in bed making furious, intense love with the gunmakers.

In the end, the point is that if a person with no criminal record and sound psychology wants to have a few rifles or pistols around the house, no big deal. But assault weapons, arsenal-building, limited background checks, and conceal and carry, etc. are all just crazy. There is no good to come of any of that.

Are you stupid?

The penal code definition of robbery in Illinois requires the person to be present.

Thanks to you liberals 99% of the people of Chicago do not have gun permits. In places like, say, liberal Vermont the people can freely carry guns and they aren't being killed like Chicago. Concealed carry is the law in many US states.

Incidentally, one of my dear friends used to live in Chicago. The gangbangers beat him up when he went to the ATM at the bank. What's amusing is that you liberals say more guns = more killing while your own leftist government states that only 8000 people own guns.

Funny eh?

[krazen1211]

Some States have defined certain burglaries as "home invasions"  -- burglaries in which the intruder intends to confront the occupants. Burglary for the purpose of stealing cash or jewels in a house or in the form of a smash-and-grab theft  after breaking a shop window is a triviality in contrast to a break-in that results in rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, or murder of persons there -- or arson intended to kill someone living there.

Firearms that confront an unarmed burglar who intends only to steal possessions probably work. So does the family's dog that can turn a man's home into what might as well be a  jungle with a resident Big Cat for someone who does not belong there. The home invader already has weapons and the willingness and readiness to use them. The home invaders may be using your spouse or children as human shields.

The only reasonable way in which to deal with a home invasion is escape. The home invader intent on turning one's castle into a dungeon or torture chamber  is as dangerous as a fire that turns every flammable object and even the structure of a building into a deadly weapon.  

On the contrary.

http://www.examiner.com/article/man-with-concealed-gun-defends-self-2-month-old-son-from-robber

Kelby Smith, a 34-year-old father with a concealed carry permit, defended himself and his two-month-old son from a robber in west Columbus, Ohio, WBNS reported Tuesday.

According to WBNS, Smith told police he was approached by a robber "in the driveway of the home on Crescent Drive just before 9 p.m." Monday night.

Smith shielded his two-month-old son who was in a baby carrier when the robber held a gun to his head.

"He stuck a gun to my head, had my 2-month-old son with me when he did it….he took $40 from me," Smith said in a 911 call to police.

After taking Smith's money, the robber fled but pointed the gun back at Smith and his child. That's when Smith acted, pulling his own gun and firing at the fleeing robber.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Firing a gun at a fleeing man over forty bucks isn't admirable, krazen.

[krazen1211]

Firing a gun at a fleeing man over forty bucks isn't admirable, krazen.

Well, that is an interesting point of view. Did your parents not love you?

Many Americans would shoot to protect their children.

[Silent Hunter]

Many Americans would shoot to protect their children.

The man was fleeing... so any threat to his child had gone.

[krazen1211]

Many Americans would shoot to protect their children.

The man was fleeing... so any threat to his child had gone.

After taking Smith's money, the robber fled but pointed the gun back at Smith and his child


'

One of the most critical rules of firearm safety is that one does not point one's firearm at something one is not willing and ready to shoot.

[badgate]

Many Americans would shoot to protect their children.

The man was fleeing... so any threat to his child had gone.

After taking Smith's money, the robber fled but pointed the gun back at Smith and his child


'

One of the most critical rules of firearm safety is that one does not point one's firearm at something one is not willing and ready to shoot.

This is like watching seals clap

[pbrower2a]

Some States have defined certain burglaries as "home invasions"  -- burglaries in which the intruder intends to confront the occupants. Burglary for the purpose of stealing cash or jewels in a house or in the form of a smash-and-grab theft  after breaking a shop window is a triviality in contrast to a break-in that results in rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, or murder of persons there -- or arson intended to kill someone living there.

Firearms that confront an unarmed burglar who intends only to steal possessions probably work. So does the family's dog that can turn a man's home into what might as well be a  jungle with a resident Big Cat for someone who does not belong there. The home invader already has weapons and the willingness and readiness to use them. The home invaders may be using your spouse or children as human shields.

The only reasonable way in which to deal with a home invasion is escape. The home invader intent on turning one's castle into a dungeon or torture chamber  is as dangerous as a fire that turns every flammable object and even the structure of a building into a deadly weapon.  

On the contrary.

http://www.examiner.com/article/man-with-concealed-gun-defends-self-2-month-old-son-from-robber

Kelby Smith, a 34-year-old father with a concealed carry permit, defended himself and his two-month-old son from a robber in west Columbus, Ohio, WBNS reported Tuesday.

According to WBNS, Smith told police he was approached by a robber "in the driveway of the home on Crescent Drive just before 9 p.m." Monday night.

Smith shielded his two-month-old son who was in a baby carrier when the robber held a gun to his head.

"He stuck a gun to my head, had my 2-month-old son with me when he did it….he took $40 from me," Smith said in a 911 call to police.

After taking Smith's money, the robber fled but pointed the gun back at Smith and his child. That's when Smith acted, pulling his own gun and firing at the fleeing robber.

Very different situation. The topic of gun control here is not "concealed carry", which  is separate altogether from background checks on applicants for firearms, banning the mentally ill from getting them, or massacre clips. The perpetrator pointed the gun recklessly behind his back, posing an obvious peril to the man, his child, or anyone else nearby. The perpetrator deserved to be shot to death for that. The amount of money taken in the robbery had no bearing on the right of self defense.     

