Yay for vigilantes!

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm glad I live in the US of A, where people are not prohibited by police state governments from working together to improve their lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/nyregion/19haven.html?ex=1345176000&en=f0605faed7f46db4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

New Haven

Eliezer Greer walked out of the Yeshiva of New Haven at dusk on Tuesday armed with a walkie-talkie in his hand and a loaded pistol at his side. Alfred Brooks Jr., 58, a former marine, was checking the batteries in his flashlight. Mr. Greer, 27, handed him the walkie-talkie.

Good news, Mr. Greer said: Their neighborhood, near Edgewood Park in the city’s western end, was quiet this evening. But he advised Mr. Brooks to keep an eye on the crowd of young people on Hobart Street.

For the past two months, Mr. Greer, Mr. Brooks and fellow volunteers in the Edgewood Park Defense Patrol — half of whom carry guns — have walked and biked through this neighborhood nightly to bring a sense of safety to an area they said had experienced an increase in crime and a decrease in police patrols.

Though Mayor John DeStefano Jr. has called the patrols a “recipe for disaster,” members of the group said that they had not once pulled out a gun, and the authorities acknowledged that violent crime had gone down in Edgewood since the patrols began.

“The last thing we want to do is draw a weapon,” said Mr. Greer, the founder of the defense patrol and the director of the Edgewood Neighborhood Association. “We have one agenda: clearing the neighborhood of thugs and getting people who work all day, pay mortgages, send kids to college, to enjoy the homes they’ve invested in.”

Earlier, Mr. Greer made his rounds with another member of the patrol, Avi Hack, 32. Their attire incorporated elements of Orthodox Judaism and a quasi police force: a skullcap; an undergarment with fringes, called tzitzit; and a black T-shirt that had “Edgewood Park Defense Patrol” on the back. Mr. Greer also carried a gun.

As Mr. Greer and Mr. Hack walked the streets, some lined with restored Victorian homes and others not so tidy, they searched for any signs of trouble.

Typically, patrol members call the police if something looks suspicious, although they decided that the youths and the car posed no threat. They spent most of their time chatting with passers-by in this diverse neighborhood, which has a large racial minority population in addition to many Jewish residents.

“Keep patrolling,” pleaded Lakeisha Singleton, a lawyer who had pulled her car to the side of the road to greet Mr. Greer. Her 1-year-old son, Michael, sat in a car seat in back. “We need you here,” Ms. Singleton said.

Though crime has been cut in half in New Haven over the last two decades and is down 10 percent over all this year from the year before, shootings are up about 50 percent this year, and Mr. Greer has called for the police chief, Francisco Ortiz, to resign.

Mr. Greer and his father, Rabbi Daniel Greer, dean of the yeshiva, have spent the last two decades restoring more than 40 dilapidated homes here and leasing them at no profit to low- and middle-income families. As a result, the neighborhood “has been on the upswing” since its days as a haunt for prostitutes in the 1980s, said Elizabeth McCormack, the neighborhood’s alderwoman.

But in recent years, the crime that once plagued the neighborhood began to return, and the Greers raised the idea of armed patrols after they said they got little help from the police. Crime worsened this spring, coming to a head when Mr. Greer’s brother, Dov, a rabbi like his father, was followed into his Edgewood home by several young men and assaulted.

A day later, the nightly patrols, from 6 to 10 p.m., began. At Mr. Greer’s request, the Guardian Angels, the volunteer crime-watch group based in New York, came and set up separate unarmed patrols.

But it is the weapons carried by Mr. Greer and other patrol members, not the patrols themselves, that have caused a stir. Nine of the patrol’s 18 members carry guns, which is legal in New Haven as long as the citizen has a state permit.

Mr. Greer said the patrol includes Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews, and non-Jews. Five members are black and one Hispanic, he said. The group says that its racial makeup has eased fears that armed Jews would be chasing down black youths.

In an interview, Mr. Ortiz, the police chief, applauded Mr. Greer and others in Edgewood, saying their actions had spurred other areas to initiate neighborhood watches. And he said major criminal activity in the neighborhood had quieted since June.

But he said he did not support their carrying weapons.

At least one member of the patrol agreed with the chief: Mr. Brooks, who does not carry a gun. If patrol members carry firearms, he said, the criminals will counter with bigger ones.

On Tuesday, Mr. Brooks walked by Hobart Street, finding it relatively quiet. Though they have been patrolling for only two months, Mr. Brooks and other patrol members said residents were beginning to feel safe again.

“They have a right to,” Mr. Greer said. “And if the thugs won’t give us the right, and the police won’t, we’ll give ourselves the right.”

Let's hope this is a sign of increasing citizen initiative and self-reliability, and a sign of a lessening of fears spurred by anti-gun groups emotionalism and lies.

Not to mention, a nail in the coffin of outrageous claims that actions like this will result in random violence, that citizens are unable or shouldn't handle firearms, etc.

CR

[Xiahou]

It's only too bad that they're still paying for police protection that they're no longer getting.

[The_Mark]

I'm glad I live in the US of A, where people are not prohibited by police state governments from working together to improve their lives.
I, for one, am content in living in a country where we don't need a citizens' militia.

Admittedly, though, I'd have a militia over nothing were there a need, provided the militia doesn't get out of the line.

[Tribesman]

I'm glad I live in the US of A, where people are not prohibited by police state governments from working together to improve their lives.

So you are glad you don't live in North Korea , big deal .:dizzy2:

Wow a neighbourhood watch that will call the police , how innovative .


Let's hope this is a sign of increasing citizen initiative and self-reliability, and a sign of a lessening of fears spurred by anti-gun groups emotionalism and lies.

What about the "vigilante" who says that carrying guns will just lead to the criminals getting bigger guns ?
I suppose he must be one those who are spurred by lies eh .

[Pannonian]

I'm a bit confused here. I understand the need for vigilantes to work with cops, but why are they doing they work in broad daylight? Shouldn't daytime be used to discuss other people's guilt, with their subsequent "activity" confined to nighttime? Also, isn't a bit dangerous to go around revealing their identities?

[Husar]

What I see here is a police with no balls. If there was crime in my area and police were too afraid to go there, I'd also try to found something similar. But so far that hasn't happened, so as long as the policemen do their job, I don't see the need fo such a militia.

[Papewaio]

Let's hope this is a sign of increasing citizen initiative and self-reliability, and a sign of a lessening of fears spurred by anti-gun groups emotionalism and lies.

Not to mention, a nail in the coffin of outrageous claims that actions like this will result in random violence, that citizens are unable or shouldn't handle firearms, etc.

CR

You missed a bit to bold:



At least one member of the patrol agreed with the chief: Mr. Brooks, who does not carry a gun. If patrol members carry firearms, he said, the criminals will counter with bigger ones.

[Strike For The South]

This kind of citzen watch groups always end badly. Not surprsing considering there usually run by Non-Texans

[Marshal Murat]

Also, isn't a bit dangerous to go around revealing their identities?

If you have something to fear from the criminals, sure. Any violent action on the criminal's part would probably cause a stronger police reaction.


This kind of citzen watch groups always end badly.
It would be better if they carried the non-lethal pepper-spray guns and tasers.

If they want to patrol the area, good luck and good hunting. If the criminals have to hide something then they will get bigger guns but larger guns means some dealings that require the FBI or policemen.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I, for one, am content in living in a country where we don't need a citizens' militia.


Oh, so you have no crime in your country then?


This kind of citzen watch groups always end badly.

Bah, you're just miffed you couldn't do the same thing in Texas.


It would be better if they carried the non-lethal pepper-spray guns and tasers.

Why? So they couldn't defend themselves as well?


You missed a bit to bold:

Less than 6% of the group thinks that - hmmm.

It seems people are confused about 'bigger guns' - do you guys actually think they criminals will just get larger caliber weapons, and that somehow these are automatically more effective?

Crazed Rabbit

[Husar]

Oh, so you have no crime in your country then?
I can't really talk for him but I guess he lives in a country where the police do their job. Whether you have two neighborhood watch guys patrol a street or two policemen is pretty much the same. If the police doesn't do that for some reason, then they're not doing their job properly and you should elect some minority party like the green party at the next elections until someone makes them patrol the street again.:yes:
It's a bit harder with a two-party system especially if both parties won't make them patrol more, but then maybe it's time for some bigger changes.
Well, or you can form such neighborhood patrols which might or might not help, depending on how criminals react to them. Soon they will have to establish CSI teams though, which can be quite expensive, or do they just plan to execute the next best suspect if a murder happened?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you have something to fear from the criminals, sure. Any violent action on the criminal's part would probably cause a stronger police reaction.

Pannonian was giving you the mafia-player's take on things Marshall.

Gotcha. :evilgrin:

[Pannonian]

If you have something to fear from the criminals, sure. Any violent action on the criminal's part would probably cause a stronger police reaction.

The criminals are killers, that's why they were noticed in the first place. Police can establish guilt, but they can't do much else, unless they're allowed to turn vigilante. Anyway, we all know that, useful though vigilantes can be, it is the lynch mob that is the main weapon in dealing with gangs in the neighbourhood.

[Kralizec]

This is not vilantilism, this is a simple neighbourhood watch. It sounds like they're doing a good job at present, but it's a poor reflection on the police - people who supposedly are trained and paid to do this sort of thing.

[Marshal Murat]

Why? So they couldn't defend themselves as well?

So all those women with pepper-spray would be better off with .45 in their purses? Half of them couldn't carry a .45, much less aim a hand-gun.
Using non-lethal weaponry allows them to cut crime while no killing any-one. If every time a policeman used a load of bullets to arrest someone, we would have more dead people, grieving families, and alot of trouble. Using batons and tasers prevents needless or accidental deaths.

If the place is such a hot-bed of violent activity then the police should be stepping up patrols, but this just sounds like some men taking the welfare of the people into their own hands. While they may be doing a good job, they are paying taxes for police. The neighborhood watch is a good thing to do, but to put more guns on the street and force anyone carrying on illegal operations to buy more guns, the jury is still out.

