Last year when Neighbourhood Watch ill-advised people to resist intruders with “”utmost force”, I made the reluctant observation that whatever the law said in theory, “”as a rule of thumb, police do not charge people with assault, manslaughter or murder when an intruder with proven guilty intent is set upon by householder.” And so it was last week that police in Queensland did not charge a man who shot dead a 16-year-old intruder. It was a bit of shame because it would have given a more balanced view of the risks facing householders and a more balanced view of their rights. There are not many cases on issue. This may seem surprising, but it is a natural consequence of the rarity of householders having to confront intruders in Australia. Burglars go to extraordinary lengths to ensure the occupiers of the houses they burgle are out. The rarity of cases is also due to the unfortunate tendency by police not to charge house-holders who shoot, kill or maim intruders.
I take this perverse view, not in defence of criminals who break into houses, but of the householders themselves and to defend the principle of the rule of law (even if it is so often unsatisfactorily applied in Australia these days). On defending householders themselves, much has been correctly written about how a gun in the house is much more likely to be used to kill or maim someone in the household than an intruder. Suicide, accidental shootings and shootings of innocent intruders are more common than the shooting of criminal intruders. Guns put the householder and family at risk. Also the householder can be sued for shooting innocents. That aside, the reasoning for householders to arm themselves does not stand up. The actual threat of being assaulted by an intruder is virtually non-existent and there are better means than guns to minimise it further.
There were about 90,000 burglaries in NSW last year _ about one in 150 households. Of these cases, only 72 involved any threat at all to the householder _ about one in 50,000 households. The threat is better dealt with by ensuring the confronted burglar has an unimpeded escape. Good locks may not prevent entry to an unoccupied house but if the house is occupied they can ensure a burglar has to make enough noise that a householder gets enough warning to get to a phone. But why should the burglar get away with it? Indeed. This catch-the-crook mentality, however, shows that those who want to arm themselves are using the guise of protecting life and limb when the aim is to protect property and punish the criminal.
Given that most property is insured, property protection is hardly a reason for arming. Nor is catching the criminal a reason for arming. Having a lot of untrained, trigger-happy householders with guns is dangerous, amateur law-enforcement. One difficulty is that the media quite reasonably highlight the unusual, rather than the commonplace. Another is that politicians play on community fear of crime to get votes (usually based on the absurd assumption that higher penalties result in reduced crime). The result is that people get the wrong picture: they believe crime is rising, they are not safe and that burglars are likely to assault. The media also underplay accidental and suicidal shootings. If the Queensland householder had been charged, a different message might have been conveyed. The message should be: householders who shoot at people are accountable.
The reason they should be is that guns cause so much suffering to the innocent with accidental and suicidal shootings and shootings of people who only pose a threat to (usually insured) property that these dangers by far outweigh the minuscule threat to life and limb that householders face in Australia. Moreover, while householders who shoot do not have to justify their actions, it will be more likely that the gun will be seen as the solution to what is now a virtually non-existent problem, but with a gun culture might become a self-fulfilling prophesy as burglars begin to arm themselves. This is not to condone burglary, nor to suggest it should be made easier for burglars to escape. Rather it is to say that the gun response is so wrong that it should be actively discouraged.