RIGHTS OF BURGLARS

[Mysteryman]

Fair enough

[Robches]

>If you do have the facts on 'percentage of burglaries, resulting in the death of the occupants in the USA compared to the UK.' then please post it and I'd happily read it with gusto.

Crime stats are a minefield, especially comparing one country's with another's, as legal definitions vary.

The US DoJ website is quite useful. It shows that burglaries per 1000 households declined from 11.0 in 1973 to 29.6 in 2004.

The FBI crime stats showed that in 2004 62.2% of domestic burglaries took place between 6 am and 6pm, ie in daylight. Interesting, as that implies that burglars were looking for empty houses, since you can assume that houses are occupied at night.

The UK stats are compiled differently, and don't seem to go back as far. The British Crime Survey shows that burglary increased 137% from 1981 to 1993, then declined 8% from 1993 to 1997. That certainly seems to show that domestic buglary was sharply down in the US, and up in the UK. The survey also showed that 46% of burglaries were of occupied dwellings, and that 11% of burglaries involved violent or threatening behaviour.

As I said, you could get bogged down with the stats, but it does seem to be the case that burglary is rising in the UK and falling in the US, and that burglaries in the UK are more often made when the house is occupied. I can't find figures for householders killed during burglaries, but it does seem to be the case that in the US buglars prefer to target unoccupied houses, in which case of course the homeowner cannot be killed or injured.

[mart]

I think I've read that in the US you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun ie the burglar wrests it from you and uses it to shoot you.
In the whole of this thread (and previous similar ones) its presumed that the householder is always going to come off best when tackling the intruders. I'm not saying that I would "roll over" but I hope I would consider my options. Some people have seen too many Michael Winner movies.

Mart

[Robches]

>I think I've read that in the US you are more likely to be shot if you have a gun ie the burglar wrests it from you and uses it to shoot you.

I'd say that's an urban myth. If you think about it, it doesn't really make any sense.

[steve56]

what did tony say hed do it again if he had to.Wellbeforth wrote:

> My main concern is that Tony Martin didn't eliminate both of
> those career criminal vermin!!!
>
> Yes vermin - all burglars are vermin!!! What do you do with
> vermin? You obliterate it off the face of the earth!!
>
> Burglars have NO rights whatsoever!!!
>
>

[Sam Slater]

I'd say it does make sense Robches, though I've no idea if it's true.

Mathematically, if no one has a gun, then there's a lesser probability you can be shot. (In fact I'd guess you'd be more at risk of dying from a meteorite crashing through your roof and killing you instantly!) Even if it's you with the gun, the probability of you getting shot rises significantly. Bullets can ricochet off metel pipes etc and kill your wife/kids or you can even shoot them directly in the mist of a struggle. If you AND the intruder have a gun, anything can happen. I don't fancy my -theoritical- family's chances if I am trading bullets with a burglar in the dark. Not unless internal walls start to be made from Kevlar armour.

Guns make you feel safer. My guess is that the actual stats tell a different story.

[eroticartist]

So have I Dibble! You are so right. I always remember some middle class prosecutor asking me why I did not rip the leg off a chair!

The chattering classes debate about violence shows that they, on the whole have no conception of what it is like to be physically attacked with weapons. To be cut and the blood ...thinking of your wife and kids upstairs. No-one knows what they would do. Fear shock then you run or fight...
Mike.

[eroticartist]

Right on Mysteryman.
Mike.

[steve56]

did anyone read about rock star steve harley,was mugged by a gang of WOMEN MUGGERS in spain tried to steal his mobile phone.