Accidents happen, it's only human. I would rather the accident be pepper-spray into the eyes or a taser shock, not a bullet in the eyes or a bullet shot.

[HoreTore]

Oh, so you have no crime in your country then?

I am not sure, there might not be any, but I have a vague memory of one house in my old neighborhood who got robbed 10 years or so ago. If that happened, then that is the only crime that has ever taken place there, at least in the 16 years I lived there. The rest of my life I've lived in the army and in a farming district, so no real neighborhood.

Although the Royal Marines stirred quite a lot of trouble at the(only) local pub in my army year. But they got their ass kicked by the british MP's in no time...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Police can only rarely prevent crime. Most of the time they can only react to it.

A police presence on a more-or-less constant basis -- "walking a beat" -- is the only consistent means for police to reliably prevent most violent crime. Moreover, we're talking about a pair of cops constantly patrolling a few blocks of a city or one or two neighborhoods in a suburb. Do you have any inkling of how much that would cost?

Historically, community justice has been the most dominant and successful form for crime prevention.

[HoreTore]

I daresay stability, both political and economical, has been/is the most successful form of crime prevention.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So all those women with pepper-spray would be better off with .45 in their purses? Half of them couldn't carry a .45, much less aim a hand-gun.
Using non-lethal weaponry allows them to cut crime while no killing any-one.

Do you know what they say about assuming? Perhaps you shouldn't be so misogynistic with your assumptions.

Non lethal weapons are markedly less effective at stopping an imminent threat. A gun will stop a threat much quicker than pepper spray - which will not stop someone from charging you, is only effective on one small location on the body, and has very limited range, and doesn't physically impair movement.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

This is not vilantilism, this is a simple neighbourhood watch. It sounds like they're doing a good job at present, but it's a poor reflection on the police - people who supposedly are trained and paid to do this sort of thing.
I agree on all points.


At least one member of the patrol agreed with the chief: Mr. Brooks, who does not carry a gun. If patrol members carry firearms, he said, the criminals will counter with bigger ones.What a silly statement. The guns they already have are quite capable of killing- no need for "bigger" guns.

[Papewaio]

Shhh that goes against the mantra.

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.'

[Lemur]

Yeah, the whole "criminals will just counter with bigger guns" bit is horseradish. Criminals are just quite predictable -- they want to get their money with the lowest level of effort. If two houses have dogs and good locks, and a third does not, they're going to hit the third house. They're not going to spend time and money on dog tranquilizers and sophisticated lockpicks.

Likewise, a gun is a gun. Even a .22 is plenty enough to maim or kill a human being (remember, aim for the head). If a criminal knows darn well that the members of a neighborhood watch may be armed, he will avoid the area. These aren't super-creatures who mutate and evolve to counter every effort. They're just people. Usually lazy people.

An armed neighborhood watch is a fine idea for an area in which the police cannot or will not keep the peace. The only issue is making sure that the people on the watch don't let it go to their heads. One innocent shot down will be all the excuse the city needs to break them up, so carefully, lads, carefully now.

[Husar]

Something I was wondering about from the start:

It may be expensive to have the police patrol the area, but who pays the neighborhood watch?:inquisitive:

[Geoffrey S]

A good initiative, but rather than reflecting well on the 'vigilantes' it reflects rather more badly on the police. As has been said to be effective they need to walk the beat, but how to do that when tied up in paperwork?

[Innocentius]

I guess the words "bigger guns" shouldn't be taken literally, he's probably just stating the obvious: If people arm themselves better, criminals (who are also people of course, but let's keep them separate to avoid confusion) will do the same. Not by buying "bigger" guns, rather more guns and carry them more often.

[The_Mark]

Oh, so you have no crime in your country then?
Did I ever claim that there wasn't? Granted, there is crime, I just don't feel that threatened by it as to go and raise a militia. There are, after all, some places in the world where the police can actually keep the law in sufficient measure.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Something I was wondering about from the start:

It may be expensive to have the police patrol the area, but who pays the neighborhood watch?:inquisitive:

In the USA, neighborhood watch and/or quasi vigilante programs are largely volunteer. The time/resources used by local government to oversee same is fairly small. Can't call them "free," but they are relatively inexpensive. They are also extremely effective on a "dollar-spent versus criminal aprehended" basis.

[Slyspy]

In the USA, neighborhood watch and/or quasi vigilante programs are largely volunteer. The time/resources used by local government to oversee same is fairly small. Can't call them "free," but they are relatively inexpensive. They are also extremely effective on a "dollar-spent versus criminal aprehended" basis.

"criminal apprehended"? I thought the idea of such groups was prevention rather than enforcement?

[Devastatin Dave]

Historically, community justice has been the most dominant and successful form for crime prevention.
Here in St Louis we have a lot of crime. But there is one place where there is hardly any. Its called the Hill. Its in the midde of St Louis and there is no crime. Why you ask? Its the Italian district. They police themselves and any "visitors" they might have. You can leave your doors unlocked and your windows down. We need cops, but we also need citizens to take car of things.

[HoreTore]

Here in St Louis we have a lot of crime. But there is one place where there is hardly any. Its called the Hill. Its in the midde of St Louis and there is no crime. Why you ask? Its the Italian district. They police themselves and any "visitors" they might have. You can leave your doors unlocked and your windows down. We need cops, but we also need citizens to take car of things.

The only time I ever lock my door, is when I'll be gone for a day or more. I only close the windows when I'm going on holiday, to prevent rain inside. When I'm home, and it's not cold, I leave the door wide open.

But curiously, there's no militia here, nor have I ever been robbed... I wonder why.

[Kralizec]

The only time I ever lock my door, is when I'll be gone for a day or more. I only close the windows when I'm going on holiday, to prevent rain inside. When I'm home, and it's not cold, I leave the door wide open.

But curiously, there's no militia here, nor have I ever been robbed... I wonder why.

Because there are less then 50 people living within a 10 kilometer radius from your house? ~;)

[Goofball]

An armed neighborhood watch is a fine idea for an area in which the police cannot or will not keep the peace.

Now that works a little better for me.

A neighborhood watch is effective because it shines a light into places (both literally and metaphorically) that often remain unseen and make criminals feel safe in that they believe they are unnoticed, or that nobody will intervene because nobody cares.

Neighborhood watches if they are operating properly should never put themselves in a position where shooting it out with criminals in a public place would be necessary. Therefor, neighborhood watches should not require firearms. And that is not even touching on the fact that we're talking about a bunch of untrained civilians, whose only qualifications to purchase guns were not having ever been convicted of any felonies.

If you want a gun to defend your home, I can live with that because it really doesn't add any risk to me or my family. But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day."

The one good thing I can see about this situation is that it should at least demonstrate to the municipal politicians that they have a massive failure in their policing policy if citizens feel the need to walk around in armed gangs to feel safe.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Neighborhood watches if they are operating properly should never put themselves in a position where shooting it out with criminals in a public place would be necessary.
So, don't go into the bad parts of the neighborhood?


Therefor, neighborhood watches should not require firearms.
This watch was started after a man was attacked in his own house - are you saying he shouldn't have put himself in that position? And are you saying it's best to not prepare for anything but the best situations?


And that is not even touching on the fact that we're talking about a bunch of untrained civilians, whose only qualifications to purchase guns were not having ever been convicted of any felonies.
Using a gun is not rocket science, and I have contempt for the idea that ordinary people are too stupid to operate a gun. Should we shudder in our houses, afraid to go outside, afraid to grasp our very right as US citizens?

Also, these people have taken gun training classes.


If you want a gun to defend your home, I can live with that because it really doesn't add any risk to me or my family. But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day."
Are you always racist and anti-semitic? The question is as valid as your gross libel of people who have been attacked for their religion and now carry to protect themselves.
Or do you just feel the need to launch ad homenim attacks against those who do something you don't?

Crazed Rabbit

[Husar]

Here in St Louis we have a lot of crime. But there is one place where there is hardly any. Its called the Hill. Its in the midde of St Louis and there is no crime. Why you ask? Its the Italian district. They police themselves and any "visitors" they might have. You can leave your doors unlocked and your windows down. We need cops, but we also need citizens to take car of things.
Are some of them from Sicily?
I mean if Italians police themselves, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no crime in that area. Look at what recently happened in Duisburg (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,500016,00.html).

Doesn't really mean that anyone could prevent that though, but the mental picture of Italians running around with weapons playing "police" has certain connotations for me.:sweatdrop:

[Xiahou]

If you want a gun to defend your home, I can live with that because it really doesn't add any risk to me or my family. But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day."Wow, how's that for offensive? Your whole post suggests you either don't trust your neighbors or at least think they're all too stupid to be able to handle a gun without killing themselves or others. Smacks of elitism, imo.

I know many people that can and often do carry weapons- myself included. I also know that there are many, many more lawfully carrying weapons that I'll never even notice. I feel safer knowing they're out there.

[Devastatin Dave]

But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day.

Why did I get a Full Metal Jacket flashback when I read this part of your post? "This is my rifle, this is my gun!!!":laugh4:

You should see my penis, I have to use a .357 to atleast feel adequate.:2thumbsup:

[Xiahou]

You should see my penis, I have to use a .357 to atleast feel adequate.:2thumbsup:Well, we can't all be so well-endowed as Goofball (who doesn't approve of handguns and therefore, clearly has a large, manly penis), can we? :beam:

[Goofball]

Neighborhood watches if they are operating properly should never put themselves in a position where shooting it out with criminals in a public place would be necessary.So, don't go into the bad parts of the neighborhood?

No, just continue doing what they are doing: patrolling the bad neighborhood and calling police when they see potential illegal activity.

Just don't do it with guns.



Therefor, neighborhood watches should not require firearms.This watch was started after a man was attacked in his own house - are you saying he shouldn't have put himself in that position? And are you saying it's best to not prepare for anything but the best situations?

No problem. Let him buy all the guns he wants to keep in his own home to defend himself. I just don't want some guy who (rightfully) believes he has been vitimized out patrolling the streets with a gun, maybe looking for a little payback.