[krazen1211]

Very different situation. The topic of gun control here is not "concealed carry", which  is separate altogether from background checks on applicants for firearms, banning the mentally ill from getting them, or massacre clips. The perpetrator pointed the gun recklessly behind his back, posing an obvious peril to the man, his child, or anyone else nearby. The perpetrator deserved to be shot to death for that. The amount of money taken in the robbery had no bearing on the right of self defense.     

Well, yes and no. Setting aside the liberals in this thread who describe concealed carry as 'crazy', Illinois still has a concealed carry ban on the books. The great judge Richard Posner noted that the hoodlums in Chicago simply had to drive around and shoot the people, and the people were not able to defend themselves, and that the people were more in danger in the streets than they were in their own homes.

The Illinois legislature has yet to pass the court ordered concealed carry legislation.

[pbrower2a]

The criminal almost always has the advantage of surprise.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, that is an interesting point of view. Did your parents not love you?

You are an impeccably disgusting person.

My mother loves me. She is, like most good peaceable folk, not a type to shoot somebody who is running away, on my behalf or otherwise. I indeed would not want her to.

While it probably should, technically, be and remain legal to act as the father did in this case (and while I don't know that we should pity the robber overmuch), I certainly don't have to believe it's moral, or refrain from distinctly side-eying the fact that he bothered to refer to the forty dollars at all.

[Link]

In my view, if the property is empty, it's a burglary. If it's not, it's a robbery.

Robbery. A person commits robbery when he or she knowingly takes property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18-3 or 18-4, from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force.

Burglary.
    (a) A person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense shall not include the offenses set out in Section 4-102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.

Let's look at the post that caused all this trouble...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8941653

How come our gun nut friends don't point to this wonderful success story?  All I see is Chicago, Chicago, Chicago.  Well what about Houston?  All that concealed carry and pickups with rifle ranks doesn't seem to have solved their burglary issues.  I guess this is the Texas miracle where you buy guns and burglars don't care and still rob you.

So including the title of the thread the word burglary and its variants (burglars, burglaries) were used a total of 4 times throughout this short post.  Then the next to last word in the post was r, o, b.  Subsequently a meltdown ensued.  In the vernacular in the US people use the word rob sometimes for the more accurate word burglarize.  Frankly I rarely here someone say I was burglarized.  The expression I got robbed is pretty common and even extends to non criminal acts that do not involve violence or the threat of violence.

Obviously when I typed those three little letters at the end of my post it was a slip.  Most thinking adults who aren't morons can read the other 95% of the post and utilize context clues to figure out what was being discussed.  But usually when you want to have a conversation with a gun nut about anything to do with common sense gun control measures they want to spend a few months discussing "clips" vs "magazines."  Do you think these people are serious?  I don't.

[krazen1211]

In my view, if the property is empty, it's a burglary. If it's not, it's a robbery.

Robbery. A person commits robbery when he or she knowingly takes property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18-3 or 18-4, from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force.

Burglary.
    (a) A person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense shall not include the offenses set out in Section 4-102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.

Let's look at the post that caused all this trouble...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8941653

How come our gun nut friends don't point to this wonderful success story?  All I see is Chicago, Chicago, Chicago.  Well what about Houston?  All that concealed carry and pickups with rifle ranks doesn't seem to have solved their burglary issues.  I guess this is the Texas miracle where you buy guns and burglars don't care and still rob you.

So including the title of the thread the word burglary and its variants (burglars, burglaries) were used a total of 4 times throughout this short post.  Then the next to last word in the post was r, o, b.  Subsequently a meltdown ensued.  In the vernacular in the US people use the word rob sometimes for the more accurate word burglarize.  Frankly I rarely here someone say I was burglarized.  The expression I got robbed is pretty common and even extends to non criminal acts that do not involve violence or the threat of violence.

Obviously when I typed those three little letters at the end of my post it was a slip.  Most thinking adults who aren't morons can read the other 95% of the post and utilize context clues to figure out what was being discussed.  But usually when you want to have a conversation with a gun nut about anything to do with common sense gun control measures they want to spend a few months discussing "clips" vs "magazines."  Do you think these people are serious?  I don't.

Indeed. Let's look at the post.

You noted concealed carry and 'pickups with rifles' which are designed to provide one some defense against robbery, or assault, or perhaps being shot for simply being there. They provide much less protection against burglary, by design, so why you brought them up is something you only know, and why you bounced between terms is something only you know as well.


If your overall point is that Houston hoodlums are more likely to steal my Ipad and my possessions, and that Chicago hoodlums are more likely to steal cash from my person, beat me up, rape me, and/or kill me, well, I guess each of us can decide which is preferable. Indeed, in Houston, some Good Samaritans recently saved a man from a robber. Such a rescue is banned in Chicago.

[Reaganfan]

In the state of Ohio, if a home invader is infront of me and I feel my life is threatened, I can plunge a knife into his heart.

Every state should allow people to defend themselves.

This idea that it might just be a "mistake" is ridiculous. If you are stupid enough to commit violent crime, you shouldn't be allowed to be in society.

[Badger]

In the state of Ohio, if a home invader is infront of me and I feel my life is threatened, I can plunge a knife into his heart.

Every state should allow people to defend themselves.

This idea that it might just be a "mistake" is ridiculous. If you are stupid enough to commit violent crime, you shouldn't be allowed to be in society.

In what state are you NOT allowed to defend yourself?