It's far more likely that criminals will simply not burglarize homes or burglarize homes they consider unlikely to be armed. And, according to much research, that's exactly what they tend to do - private gun ownership does have a positive effect on crime (at the expense of a far greater incidence of accidental gun injuries.)
If armed deterrence, as a fundamental principle, is responsible for a lower U.S. burglary rate then that rate should have been lower for the U.S. versus say the U.K. at the very least from 1946 [when self-defense was not considered an acceptable reason in the U.K. to have a gun] and on. Since the statistics show that for a period of time, even when the U.K. had much stricter gun laws than the U.S., the burglary rate for the U.S. was HIGHER (by double the amount), how would you explain this?
Crime and Justice in the United States
and in England and Wales, 1981-96
There is actually something else that is more likely to have an effect on burglaries. In fact, it is whether the house in question has deterrents, such as bars on windows or crime-watch stickers or visible house alarm warnings, that is a more likely to deter a burglar.
UK homeoffice
or
UK Homeoffice
If you are going to make the argument that having guns make burglaries less likely, then how do you explain the 59% decline in domestic burglaries from 1995 to 2006/2007? Isn’t there something else going on perhaps?
The following is from this reference:
Burglary of Single-Family Houses, Guide No. 18 (2002), Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Deborah Lamm Weisel
In the United States, most residential burglariesabout 60 percent of reported offensesoccur in the daytime, when houses are unoccupied.(11)
Occupancy. Most burglars do not target occupied houses, taking great care to avoid them. Some studies suggest burglars routinely ring doorbells to confirm residents' absence. How long residents are away from home is a strong predictor of the risk of burglary...(26)
Burglarized houses often have unlocked or open windows or doors.(40)
Studies show that alarms, combined with other security devices, reduce burglaries. Burglars are less likely to gain entry when a house has two or more security devices (including window locks, dead bolts, security lights, and alarms).(42) Studies of offenders show that burglars may avoid houses with good locks, burglar bars or other security devices.
Burglars often know their victims,(74) who may include casual acquaintances, neighborhood residents, people for whom they have provided a service (such as moving or gardening), or friends or relatives of close friends. Thus, offenders have some knowledge of their victims, such as of their daily routine.(75)
(11)Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000).
(26)Residential Burglary: the limits of prevention, by Stuart Winchester and Hilary Jackson,HOME OFFICE RESEARCH STUDY NO. 74, First published 1982
(40)Waller and Okihiro (1978); Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(42)Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd
(75)(Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins)?,Wright and Decker (1994).
Hopefully this is not too long, but it is relevant to the discussion
Our findings suggest that the use of violence against offenders could reduce crime, but the extent of such reduction remains opaque. Increasing crime's harm, and the knowledge of it, may have limited effects on offenders who believe they are immune to harmful consequences; these people may have "stickier" perceptions that require considerable contradiction before they change. Moreover, if these offenders believe that most crime victims will use violence, they may be more likely to use preemptive violence, thereby increasing victim costs.
Crime victims may incur other costs if they rely on violence or its threat to deter offenders. Game theory research indicates that relying on individuals to prevent and respond to crime can discourage police activity, thereby creating greater opportunities for offending (Cressman, Morrison, and Wen 1998).
Mead's (1918) discussion of punitive justice points to further, macro-level consequences of punishments based on an "attitude of hostility" that may underlie individual violent responses to crime. These effects include support for the narrow beliefs that crime is caused exclusively by individual characteristics and a corresponding decrease in concerns for the social conditions that contribute to it. Sanctions communicate a society's views on crime and punishment, but they also convey assumptions about individual rights and citizenship (Duff 1996). Treating people as citizens requires that punishment create prudential incentives to obey the law, but it must supplement and not replace rational, moral persuasion. As Bentham reminds us (in the gender-specific language of the time), "it has been too frequently forgotten, that the delinquent is a member of the community, as well as any other individual. . . His welfare is proportionately the welfare of the community-his suffering the suffering of the community" (quoted in Zimring and Hawkins 1973:42). Thus, although perceptions about danger may inform the decision to offend, a sanction system that resorts to fear of pain is not a panacea for crime.
Danger and the Decision to Offend, Bill McCarthy, John Hagan, Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2005. Vol. 83, Iss. 3; pg. 1065, 32 pgs
After Australia adopted a gun buyback program, overall homicide rate declined. Not only that but household victimization has also declined.
An estimated 259,800 households were victims of at least one break-in during the 2005 reference period, down from 354,500 in 2002.
From this
site
If we followed your logic should not household crime increase?
™ Version 4.2
(1)