And that is not even touching on the fact that we're talking about a bunch of untrained civilians, whose only qualifications to purchase guns were not having ever been convicted of any felonies.Using a gun is not rocket science, and I have contempt for the idea that ordinary people are too stupid to operate a gun. Should we shudder in our houses, afraid to go outside, afraid to grasp our very right as US citizens?

Also, these people have taken gun training classes.

No, using a gun is not rocket science. Just about anybody who has finished kindergarten and developed the highly difficult skill of using their index finger can pull a trigger.

OTOH, Using a handgun in a combat situation, especially one where innocent non-combatants are also likely to be present is an incredibly stressful and demanding task, one that the ERT teams and elite military forces of the world train at every day, and still screw up more often than not when the chips are down.

Just because these guys have taken a gun safety course that more or less tells them which part is the dangerous end of the gun does not in any way qualify them to engage in gunplay with baddies on city streets.



If you want a gun to defend your home, I can live with that because it really doesn't add any risk to me or my family. But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day."Are you always racist and anti-semitic? The question is as valid as your gross libel of people who have been attacked for their religion and now carry to protect themselves.
Or do you just feel the need to launch ad homenim attacks against those who do something you don't?

Yes I am always this racist and anti-semitic. I'm also Hitler.

(Just figured I'd beat you to the punch there by invoking Godwin's Law for you, because it seems like that was going to be your next step after accusing me - incorrectly, as it happens - of using ad hominem tactics in an argument.)

If I had said something mean about you, I would have been guilty of using ad hominem tactics, as you are the one I am debating. But saying something about the subjects of the article and what they are doing is simply expressing my opinion about the article, which is the point of the thread.

Maybe we should take a look at the last few threads about gays, or transexuals, or war protestors, or even Democrats, for that matter, to see how restrained you are about "launching ad hominem attacks against those who do something you don't?"

~;)



If you want a gun to defend your home, I can live with that because it really doesn't add any risk to me or my family. But the last thing I want are a bunch of middle-aged guys walking around in public with their penis-extensions, hoping somebody "makes their day."Wow, how's that for offensive? Your whole post suggests you either don't trust your neighbors or at least think they're all too stupid to be able to handle a gun without killing themselves or others. Smacks of elitism, imo.

Classic strawman.

Not trusting the average joe-blow to be able to handle himself safely in a combat situation with civilians around does not equal thinking he is "stupid," but you saying it does sure does make me sound like an arsehole, doesn't it? So I can definitely see the appeal in using that particular argument. Would you accuse me of calling you stupid if I also refused to let you try your hand at landing an aircraft that I happened to be riding in?

Elitism? Sure it is. I expect any person who wants me to trust him as my armed protector on the public streets to have achieved at least a modicum of eliteness when it comes to combat, gun safety, and tactics. No, as I said before, I don't think your average joe-blow is qualified to do that.

I'm a trained soldier, and even recently had the opportunity to do a bit of urban ops refesher training (although I am by no means an expert at it). While I would trust myself in a combat situation that involved only myself, my fellow soldiers, and baddies, I would be scared as hell going into a situation where I knew there would be innocents intermingled with all of us.

Knowing how difficult it is, there is no way I can trust a bunch of guys with absolutely no training.

Sorry if that makes me an elitist.


I know many people that can and often do carry weapons- myself included. I also know that there are many, many more lawfully carrying weapons that I'll never even notice. I feel safer knowing they're out there.

I don't.

[HoreTore]

Because there are less then 50 people living within a 10 kilometer radius from your house? ~;)

Haha! Well, that would go for 2 of my living years... However, now I live about 15 minutes away from "downtown Oslo"(our capitol), so I'd say there's at least 500k people living with a 10km radius.... Or in other words, the densest populated area in this country.

Curiously enough though, if you are living in densely populated areas, you're probably less likely to get robbed than if you live out in the wild... The bandit bands we have here usually go after remote areas like cabins and farms, because a) it's a long way from everything a robber wants to avoid and b) there's a LOT of value there, generally speaking.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, just continue doing what they are doing: patrolling the bad neighborhood and calling police when they see potential illegal activity.

Just don't do it with guns.

Why? Do you also tear out your airbag because you think the safety it offers might cause you to drive more erratically? Why should they remove a useful tool? Why should they relinquish their ability to adequately defend themselves?

What if they go into a bad part of the neighborhood and someone moves to attack them? Your plan would end in them getting beat up, probably stabbed, and maybe killed.


No problem. Let him buy all the guns he wants to keep in his own home to defend himself. I just don't want some guy who (rightfully) believes he has been vitimized out patrolling the streets with a gun, maybe looking for a little payback.

Why don't you want him to be able to defend himself?


OTOH, Using a handgun in a combat situation, especially one where innocent non-combatants are also likely to be present is an incredibly stressful and demanding task, one that the ERT teams and elite military forces of the world train at every day, and still screw up more often than not when the chips are down.

Just because these guys have taken a gun safety course that more or less tells them which part is the dangerous end of the gun does not in any way qualify them to engage in gunplay with baddies on city streets.

More of the standard 'guns are too complicated for the peasants'. You know, somehow 2 million people in this country manage to defend themselves with guns every year and they don't have to take gun combat courses to do it effectively. Using a gun is simple - point and click. Yes, being in a situation where one must use a gun is stressful, but unless you're paralyzed by stress, it won't matter that much.

History and facts show us that in reality, you don't have to be a gun master to use a gun. The mere presence of a gun will often cause potential criminals to back down.


If I had said something mean about you, I would have been guilty of using ad hominem tactics, as you are the one I am debating. But saying something about the subjects of the article and what they are doing is simply expressing my opinion about the article, which is the point of the thread.

Saying 'I don't think they should do that' is expressing your opinion - saying 'They're doing it to compensate for something' is an ad homenim.


Maybe we should take a look at the last few threads about gays, or transexuals, or war protestors, or even Democrats, for that matter, to see how restrained you are about "launching ad hominem attacks against those who do something you don't?"

Oh, please do, and see if I rested my entire argument on those insults. Sorry, but all I see from you is 'They shouldn't do this because they can't because I say so and they're only doing it because they got small members'.


While I would trust myself in a combat situation that involved only myself, my fellow soldiers, and baddies, I would be scared as hell going into a situation where I knew there would be innocents intermingled with all of us.

Knowing how difficult it is, there is no way I can trust a bunch of guys with absolutely no training.

That's weird - as the rate of civilians accidentally hitting innocents is 1/10 of the rate of a cop hitting an innocent. Perhaps you shouldn't compare warfare with self defense.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

History and facts show us that in reality, you don't have to be a gun master to use a gun. The mere presence of a gun will often cause potential criminals to back down.

No. But that was never what he said, now was it? You don't need to be a gun master to use a gun, but you sure do need to be a drill master to handle a fire exchange between your squad, the enemy and civilians stuck in-between. That takes drilling, drilling and then even some more drilling. And then take a look at how often the military screws up when there's civilians involved. It's not easy at all, it's painfully hard.

[Innocentius]

Wow, how's that for offensive? Your whole post suggests you either don't trust your neighbors or at least think they're all too stupid to be able to handle a gun without killing themselves or others. Smacks of elitism, imo.

I know many people that can and often do carry weapons- myself included. I also know that there are many, many more lawfully carrying weapons that I'll never even notice. I feel safer knowing they're out there.

Do I sense naitivity? I'm sure you also feel safe that pretty much anyone - and anyone might be some kind of psycho beneath the surface, like Ed Gein - can carry a gun at any time. I'm also sure you feel safe knowing how easy it is for organized criminals - or just criminals - to get a gun. And please don't counter with the old "well, I carry a gun so then I can defend myself", because you shouldn't feel unsafe to the degree where you would want to carry a gun, there's something really wrong in that case.

[Innocentius]

Why? Do you also tear out your airbag because you think the safety it offers might cause you to drive more erratically? Why should they remove a useful tool? Why should they relinquish their ability to adequately defend themselves?

I understand you're talking about the specific case with the vigilantes, but don't you pro-guns people ever consider how it would be without any guns? I mean, in Sweden, people are not allowed to carry guns, but there are no mass killings of civilians. In fact, I can't recall a single non-criminal being shot to death (or shot at all) by another person (who was not a police on duty).


That's weird - as the rate of civilians accidentally hitting innocents is 1/10 of the rate of a cop hitting an innocent. Perhaps you shouldn't compare warfare with self defense.


And you don't consider the mere fact that civilians accidentally shoot other innocent civilians at all disturbing?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I understand you're talking about the specific case with the vigilantes, but don't you pro-guns people ever consider how it would be without any guns? I mean, in Sweden, people are not allowed to carry guns, but there are no mass killings of civilians. In fact, I can't recall a single non-criminal being shot to death (or shot at all) by another person (who was not a police on duty).

I do consider it, and then I remember violence has been around long before guns, and even today people use non firearm weapons, like knives, to hurt others. Taking away guns would just help criminals, because it is often them who are physically stronger, which is what older weapons favor.

This fellow does a much more indepth look at the banning of guns:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml


You don't need to be a gun master to use a gun, but you sure do need to be a drill master to handle a fire exchange between your squad, the enemy and civilians stuck in-between.

But that's not really relevant, is it then?


I'm also sure you feel safe knowing how easy it is for organized criminals - or just criminals - to get a gun.

Stopping the carrying of guns by good citizens won't make it any harder.



I'm sure you also feel safe that pretty much anyone - and anyone might be some kind of psycho beneath the surface, like Ed Gein - can carry a gun at any time.

Oh, I do. Why shouldn't I? Guns don't make good people go crazy. Or are you just projecting your own feelings upon others?


And please don't counter with the old "well, I carry a gun so then I can defend myself", because you shouldn't feel unsafe to the degree where you would want to carry a gun, there's something really wrong in that case.

And what happens if the universe doesn't obey your decree to be safe enough that no one ever needs to defend themselves? Oh, wait, it's all about feelings. Yes, because our society is not made up of angels we sometimes need to defend ourselves. Saying 'That's really wrong' doesn't make being prepared any less necessary.

Philosophically, being self reliant for your own safety is a sign of freedom.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

Philosophically, being self reliant for your own safety is a sign of freedom.

