Hacker News Reader

Comment by sigmoid10 | Hacker News Reader

There are quite a few studies out there that show that stand-your-ground laws only increase homicides, but they don't reduce any other crime rate. It also makes complete sense: Poverty and motivation for stealing don't go away with liberal gun/defense laws - but if you break into a house in Texas and plan to survive, you better bring a gun yourself and don't think twice when you encounter the owner.

View on HN

What actually happens is that criminals only enter a residence when they are sure no one is at home. You can compare rates between Britain and USA of 'thieves entering house while occupied'. From memory USA is 10% and Britain is over 50%.

This is false. As far as I can tell these numbers were originally spread by right wing american commenters without any data to back it up. But if you actually try to look at this particular issue, you'll find that "entering while occupied" aka "home invasion" aka "hot" burglaries are not defined as their own crimes in most jurisdictions. And if they are (particularly in the US), they are local laws that vary wildly. This means that these numbers are either not tracked at all or thrown in together with a bunch of other crimes. So any country-level number you see on the internet about this special case will be bogus at best.

There’s no evidence to most of what you’re saying, even if there was it wouldn’t matter because nearly the entire US has stand your ground laws.

I think the only thing you’ve said that’s correct is the increase in homicide, but don’t forget a homeowner killing a home invader is technically considered homicide, and the RAND study pointed that out. There’s no evidence of any statistically significant increase of criminal activity.

I for one wouldn’t want to live in a place where my first thought if someone breaks in is to avoid them and hope everyone else in my house can find an exit, home break ins are super rare but why would I take the chance.

There’s no evidence of any statistically significant increase of criminal activity.

They are arguing the opposite, that there isn't a statistically significant decrease, that the increase in homicides is the primary difference.

> but don’t forget a homeowner killing a home invader is technically considered homicide

Why wouldn't this be the case?

Citation.

Easy to throw claims around. Let me try.

"There are thousands of studies out there that show armed homeowners prevented one million crimes in 2023"

There's so much evidence, you really have to actively close your eyes to not find it. But if you actually don't know how to search for these things, see this meta-analysis of 25 studies for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7958062/

Have any links to that?

Yes, some humans would rather increase the homicide rate by two than by one, if the one is themselves.

Motivation goes down a lot when you might fear for your life.

I'm not sure what your point here is. If GP is right, and crime rates don't go down... then it seems that motivation doesn't really go down all that much either?

That's just more motivation to shoot anyone you see.

Yes, that is why violent deaths are so low in the US per capita, the knowledge that you might lose your life in the commision of a crime.

/s, if anyone misses the sarcasm.

Does it go down for the people committing crimes? Prisons are full of inmates with poor impulse control, and/or who aren't capable of understanding risk.

I understand that for the average HN reader the known presence of guns in an area is probably going to move the probability of robbing a stranger from 0.001% to 0.0005% or something, but I'm not convinced the thought process of actual criminals works the same way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com