Consider an absurd second order effect where, if it's true that you're less likely to be robbed by being on this register, it encourages more people to buy guns, even if it means they don't have to use them.
This seems intended just to shame and intimidate lawful gun owners (in response to the SCOTUS ruling?).
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-28/man-set-alight-guns-s...
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748...
Guns may be “easy to liquidate” (not sure if that’s actually the case) but surely selling Xboxes and MacBooks on eBay is just as profitable?
I’ve had a house burgled, two cars broken into, and know several victims of violent crime and still can’t relate even a little bit to the anxiety expressed here or the idea that any of those encounters would have turned out better with an extra gun around.
I don’t mean to challenge your point of view, just to note how huge the divide is between how people fundamentally conceive of this stuff.
Most Americans can't wrap their heads around the possibility that they're being burgled by someone who
a) is in need of cash b) is not interested in killing, torturing, raping or maiming the victim c) would ideally like to get in and out for a quick financial win
Where I live (Australia) our burglary rate is 5x greater per capita than America. And yet our "murdered by burglar rate" is effectively nil, much like it is in the states. But there are scores of yanks that will talk about their need to have a firearm for home defence to ensure their family isn't murdered by someone who's most likely looking for a bit of cash for a drug fix.
When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law.
A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society.
Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives?
I'm not.
Which ofc is why I have an intense fear of jaywalkers.
> When a person, or persons, decide to break the social contract, there's no telling to what degree they will exceed the boundaries of the law.
I disagree. if the above was true the mailbox baseball (remember, a federal offense) to mass murderer pipeline would be much better documented. Also, the vast majority of burglars are non-violent offenders, not blood thirsty home invading rapists.
> A criminal has already demonstrated that they are unwilling to be bound by the rules of civil society.
I think it's more that they're willing to bend the rules of civil society to meet a personal want or need, and they would most likely evaluate that as a risk/reward proposition like any other person does when entering into a risky activity.
>Are you willing to bet your children's life that their criminal behavior will be limited to that which you deem to be a nuisance, rather than your families' lives?
>I'm not.
Interestingly this is the exact conclusion that was presented to me the last time I had this discussion. And my response is the same now as it was then.
Statistically speaking you are much more likely to have a family member die from that firearm in your home you claim is there for protection when compared to the threat of the hypothetical burglar you are protecting your family against.
I think this depends a lot of where you are.
Most of the statistics I've seen has fairly overwhelming support for preventative effects of being armed.
Also, handguns are one of the most powerful forces for equality we've had in modern history.
A smaller woman or man is no longer dependent on a stronger person for defense. Guns are a great equalizer.
As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society".
Approximately 10k homicides with firearms in 2019: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
In 2019, there were 28 live shooter incidents with 12 meeting the definition of “mass shooting.” In total, active shooters claimed 247 lives that year: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents...
Compare that with this report from the Obama administration: http://nap.edu/18319
Annually, firearms in America are used in self defense between 500k and 3M times (real page 26, labeled as 15). Taking these numbers as true, the rate firearms are used in self defense vs. homicide is between 50x and 300x. Americans are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be unlawfully killed by one. They are substantially more likely to defend themselves with a firearm than to be killed in a mass shooting.