Crazed Rabbit

Rubbish. Not having to worry about your own safety is the sign of freedom.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rubbish. Not having to worry about your own safety is the sign of freedom.

Are you saying having to rely on others to protect you (like feudalism) is freedom?
You don't have to worry about your safety in a prison for crooked accountants; does that mean you're free?

CR

[Tribesman]

You know, somehow 2 million people in this country manage to defend themselves with guns every year
Now that is interesting , it certainly looks like quite compelling evidence ,hmmmmm....quite compelling indeed .
But hold on this is a gun topic , gun nut weekly and the Brady bunch are equally apt at distorting figures aren't they .
So now then ...2 million people wow thats a lot of people , thats less than 1% of the population isn't it .
How do they define defending themselves ?
Would that crazy old coot that shot a kid for walking on his lawn be included , he was after all only defending his property with a gun , he has to be one of the 2 million right .
OK maybe thats not a fair example , crazy old people with guns cannot be used as a representation .
How about a sane old person then ?
Rabbit you did a good one a while back , a very nice one , absolutely unarguable defending yourself with a gun sort of stuff :yes:
An old ex-marine shot the perpetrators during an armed robbery in a store , great stuff:2thumbsup: ...slight problem there though , the linked article led on to two other "self defence" shooting stories from the same area on the same day . One was slightly questionable and involved shooting two men on a construction site, the other one was absolutely puzzling and appeared to be a drunk with a shotgun blowing his drinking buddies head off for alledgedly stealing a DVD disc , would they be part of the 2 million ?(there were of course lots of shooting stories in that paper but they were just shootings , accidents and people getting caught in crossfire , but these 3 involved claims of defense)

So then Rabbit , it does lead to some questions . You have put up the figure of 2 million , can you back it up and then show how many of those 2 million could be justified ?
Or is it just a ball park figure that you thought might look good ?

[Geoffrey S]

No, he's not saying that at all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Philosophically, being self reliant for your own safety is a sign of freedom.Crazed Rabbit


Rubbish. Not having to worry about your own safety is the sign of freedom.


These two quotations actually summarize the core issue of the debate pretty well.

Horetore, most people in the USA would label your version "security" rather than freedom, preferring Rabbit's more individual-centered version for "freedom."

BOTH are important components of a healthy society. Absent physical security, your ability to enjoy your rights is quite limited. Absent individual freedom, your "unalienable" right to the "pursuit" of happiness is diminished.

The USA has, traditionally, preferenced the individual's maintenance of her/his own security over the government's role in establishing security more than most other societies. An armed militia or neighborhood watch is an extension of this concept.


Goof':

Yes, all sorts of people -- even the mullet-coiffed intellectually numb -- in the USA can own, carry, and come up with an excuse to use a firearm. However, in an armed society of individuals, they are held individually responsible for their actions by others. The history of the American frontier suggests that, absent racism, violence among members of a fully armed society is actually LESS frequent.

Slypsy:

Yes, the primary goal is apprehension. Since measuring the number of criminals who saw a watch patrolling and chose to go elsewhere is difficult -- for some reason they just don't want to answer the surveys :smartass: -- I referenced one of the related measures you could use to evaluate the program for yourself.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So then Rabbit , it does lead to some questions . You have put up the figure of 2 million , can you back it up and then show how many of those 2 million could be justified ?
Or is it just a ball park figure that you thought might look good ?

Does it usually take so long for you to get to the point?

Can't you find the study that was done yourself? It's really very easy. Don't come complaining to me if you're not adequately prepared for this debate.

CR

[Tribesman]

So its just a ballpark figure you made up then .
Well the examples off the link from your justifiable story would appear to show that your ball park only has a third of a field.:laugh4:
Yay vigilantes...err neighbourhood watch
Yay some of them carry guns...some of them don't carry guns and some think carrying guns is a bad idea.
What was it again .....oh yeah ...Yay vigilantes:2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

Not having to worry about your own safety is the sign of freedom.
It's strange, but that sentence sounds really weird to American ears. The police cannot be everywhere, and we don't really want them everywhere. Several court cases have shown that the police do not have a legal obligation to protect any particular person at any given moment.

At the end of the day, your security and safety are up to you. Maybe living in an extremely safe area is your answer. Maybe home security is what works for you. For some people, being armed is the answer. To each his own.

And it's beyond pointless to talk about what the U.S.A. would be like with no guns; for the last century, this has been an armed society. Any attempt to disarm our populace would face immediate political failure, and a more determined attempt would face an armed insurrection.

Your safety is your business. Nobody's going to look out for you and yours with the same vigilance.

[rory_20_uk]

Parts of America were segregated until they wern't. America was isolationist, then decided to... change their outlook.

Drugs were legal, then overnight were illegal.

Change does happen. Merely that you dont want it doesn't mean it is impossible.

In a modern state most security is up to the state. Indeed you'd not be able to live your life if you really had to protect yourself all the time: on the school run with the kids with armalites, go to the shops shotgun in hand, go to a baseball game with an uzi just in case... :laugh4:

Yet even with so many that seem to have the 1800s frontier spirit, lone nutters with guns aren't cut down by vigilantes in seconds; bank robbers aren't stopped by the citizenry. It still comes down to the police in some form.

It's playing at safety, a cheap illusion as most can't afford to think of or implement a proper solution.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

bank robbers aren't stopped by the citizenry.

Northfield, Minnesota

Coffee, Kansas


-- Both of these run directly counter to your claim. Both occurred when citizen armament with personal firearms was nearly ubiquitous.

[Xiahou]

Northfield, Minnesota

Coffee, Kansas


-- Both of these run directly counter to your claim. Both occurred when citizen armament with personal firearms was nearly ubiquitous.
Here's another (http://www.topix.com/city/adger-al/2007/05/customer-praised-for-helping-to-stop-bank-robbery-suspect):

Law officers have praised a bank customer who pulled his gun and helped deputies capture a gunman who opened fire during a robbery of a Wachovia branch, killing two tellers and wounding two. :beam:

[Tribesman]

Both of these run directly counter to your claim. Both occurred when citizen armament with personal firearms was nearly ubiquitous.
How many banks had the gangs already robbed ? surely if armed citizenry was a major factor in preventing such things they wouldn't have robbed many banks would they ..or trains or coaches .
Were the citizens of the other towns not armed perhaps ? Had the local marshalls gone all liberal and taken away their toys ?
Or is it that in those cases you cite the criminals got unlucky and the people got lucky .

[Ironside]

Yes, all sorts of people -- even the mullet-coiffed intellectually numb -- in the USA can own, carry, and come up with an excuse to use a firearm. However, in an armed society of individuals, they are held individually responsible for their actions by others. The history of the American frontier suggests that, absent racism, violence among members of a fully armed society is actually LESS frequent.


Well, the problem with frontier studies is that the frontier kind of lack big cities. And were does most crimes get comitted? In the fine small middle class areas were everyone knows eachother of course :laugh4: , and not at all in the slums of the major cities. If you don't take all things into consideration you'll get skewed results.
For example, Swedish history (I suspect that European is perfectly possible to use instead) shows that reduced penalties gives LESS crimes.


It's strange, but that sentence sounds really weird to American ears. The police cannot be everywhere, and we don't really want them everywhere. Several court cases have shown that the police do not have a legal obligation to protect any particular person at any given moment.

You have to take into consideration of the soeciety view people have here. A society were people feels the need to have a gun for thier own protection and/or police everywere and/or walled in, guarded areas to protect themself are a failed society. It doesn't live up to the demands you can expect form a successful society.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So its just a ballpark figure you made up then .

Ha! Your google-fu must be very poor if you can't find the study.


Well the examples off the link from your justifiable story would appear to show that your ball park only has a third of a field.:laugh4:

Data is not the plural of anecdote.


Well, the problem with frontier studies is that the frontier kind of lack big cities.

For many years, gun grabbers screamed about 'the wild west' were people were armed and, the grabbers claimed, shot anyone and everyone every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

They used these lies to spread fear about an armed citizenry, they still do, in fact. Are you admitting that the vast majority of people can carry guns in a situation and nothing bad will happen?

CR

[Tribesman]

Data is not the plural of anecdote.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
you linked the newspaper article about the ex-marine, funnily enough in that topic you chose to ignore the 2 other "self defense" stories and the pile of other firearms stories in the same edition when I raised them .
Did they put a bit of a downer on your yay guns are great fetish ?

So data is it , simple maths , you provided a source that had one good guns story , two dodgy guns stories and nine bad guns story , data would suggest that you are ignoring facts so as to fit with your pre-conceptions .:yes:

[Kralizec]

Several court cases have shown that the police do not have a legal obligation to protect any particular person at any given moment.

Could you elaborate on this? That's just...bizarre.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I think it sounds pretty reasonable. Otherwise, if robbers broke into my home and beat me up, I could sue the police for not protecting me.

[HoreTore]

These two quotations actually summarize the core issue of the debate pretty well.

Horetore, most people in the USA would label your version "security" rather than freedom, preferring Rabbit's more individual-centered version for "freedom."

BOTH are important components of a healthy society. Absent physical security, your ability to enjoy your rights is quite limited. Absent individual freedom, your "unalienable" right to the "pursuit" of happiness is diminished.

And that demonstrates the difference between an american and a european very well ~;)

There are 2 ways to ensure the safety of a populace:

- Security
- Not having any criminals

The way things look to me, the second option is absent in america. It's security, security and then some more security. Does a town have problems with criminals? Increase the police force. Increase the punishments. Form local militias. For a euroweenie like me, the answer isn't to fix something that's broken, it's to ensure that it never gets broken in the first place.

And, if you look at crime statistics, it's time to face the facts: our method works better at lessening crime. Period. End of story. We have less crime here no matter how you twist the statistics. Unless you think that americans are more criminal than europeans, the obvious conclusion is that we are doing things right, and you're doing it wrong.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Tackling crime at the root is obviously important, but it takes huge resources and a long time. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to protect yourself until the utopian society you speak of is achieved.

