Break-ins in Australia vs. United States

While the data is old, it illustrates two things useful from our perspective - The risk of a break-in for Australia is higher than for the US during that period and that the risk of a break-in while someone is at home is therefore higher if total break-ins are higher (no data supporting that, but if you're home when a break-in occurs you're a subset of all break-ins).

Home invasions and break-ins are a danger to residents and we often cite break-ins and the need to defend yourself and your family as a reason to be armed. Having criminals break-in while you're at home either calls for you to defend yourself and your family effectively or that everyone flees the home and leave it to the criminals. Not possible most of the time. Since defending yourself in the home is a basic right it shouldn't be limited by absurd "assault weapon" bans.

Since Australia is often thrown up to us as a model for how we should regulate firearms, knowing that the risk of a break-in is higher in Australia than the US is a useful counter to those claims of Australia being safer than the US.

When Antis try to paint other countries with draconian firearms restrictions as better than the US, having citeable information that those countries are actually no safer than the US is valuable to shut those arguments down. Conversely, if they point to lower homicide rates it is clear the data indicates that there's no correlation between violence rates and rates of ownership of firearms or liberal firearms laws since there's no consistency in trying to correlate our lower violence rates, higher homicide rates, and very high firearms ownership rates and numbers. If there's no consistent correlation then there's another root cause than firearms.

Break-in rates in Australia are generally twice that of the US! That implies they break into occupied homes twice as much?

So much for the Antis depicting Australia as one of their go-to arguments against us if Australians are twice as likely to have a break-in as we would in the US, especially if the at home break-ins are twice as frequent.

Guys, data contradicting the Anti arguments is useful in activism. If we show clear citeable sources that challenge the popular belief that those paragons of gun prohibition are safer while Antis claim we are a more dangerous country then it supports us by undermining the Anti argument and helps us in advocating for RKBA.

bearcreek said:

Any source is citeable. That doesn't make it valid. Regardless, the fact remains that this thread (and several others almost exactly like it recently, most of which have been closed) very clearly does not meet the requirements set forth in this thread. https://thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/how-this-forum-works-emphasis-on-work-read-this-before-posting.270671/ that people are supposed to read before posting in the Activism section.

Click to expand...

We moved this discussion, and others, from Activism to Activism Discussion because of the level of discussion required on this data.