Hacker News Reader

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun.

Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.

> very few humans like committing violence

How many people commit violence, and how many people are victims of violence, are two very different things. You could live in a society where only 1% of people commit violence, and yet the remaining 99% are living in fear, because each of them was repeatedly a victim of violence.

But if you have 1% of people ready to initiate violence, and let's say 3% of people willing to use violence in self-defense, suddenly life becomes much safer for you, even if you are among the remaining 96%. Not because the bad guys would hesitate to hurt you, but because they are likely get in trouble before they get to you.

People often confuse these two numbers. For example, they look at some statistics and think "20% of women report having been victims of domestic violence... oh, that means that 20% of men must be violent abusers", and they don't realize that the statistics also include some violent men who abused five or more partners each, so the actual number is probably much smaller than the 20%.

Without wading into the "good guy with a gun" debate, tl;dr: almost no humans want to effect the level of violence required to execute a home invasion, even if the risk of being shot is zero. A big deal is made about guns as deterrents, but the simpler answer (and the one that explains why it's also safe in rural areas of other OECD countries with gun control) is that humans just aren't that violent--when there's enough to go around anyway. That's all I'm saying here.

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun. Everyone knows I have a gun. If I see you coming on my property, I WILL shoot you. You don't know if the first shot will be a warning shot, birdshot, buckshot, or a 5.56×45mm NATO. You might get lucky and I might not spot you. Or you might be crippled for life. Without guns, crime is free. With guns, crime doesn't pay.

Your perceived safety might be higher because you have a gun. This absolutely does not correlate with reality, extensive literature has looked at the perceived/real safety measure. Very rich resource linking peer reviewed research: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-...

Anchoring it to your reality though, have you ever shot anyone invading your property with your gun to act as counterfactual? How many people in your area shot invaders? What about accidents and misuse? I do not mean to minimize your experience and how safe you must feel, but it would be naive to close a serious matter like this with just your perception.

So the problem with a survey like this is that it does not break out among the scenarios I listed:

1) Rural, minimal police, minimal government, large plots, no collective security.

2) Dense, urban, heavy policy, significant government, right housing, extensive collective security.

Indeed, it focuses on the latter. Virtually all of the addresses, photos, and stories talk about cities, or at least towns.

I don't want to over-post so I'll answer the other comments too:

1) Violence does not require more than "very few humans" to "like committing violence." The point of security isn't to protect against the typical individual but the violent outlier.

2) Most violent individuals aren't sophisticated. What's more, one instance of violence has little impact. Serial violence does. If an individual robs one house, that's not enough to live off of. If an individuals robs houses regularly, in an area with guns, they will be shot. That's a pretty good deterrent.

For gun safety to move forward, both sides need to understand each other, and everyone needs to address the major issues of gun advocates, such as:

1) Day-to-day safety (on the scale / in the settings I described)

2) National safety (if Jan 6th had worked, and we had a coup; if China invaded; etc.)

3) Rule-of-law (we do have a 2nd amendment, and changing that would require an amendment)

Otherwise, it's simply a push of more guns versus less guns, with idiotic laws being shoved through opportunistically on both sides.

Your scenario _sounds_ convincing, but does it really work? Surely an attacker has a massive advantage in the element of surprise. If you see them coming (short of some sophisticated surveillance system), it's because they were impatient.

Or I have a dog.