[Ironside]

For many years, gun grabbers screamed about 'the wild west' were people were armed and, the grabbers claimed, shot anyone and everyone every day of the week and twice on Sunday.


Well I'm not insighted into the "gun grabbers" argumentation. As you see above, the viewpoint is a bit different in Scandinavia. Explains at least why it's used as an argument.


They used these lies to spread fear about an armed citizenry, they still do, in fact. Are you admitting that the vast majority of people can carry guns in a situation and nothing bad will happen?

CR

Yes.

Are you admitting that the vast majority of people can carry guns in a situation and something bad is very likely to happen?

It's all depending on what that situation is.


Tackling crime at the root is obviously important, but it takes huge resources and a long time. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to protect yourself until the utopian society you speak of is achieved.

Agreed, but the question is how much protection is reasonable? For me and Hore i the point were you need guns (even any weapon that's intended as a weapon) to get reasonable protection a sign that the society is unacceptable.

Or to put it differently, I don't disagree when someone that has the extreme unlucky of getting home invaded defends themself with a weapon, maybe even a gun. I'm disagreeing with it when it's a reasonable choise of action to prepare myself for this occurance (you can be hit by a meteor, but that doesn't mean that going around in a safety helmet to protect myself from it is a reasonable choise of action).

It shows something dysfunctional in society, either an unatural scare or a serious problem. Or to but it shorter: Is it smart to carry a gun in a Mad Max world? Yes. Is a Mad Max world something good? No. So a world were it's smart to carry a gun isn't good world.

[Kralizec]

I think it sounds pretty reasonable. Otherwise, if robbers broke into my home and beat me up, I could sue the police for not protecting me.

The police can obviously not prevent everything - but if they're able to prevent something and don't, shouldn't they be accountable?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The police can obviously not prevent everything - but if they're able to prevent something and don't, shouldn't they be accountable?

Yes, but I didn't think that was what Lemur was talking about.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guess what, tribesy - we're not talking about that story.

2 million people use guns to defend themselves every year, and that is what is important.

So go on and babble about a dozen cases you might as well have made up, but don't pretend to be talking sense.


The police can obviously not prevent everything - but if they're able to prevent something and don't, shouldn't they be accountable?

Nope. I believe the case involved them not responding well enough to a 911 call, the woman who got beat up by robbers or whatever sued and lost - the police have no duty to protect individuals, it was found.



Are you admitting that the vast majority of people can carry guns in a situation and something bad is very likely to happen?

No, not at all.


And, if you look at crime statistics, it's time to face the facts: our method works better at lessening crime. Period. End of story. We have less crime here no matter how you twist the statistics. Unless you think that americans are more criminal than europeans, the obvious conclusion is that we are doing things right, and you're doing it wrong.

Violent crime has been dropping in the USA for decades, as more and more people buy guns. Obviously, gun ownership doesn't correlate with crime.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

the use of statisics in the gun debate is misleading by both sides. And it gets even more confusing as the debate gets into the tit for tat exchange that it always boils down to.

What it boils down to is that in the United States there is a different philosophy on individual freedom and security then what is present in many other locations. There is an attempt to swing the United States basic philosophy toward that of many European and other Wester nations - but is still being resisted by a vast majority of citizens in the United States.

The Gun debate is one of those center issues along that attempt, there are others but weapons and the private ownership of them is currently protected as an individaul right by the constitution.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the method to crub violence by those who wish to pursue criminal behavior.

[HoreTore]

Violent crime has been dropping in the USA for decades, as more and more people buy guns. Obviously, gun ownership doesn't correlate with crime.

Crazed Rabbit

I wasn't talking about gun ownership specifically. That's just one drop in a big ocean. Almost everything in our society matter, from how we treat troublesome youngsters to the number of cops.

And so what if violent crime has dropped in the US? You still have a crime rate that would be considered rebellion if it popped up in a european country. We have been doing things better than you have for the last 200 years, you'd better realise that. Soon.


Tackling crime at the root is obviously important, but it takes huge resources and a long time. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to protect yourself until the utopian society you speak of is achieved.

So.... Europe is now a utopian society? :laugh4:

[Geoffrey S]

I'll agree that the mentality is the difference. Just as much as you couldn't turn Europe into a gun-wielding society and can't take the guns away from Americans, you can't make Saudi Arabia predominately christian or the States a Muslim nation. There's no point comparing two completely different views on the matter as if things work the same in both places.

One thing I am curious about, what are the numbers of people wanting gun control, or a more 'European' system, in the States? A large minority, a silent majority? Obviously the view on such matters can be rather obscured by the average Hollywood movie or Michael Moore diatribe.

Edit:

And so what if violent crime has dropped in the US? You still have a crime rate that would be considered rebellion if it popped up in a european country. We have been doing things better than you have for the last 200 years, you'd better realise that. Soon.
Doing Norway a lot of good, isn't it, with one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world?

So.... Europe is now a utopian society?
Europe generally is a different kind of society to the US. Not necessarily better or worse, but it has different means of (trying) to protect the public from criminals than legalising the possession of firearms. Here, it mostly works. In the US, guns mostly work.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I wasn't talking about gun ownership specifically. That's just one drop in a big ocean.

What matters is results, and that's what America is getting.


We have been doing things better than you have for the last 200 years, you'd better realise that. Soon.

Or else what? You'll come and try to lecture a bunch of gun toting people on how to run their lives?
:laugh4:



One thing I am curious about, what are the numbers of people wanting gun control, or a more 'European' system, in the States? A large minority, a silent majority? Obviously the view on such matters can be rather obscured by the average Hollywood movie or Michael Moore diatribe.

I think the majority are happy the way it is now. A very vocal minority cries out for more gun control. Some people cry out for more gun rights.

CR

[Tribesman]

Guess what, tribesy - we're not talking about that story.


Ah wassamatter , don't you like stories that shoot holes in your ideas ?
you don't like stories about guns unless they are woohoo yay stories.

Perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned guns , especially when you want to try and throw around ball park figures like............

2 million people use guns to defend themselves every year, and that is what is important.
Yeah that nut who shot a kid for walking on his lawn was defending himself is that one of your 2 million .
Woohoo out of all the people who get shot in your country a few of them tend to be legitimate shootings yay guns yay vigilantes!!!!!!!
Sorry there ,could you remind me what the percentage of the population is again ?
data rabbit Data :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So I repeatHow do they define defending themselves ?



So go on and babble about a dozen cases you might as well have made up, but don't pretend to be talking sense.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I don't need to make things up , you post a yay gun news article and the newspaper contains lots of boo gun newsarticles . :idea2:
Simple isn't it .
Hmmm lets think, there were other gunstories in that paper....errr..what was it again ...people defending themselves with guns because they felt they might be threatened with guns hmmmmm...what was itagain.....oh yeah at that date since the start of the year the local police had managed to shoot 40 motorists they had stopped , apparently there are people over there with guns and its better to be safe eh .
You really should explore the links you post :2thumbsup:
Talking of links , nice one you posted in this topic from Kopel , can you spot the glaring innacuracies in his gun nut drivel ?

[Tribesman]

Doing Norway a lot of good, isn't it, with one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world?

Errrrr....nope :dizzy2:
Did rabbit just mention something about people making things up:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Congratulations Geoffrey , do you win a prize for that ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tribesy, your pathetic posts do nothing to hurt my arguments.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the plural of anecdote is not data. Furthermore, the use of newspaper articles for statistical purposes is fundamentally flawed. The mention of a smattering of news stories that you have provided no proof of is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

It is a generally established figure that 2 million people use guns to defend themselves each year in the US - that is, the presence of a gun in the hands of a would be victim stops a crime. You have done absolutely nothing, as there is nothing that can be done, to discredit that.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

And, if you look at crime statistics, it's time to face the facts: our method works better at lessening crime. Period. End of story. We have less crime here no matter how you twist the statistics. Unless you think that americans are more criminal than europeans, the obvious conclusion is that we are doing things right, and you're doing it wrong.
European countries also have far more homogeneous societies. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that's a major factor.

[HoreTore]

What matters is results, and that's what America is getting.

That sounds like Bush when he's describing the war in Iraq...


European countries also have far more homogeneous societies. You're fooling yourself if you don't think that's a major factor.

Haven't you heard that we've been overrun by the muslim hordes lately?

[Crazed Rabbit]

That sounds like Bush when he's describing the war in Iraq...

Except I'm backed up by decades of crime data.

I still want to hear your answer to this:

You don't have to worry about your safety in a prison for crooked accountants; does that mean you're free?


Haven't you heard that we've been overrun by the muslim hordes lately?

So, either you're being overrun by Muslim hordes and need to do something about it, or your crime statistics are not accurately comparable to the US. Which is it?

CR

[Papewaio]

How would these guys handle an ice user? Shoot to kill or back off until police arrive? Would they gang tackle him?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is that a serious question, Pape?

Do you mean meth when you say ice? The article said they'll call the police if they see someone breaking the law.

CR

[Papewaio]

Yes it is a serious quesiton, Ice as in the one when high makes people highly aggressive and prone to do stupid things like attack people.

Would it be best for them to call police and retreat, shoot the guy or use non-lethal force if possible?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Like the people patrolling in the article said, they'd probably call police if they saw someone high on meth.

CR

[Tribesman]

It is a generally established figure that 2 million people use guns to defend themselves each year in the US - that is, the presence of a gun in the hands of a would be victim stops a crime. You have done absolutely nothing, as there is nothing that can be done, to discredit that.


What percentage of the population is that that are defended rabbit , what percentage of criminal acts are stopped , how is it defined .
Who generally established the figure and is it a proper figure or a ball park figure , is it a consistant figure or is it a variable figure .
You havn't given data , you have given a pro-gun anecdote , and a very vauge one at that .

What you really mean to say is there is nothing that can be done to discredit guns in your eyes .:yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's strange, but that sentence sounds really weird to American ears. The police cannot be everywhere, and we don't really want them everywhere. Several court cases have shown that the police do not have a legal obligation to protect any particular person at any given moment.

At the end of the day, your security and safety are up to you. Maybe living in an extremely safe area is your answer. Maybe home security is what works for you. For some people, being armed is the answer. To each his own.

And it's beyond pointless to talk about what the U.S.A. would be like with no guns; for the last century, this has been an armed society. Any attempt to disarm our populace would face immediate political failure, and a more determined attempt would face an armed insurrection.

Your safety is your business. Nobody's going to look out for you and yours with the same vigilance.

I have posted before that I recognise the gulf between American and European thinking on these issues and that there is little to be gained by trying to persuade one another.

However, the debate has fascinating sub-texts and Lemur, your post provokes me to explore one of them.

To me, the logical extrapolation of the distrust of state would mean that the historical aversion the US had to a standing army should be still very strong. After all, if citizens cannot trust a police force to protect them - and as you note, believe that security and safety are entirely the concern of the citizen - how much more anxious does a federal standing army make the freedom-loving citizen?

If one argues that times have changed and that security agencies like armed services and federal intelligence agencies are required in the modern world, might not that argument also apply to police forces and the assuming of responsibility for citizens' security by the state?

I'm not looking for an answer from just the Lemur, nor trying to knock holes in anyone's argument - just trying to understand how the positions play out.

[Geoffrey S]

Errrrr....nope :dizzy2:
Did rabbit just mention something about people making things up:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Congratulations Geoffrey , do you win a prize for that ?
Apologies, also to HoreTore, that I got that wrong. After a quick search it has become clear that it was Finland I was thinking of.

[Ronin]

2 million people use guns to defend themselves every year, and that is what is important.


just a question.....

has any one ever looked into what number of those 2 million situations are directly caused and/or provoked by the large number of guns you have in the hands of the public?

my gut feeling is you´ll find that is the case in a considerable number of them....

what is the point of using a tool to solve a problem if said tool is also (at least) partially the source of that problem?

[Ser Clegane]

In case anybody is interested - this seems to be the the publication on the study that CR is referring to:

Kleck & Gertz article (http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html)

NB: I am aware that the article is from a "pro-gun" site - I did not quickly find any other "reprint" of the acticle (and as it is a reprint the site it is posted on should be irrelevant)

[HoreTore]

Apologies, also to HoreTore, that I got that wrong. After a quick search it has become clear that it was Finland I was thinking of.

*cough*vodka*cough*

And, if I grew up with finnish TV theater, I'd probably kill myself too.


Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims.[100] Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year,[101] representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs. Therefore, the number of justifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rough index of life-saving gun uses. Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it can shed no light on the benefits and costs of keeping guns in the home for protection.[102]

Has the 2 million been reduced to a maimum of 400.000?

[Redleg]

I have posted before that I recognise the gulf between American and European thinking on these issues and that there is little to be gained by trying to persuade one another.

However, the debate has fascinating sub-texts and Lemur, your post provokes me to explore one of them.

To me, the logical extrapolation of the distrust of state would mean that the historical aversion the US had to a standing army should be still very strong. After all, if citizens cannot trust a police force to protect them - and as you note, believe that security and safety are entirely the concern of the citizen - how much more anxious does a federal standing army make the freedom-loving citizen?

If one argues that times have changed and that security agencies like armed services and federal intelligence agencies are required in the modern world, might not that argument also apply to police forces and the assuming of responsibility for citizens' security by the state?

I'm not looking for an answer from just the Lemur, nor trying to knock holes in anyone's argument - just trying to understand how the positions play out.

If one wanted to make a comparision and spend the time to do the research, a study on the relative percent of the population who's career is within the governmental security sector might be start. (Police, Intelligence agencies, Armed Forces, and the like.) One should also look into the private sector that is devolted into supplying materials to these agencies.

Armed private security in my opinion falls into the same catergory as the people taking care of their own security. However if that same firm is doing business for any government agency - it falls into the public/governmental security sector.

Making guns more difficult to purchase and to be available, on the surface always sounds good - but when one looks at how those laws are enforced, especially the current laws on the books in the United States - one begins to see a major disconnect. That arguement is never really addressed in any gun debate, show me statistics and facts that show how the current gun laws reduce criminal activities involving guns.

Those who wish to purchase weapons for illegal use - do so from illegimate sources. Punishing law abidding citizens to halt a possible crime committed by a criminal goes against the very ideal of freedom of the individual. Facts and figures are used by both sides of the arguement - but no arguement yet that I have seen convinces me that a freedom granted in the Constitution of the United States needs to be revoked by the people of this nation. Now laws have been made in the United States that resticted or limit personal freedom, some have been temporary and other permament, but most of those laws did not have a constitutional ammendment that guranteed (SP) that freedom. (well until recently with the Patriot Act that is.)

[Sigurd]

Law officers have praised a bank customer who pulled his gun and helped deputies capture a gunman who opened fire during a robbery of a Wachovia branch, killing two tellers and wounding two.

:beam:

:no: ...
The banks in the US has not insured their money? Let the robber take what he/she wants. Let the police deal with this at a later time.
Nothing will compensate the loss of two lives and possibly criple two others. IMO a bad call.

[Innocentius]

Violent crime has been dropping in the USA for decades, as more and more people buy guns. Obviously, gun ownership doesn't correlate with crime.


Crime has been dropping in Europe for the past two centuries as well. What might this be related to? Well, possibly better healthcare, better education and generally life just being more pleasant.
Gun ownership in itself might very well be related to crime, carrying a gun makes you feel big, but I rather think liberalism is the real reason for a lot of crime, and in this case the high crime rates of the USA. People living separated from each other always creates conflict, and some being richer than others even more so. In the USA, there are still ghettos, while in Europe there are shabby suburbs at worst (and I myself consider those shabby suburbs a disgrace that must be fixed)... Basically, I'm with HoreTore on this, I don't really like to say "look at us", but I think Europe has solved the problem with crime in a much more efficient way. I also realise prohibiting guns in USA over a day would be catastrophe, but social reforms are probably necessary (that is, if you want to solve the problem). Gun ownership, harder punishments and more cops don't prevent crime for some reason, while growing up in safe and secure environment does.

[Fragony]

'Where guns are outlawed outlaws have guns'

someone smart.

Basically, I'm with HoreTore on this, I don't really like to say "look at us", but I think Europe has solved the problem with crime in a much more efficient way.

Sweden huh, ya doing just fine :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Ronin]

:no: ...
The banks in the US has not insured their money? Let the robber take what he/she wants. Let the police deal with this at a later time.
Nothing will compensate the loss of two lives and possibly criple two others. IMO a bad call.

exactly...in a situation like a bank robbery the last thing you need is someone in there that wants to play rambo.....the money is ensured....just let the guy walk out the door with it.....call the cops the moment he walks out

[Odin]

What it boils down to is that in the United States there is a different philosophy on individual freedom and security then what is present in many other locations. There is an attempt to swing the United States basic philosophy toward that of many European and other Wester nations - but is still being resisted by a vast majority of citizens in the United States.



Very well said. Part of the problem is the constitution allows for the right to bare arms, and woe to the politicians who attempt to remove any entitlement to the american people.

I am not currently a criminal, nor was I ever a hardended criminal. However I own firearms, to much according to some. In reflection on this issue I am one of the problems with the system.

You see, inhereting my grandfathers shotgun and my fathers pistols was traditional. Yet there meaning is somewhat lost in the romantic depictions of gun violence. The minority of gun owners commit violent crimes, however there are those like me who have far to many firearms for an ordinary citizen.

Thats part of the problem, because I have had a LTC since the early 90's I am not suspected or questioned when I want to buy 3 more handguns. Are limits the answer? Well maybe. While the constitution allows me to have firearms its within the context to defend and uphold my household, my state and my country.

In essence the spirit was to keep prepared the citizenry should we have another monarchy on our hands in 1789. didnt pan out, and now I dont need 3 assault rifles, 4 hunting rifles (shotguns) and 6 pistols. I should be able to retain some, and I havent quite reasoned out whats the proper balance either.

The constant emails from the NRA arent helping either.

[Innocentius]

'Where guns are outlawed outlaws have guns'

And where guns are allowed everyone has guns, much better. Also, for some reason, there is still less crime and less shootings in countries where guns are outlawed.


Sweden huh, ya doing just fine :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Oh, man... That really hurt. I think I'm going to kill myself now, I mean, that's what any Swede would do, right?

Seriously though, what are you talking about? We're doing OK I guess. Much to be improved of course, but at least our crime rates are rather low, even with our ridicilous immigration politic and segregation. But how is that on topic?

[Fragony]

Oh, man... That really hurt. I think I'm going to kill myself now, I mean, that's what any Swede would do, right?


Giving it up when kindly asked? Well yeah, sure seems like it

edit: gah, for english speaking http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

Crime is rampant in Sweden, crimenumbers are low because nobody bothers with going to the police anymore. Got family there, heard enough.


But how is that on topic?

Well vigilantes, you need them.

[Kralizec]

'Where guns are outlawed outlaws have guns'

That seems valid for the USA, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do the reverse (making it easier to get guns) in another country because there's a different mentality concerning guns over here - few people would seriously consider buying one. If you open the gun market for everyone, those who'd be willing to use guns unlawfully would be the first ones to buy them, not the law abiding citizens.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

exactly...in a situation like a bank robbery the last thing you need is someone in there that wants to play rambo.....the money is ensured....just let the guy walk out the door with it.....call the cops the moment he walks out

Though not as clearly phrased as it should have been, the salient points about the robbery were:

The robber shot 4 bank employees.

Wachovia, as with most banks, actually practices precisely the policy you suggest: try to get an alarm sent, slip dye or tracers into the loot bag if you can, but do NOT offer resistance.

Apparently, this criminal either wanted to shoot people or shot them despite their passivity.

At that point, an armed citizen used his weapon to assist police in capturing the robber. This citizen not only made the right call, but should be commended for restraint (he/she didn't execute the robber on the scene but let police make an arrest).


Furthermore, I have a basic disagreement with you. Life, Liberty, and Property are all worthy of defense as they are basic to society. Your position implicitly dismisses property as having real value (if I have misconstrued your point, please excuse).

[Ironside]

Giving it up when kindly asked? Well yeah, sure seems like it

edit: gah, for english speaking http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

Crime is rampant in Sweden, crimenumbers are low because nobody bothers with going to the police anymore. Got family there, heard enough.


Hmm, I remember that article, it was a lot of false stuff in it. That said, there has been some severe immigration issues since I don't know, atleast 20 years or something (although it's probably not the same people nowadays :book: ).

[Fragony]

If you open the gun market for everyone, those who'd be willing to use guns unlawfully would be the first ones to buy them, not the law abiding citizens.

Care for an AK-47? Can get you one for 275 euro, even with a nice case and two full clips, china build. It is extremily easy to get guns. Why, exactly, shouldn't I be allowed to have one? You can be tortured to death with the police watching around not knowing who to call, why exactly shouldn't I have the right to have and use it? Banning guns is old fashioned, especially for law abiding citizens. Better to have it and don't need it the the reverse no? Got one anyway, screw them, not going to be a victim just because the police are nothing but a bunch of useless dissobedience-tax collectors. Someone breaks into my house I am going to mput holes into him, and I sure as hell am not going to call the police afterwards.

Hmm, I remember that article, it was a lot of false stuff in it

Compared to the official numbers I am sure it does.

[Tribesman]

In case anybody is interested - this seems to be the the publication on the study that CR is referring to:

Ah so it isn't a generally established figure it is an estimated figure from a survey that is one of many surveys that come up with different estimated figures . In addition to the government which also does surveys that come up with more different figures .
Very generally established then:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



Well done Seamus...
Apparently, this criminal either wanted to shoot people or shot them despite their passivity.

At that point, an armed citizen used his weapon to assist police in capturing the robber. This citizen not only made the right call, but should be commended for restraint (he/she didn't execute the robber on the scene but let police make an arrest).


he should not be commended for his restraint , the killer was leaving wasn't he , if a policeman did what the citizen did he would be hauled accross the coals for it , the citizen scared an armed man into returning to the building where there were poeple , that set off a hostage situation didn't it , hostage situations are something to be avoided aren't they .
So its not really a woohoo citizen with gun saves the day story is it , its more of a bloody lucky the nutter didn't kill more people when he went back into the bank kind of story , and a lucky the police managed to shoot the criminal without harming the hostage kind of story .

[Innocentius]

Crime is rampant in Sweden, crimenumbers are low because nobody bothers with going to the police anymore. Got family there, heard enough.


Wow, I've been living in Sweden (in Stockholm, and the largest cities usually attract more criminals) and I've never noticed that... If Sweden had half as much crime as the USA, then it would be rampant. Right now though, it's probably going to increase as nationalistic and even openly racist political parties are gaining votes (the result of a failed immigration and segregation yes, differencies creates crime yet again).

[Fragony]

Right now though, it's probably going to increase as nationalistic and even openly racist political parties are gaining votes (the result of a failed immigration and segregation yes, differencies creates crime yet again).

Stigmatasion is a terrible thing indeed, don't let your society dissapoint these kind law-abiding people to an extent that they have no other choice then robbing grannies and gangbaning native girls because then you guys would be so screwed huh. Throw them a few flatscreens, it isn't like you are paying that much taxes already and it might just stop them from being so jealous of your riches. Segregation, in sweden, the most politically correct and socially attractive country in the world? Differences create crime yes, especially the very big ones.

[Innocentius]

Stigmatasion is a terrible thing indeed, don't let your society dissapoint these kind law-abiding people to an extent that they have no other choice then robbing grannies and gangbaning native girls because then you guys would be so screwed huh. Throw them a few flatscreens, it isn't like you are paying that much taxes already and it might just stop them from being so jealous of your riches. Segregation, in sweden, the most politically correct and socially attractive country in the world? Differences create crime yes, especially the very big ones.

Throw flatscreens on immigrants (I suppose that is what you meant by ironically reffering to them as law-abiding citizens), is that what you're suggesting? I think the National Socialist Front would approve of throwing heavy things on immigrants...
It's apparent you don't have access to all the sources (like living in Sweden, hear about the situation by non-biased sources etc), but let me tell you it's not as bad as most Americans apparently would have it. If you consider all Muslims as evil, then Sweden must appear as a pretty screwed country. I never realised other countries considered Sweden to be such a :daisy: up place, strange considering many of the outraged islamophobics (and often white-supremacists) or other upset people (however: predominantely white) come from countries with even higher crime rates and a lot more scary crimes as well (Sweden has no serial killers, no school shootings etc; a bank robbery is considered national news).

[Husar]

Though not as clearly phrased as it should have been, the salient points about the robbery were:

The robber shot 4 bank employees.

Wachovia, as with most banks, actually practices precisely the policy you suggest: try to get an alarm sent, slip dye or tracers into the loot bag if you can, but do NOT offer resistance.

Apparently, this criminal either wanted to shoot people or shot them despite their passivity.

At that point, an armed citizen used his weapon to assist police in capturing the robber. This citizen not only made the right call, but should be commended for restraint (he/she didn't execute the robber on the scene but let police make an arrest).
Well, I thought banks usually have armed guards, but then these guards are often iincluded in the criminal plan of the bank robber(s), making them almost useless. Now if I, being a robber, knew that there would be a lot of armed citizens in a bank, I'd either not rob it at all or make sure they all die, being the potential threats to me that they are. Given that I could get my hands on sufficient weaponry, I'd do the latter, after all I need the money.
I know it adds a bit more onto my list of bad deeds should I get caught, but if an armed citizen shoots me right away, I haven't will die anyway...:sweatdrop:

[Crazed Rabbit]

has any one ever looked into what number of those 2 million situations are directly caused and/or provoked by the large number of guns you have in the hands of the public?

my gut feeling is you´ll find that is the case in a considerable number of them....

Yes, they have, and your gut feeling is wrong:
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html


has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence--it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero.



Has the 2 million been reduced to a maimum of 400.000?

No, the 400,000 is merely the number of people who say that their use of a gun almost certainly saved a life.


Gun ownership in itself might very well be related to crime, carrying a gun [S]makes you would make me feel big,

Corrected.


Ah so it isn't a generally established figure it is an estimated figure from a survey that is one of many surveys that come up with different estimated figures . In addition to the government which also does surveys that come up with more different figures .
Very generally established then

Again you wade into your self inflicted morass of incorrectness.

It is the best of over a dozen studies that ranged from 800k to 2.5 million DGUs a year. It is so good Marvin Wolfgang (google the name) had this to say about it:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

Throw flatscreens on immigrants (I suppose that is what you meant by ironically reffering to them as law-abiding citizens), is that what you're suggesting? I think the National Socialist Front would approve of throwing heavy things on immigrants...
It's apparent you don't have access to all the sources (like living in Sweden, hear about the situation by non-biased sources etc), but let me tell you it's not as bad as most Americans apparently would have it. If you consider all Muslims as evil, then Sweden must appear as a pretty screwed country. I never realised other countries considered Sweden to be such a :daisy: up place, strange considering many of the outraged islamophobics (and often white-supremacists) or other upset people (however: predominantely white) come from countries with even higher crime rates and a lot more scary crimes as well (Sweden has no serial killers, no school shootings etc; a bank robbery is considered national news).

Nah, it's basically the same as over here, isn't it? Perhaps with more gang trouble, seeing as you have a few more big cities than we do? Oh, and monarch prone to speeding and killing baby seals with his boat... I'm quite sure he's the cause of much of the crime over there.

But, hard crime, do we really have a lot of it? I don't follow the swedish situation(it's a third world country anyway), so I'll have to deal with Norway:

- Violent robberies causing civillian casaulties by organized crime: 1. Ever. Every robber caught, btw.
- Gang shootouts in the last 10 years: 3? Can't think of any more... There was one a few weeks ago, then there were two a couple of years ago(which was the "gang war" in Norway). Probably a couple more though. The bikers were quite active in the 90's, killing at least 3-4 people, including one civillian.
- Serial killers since 1900: 1. Oh, and a swede who killed some of his victims in Norway. Damn immigrants.

It seems impossible to me that Sweden is that much worse than us, as we are very, very similar when it comes to just about anything.

[Innocentius]

Corrected.


The master psychologist has spoken. Even though you're a walking angel, most people will feel big and mighty when holding a metal tool designed in the purpose of killing and very effective in doing so. When you have the opportunity to solve a situation with the help of your gun, you won't contemplate too much about other possibilites.

Power, in all forms and shapes, corrupts.

[Tribesman]

Again you wade into your self inflicted morass of incorrectness.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Show one thing from that quote to be incorrect then Rabbit .......Ah so it isn't a generally established figure it is an estimated figure from a survey that is one of many surveys that come up with different estimated figures . In addition to the government which also does surveys that come up with more different figures .
Very generally established then ....any incorrectness will do .

[Geoffrey S]

Oh well, at least gun control prevents people shooting each other in the UK. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6960590.stm)

[rory_20_uk]

With one example, a place in the gutter press awaits...

In 2004, 29,569 were killed in the USA, or 10.07 per 100,000 population
The UK managed 73 in 2004, and 46 in 2005

Now, the Uk population is 60,776,238, for a figure of 0.12 per 100,000 population.

Or a ratio of deaths of 83:1, adjusted for population.

It may not prevent deaths, but we get somewhat fewer - but at least it's safer in the USA...

~:smoking:

[Geoffrey S]

No, but this and other cases of guncrime illustrate exactly what our chums from the US have said before: that banning guns does stop people who want them from having them. It's definitely possible, people do get killed by guns (admittedly, less than in the US), so gun control isn't necessarily the main factor keeping gun crime down. That gun possession isn't necessarily dangerous is shown quite clearly by Canada and Switserland, both countries with far lower crimerates than the US.

My point being, it's time to look at the real factors behind the US having a high (gun)crime record rather than pointing the finger at the lack of gun control. That side of the debate is often missed in Europe.

[Banquo's Ghost]

rory, your link leads to a file called broker.exe and I'm not at all sure that Windows users want to get directed straight to a executable they know nothing about.

I have removed it for now - please feel free to link to a html page with the data.

[HoreTore]

It's definitely possible, people do get killed by guns (admittedly, less than in the US), so gun control isn't necessarily the main factor keeping gun crime down.

Uhm.... If that's not a contradiction, then I don't know what is. Keeping gun crime down doesn't mean eliminating it, and that's just what the UK has done, isn't it? They've kept it way, way down. They haven't eliminated it, but that's not why the ban is there, it's there to lessen gun crime. And like it or not, it does exactly that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Show one thing from that quote to be incorrect then Rabbit .......Ah so it isn't a generally established figure it is an estimated figure from a survey that is one of many surveys that come up with different estimated figures . In addition to the government which also does surveys that come up with more different figures .
Very generally established then ....any incorrectness will do .

Your general implication that the study I cited was but one of many surveys and therefore no better than any other, instead of the acknowledged best, as I pointed out.

Rory, you know what they say - lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have just illustrated why.

The figure of almost 30,000 includes suicides with firearms, which are a majority of those deaths. If we take all firearm homicides from 2005 ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm ) the total is 11,346 - less than it was 30 years ago. That's a rate of .11 per 100,000.

But your comparison is flawed fundamentally; all violent crime must be compared, and in that context crime in Britain is rising while crime in the USA falls.

CR

[Ser Clegane]

My point being, it's time to look at the real factors behind the US having a high (gun)crime record rather than pointing the finger at the lack of gun control. That side of the debate is often missed in Europe.

And that hits the nail I think - although I do not think that Europe is alone in missing that side of the debate.
Searching for the real factors and trying to improve along multiple and often more complex dimensions unfortunately does not make for as catchy a slogan as "ban guns".
For e.g., politicians or media it is much more convenient to reduce "solutions" to problems to simple phrases:
- too much crime? Ban guns! (oe "have more guns!" - depends which camp you belong to ~;))
- a dog maimed a child? Ban certain types of dogs or have all dogs wear muzzles!
- a teenager who played Counterstrike went on a killing spree? Ban "killer games"!

Can't go wrong with demanding the obvious solution, heh?

I used to also share the view that more restrictive gun laws in the US would reduce the crime rate - reading (and participating in) discussions here partly led to a more differentiated view on the issue.
I still don't think that easily allowing people to carry guns e.g., here in Germany will lead to more security or to lower crime rates (and I'd certainly rather not have everybody run around with a gun here) - but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that what might be the right thing here will also be the right thing in the US - as has been pointed out often enough, with guns being an integral part of American life and culture since the US have been founded, a ban of guns has a good chance of having rather adverse effects on security (doesn't mean that I put too much trust in the Kleck/Gertz numbers either).
Of course the way many Americans think about guns is somewhat alien to me (and most Europeans) - but that does not automatically mean that "they" are wrong - it just shows that there are some cultural differences (there are things in other cultures that are alien to me as well - just as there are probably parts of German/European culture that are alien to Americans or Asians - does not make them right or wrong).

I think the whole discussion in the US (and here) would benefit quite a lot from a less emotional approach on the issue ... but that's true (and probably obvious) for a lot of issues, in the US and here in Europe, so I won't hold my breath ~;)

[Tribesman]

Your general implication that the study I cited was but one of many surveys and therefore no better than any other, instead of the acknowledged best, as I pointed out.

Incorrect :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You said it was a generally established figure , it isn't is it , it is an estimate .
Now then , the methodology of that estimate that you put forth as established ( Which is funny given your statement to rory about statistics) .....
A question I asked earlier regarding the estimated figure , the crazy old git who shot the kid for walking on the grass , if he was on the phone list used for the survey would he be counted ?

[Ser Clegane]

the crazy old git who shot the kid for walking on the grass , if he was on the phone list used for the survey would he be counted ?

Probably depends how well he told his story ~:)

[Tribesman]

Probably depends how well he told his story
Well inclusion might also depend on if the peopledoing the survey had a fetish about g...rass , some people do have an obsesive fixation with the right to have a well manicured lawn you know:laugh4:

[Geoffrey S]

Uhm.... If that's not a contradiction, then I don't know what is. Keeping gun crime down doesn't mean eliminating it, and that's just what the UK has done, isn't it? They've kept it way, way down. They haven't eliminated it, but that's not why the ban is there, it's there to lessen gun crime. And like it or not, it does exactly that.
You're missing the point. Clearly people can get guns in Europe if they want to despite laws forbidding it, and I can't imagine it taking too much effort. There are other reasons for low guncrime in Europe than laws, and there are other reasons for high guncrime in the US than a lack of strict gun control. Ignoring that is harmful to either side of the debate.

Criminals can get firearms should they want them, and certainly nobody is implying that normally lawabiding have a higher chance of becoming a criminal by virtue of having firearms?

[HoreTore]

You're missing the point. Clearly people can get guns in Europe if they want to despite laws forbidding it, and I can't imagine it taking too much effort. There are other reasons for low guncrime in Europe than laws, and there are other reasons for high guncrime in the US than a lack of strict gun control. Ignoring that is harmful to either side of the debate.

Criminals can get firearms should they want them, and certainly nobody is implying that normally lawabiding have a higher chance of becoming a criminal by virtue of having firearms?

1. It's both hard and expensive to get firearms here. The robbers we have here usually have to break into military arms depots to get at them. That's a lot harder than buying one in a store.
2. There are a LOT of cases where a normally law-abiding citizen has completely lost his temper, grabbed his gun and killed somebody. A major part of the gun-related deaths we have here are like that, a few years ago there were a few family tragedies where the husbands were in the national guard and so had his army rifle and pistol in his house, killed off family members(or in at least one case, his entire family) in a rage sparked by jealousy. A completely normal citizen suddenly turned into a murderer. And no, he would probably not have killed them if he didn't have access to a gun, he would probably "just" beaten them hard.

All military weaponry owned by people in reserve have now been "plumbed"(not sure if that's the english term, the barrels have been closed), btw.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You said it was a generally established figure , it isn't is it , it is an estimate .
Now then , the methodology of that estimate that you put forth as established ( Which is funny given your statement to rory about statistics) .....
A question I asked earlier regarding the estimated figure , the crazy old git who shot the kid for walking on the grass , if he was on the phone list used for the survey would he be counted ?

How could you know? If you're still asking that question, you can't even have read the summary of the study.

CR

[Tribesman]

How could you know? If you're still asking that question, you can't even have read the summary of the study.

Nope I was asking to see if you would answer , if that crazy bastard had been called would he be included ?
Come on Rabbit whats wrong , is there a major flaw in the study or something ?:inquisitive:
One very major bigtime flaw .:yes:
I wonder what it could be ? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

BTW I do like the "Lesser" line in the survey , how does that equate with your attempt to write off the "Bigger" line eh ?


Tribesy, your pathetic posts do nothing to hurt my arguments.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Really ?????? It was completely undermined in the first response I made after you mentioned the 2 million figure .
It is simple to hurt your arguments , because your gun obsession clouds your thinking on the subject .
I am not attemptng to change your views Rabbit , that would be like trying to tell Imelda Marcos that she had too many shoes .
But I will show the flaws in your position , there are many of them and you do make it very very easy:yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nope I was asking to see if you would answer , if that crazy bastard had been called would he be included ?

Since you don't seem to be able to answer that yourself - no.


But I will show the flaws in your position

Ha! Sure, you may think you are actually debating, but I have answered all points brought forth by the real debaters here.

A mosquito may alight upon an elephant, drink his fill, and thereby believe himself to conquered the elephant. An observer can see that you are mistaken as that mosquito. All you've done is nit pick and badger on semantics or anecdotes.

Now what time was it in Ireland when you posted that? Late at night, on a Friday? Hmmm.


2. There are a LOT of cases where a normally law-abiding citizen has completely lost his temper, grabbed his gun and killed somebody. A major part of the gun-related deaths we have here are like that, a few years ago there were a few family tragedies where the husbands were in the national guard and so had his army rifle and pistol in his house, killed off family members(or in at least one case, his entire family) in a rage sparked by jealousy. A completely normal citizen suddenly turned into a murderer.

Funny. We don't really have an epidemic of that here.


And no, he would probably not have killed them if he didn't have access to a gun, he would probably "just" beaten them hard.

He didn't have any knives in the house?

CR

[Tribesman]

Since you don't seem to be able to answer that yourself - no
Awwwwww come on Rabbit , its only a 3 letter word beginning with y and ending with s, is it really that hard for you to do ? does the answer just stick in your craw ?
Go on make a really big effort get them fingers working , type them 3 letters:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It makes a bit of a bugger or your statistics though doesn't it:oops:

All you've done is nit pick and badger on semantics or anecdotes.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
A major flaw is not nit picking or semantics , its a major flaw



Ha! Sure, you may think you are actually debating, but I have answered all points brought forth by the real debaters here.


:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: bollox , simple question Rabbit what is the real major screw up in using the figure from the survey you used to show how good the legitimate self defense notion is .

Errrr....you did actually read it didn't you ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well if it comforts you to pretend that, then go ahead...
:juggle2:

CR

[Tribesman]

Awwwwwwww......poor rabbit , nutters would be included in the "self defense" figures and he doesn't like to admit it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, he wouldn't be included Tribesy.
Namely, this survey was conducted over 10 years ago, and this guy went crazy more recently. The whole time frame is off - had he been called, he certainly couldn't talk about events in the future.

Secondly, shooting someone on your grass is not protecting your property. Some crazy guy may say it is, but due to the lengthy interview and series of questions focusing on the incident, such an instance would be detected and not included.

Thirdly, anyone who did go crazy with a gun would be in jail and unable to answer the phone at their house.

But like I said, if you want to pretend...:juggle2:

This attempt is as pathetic as your previous ones.

CR

[Tribesman]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Namely, this survey was conducted over 10 years ago, and this guy went crazy more recently. The whole time frame is off - had he been called, he certainly couldn't talk about events in the future.

Thats so lame it needs a crutch:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Secondly, shooting someone on your grass is not protecting your property.

Ah but it is under the critreria of the survey:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Some crazy guy may say it is, but due to the lengthy interview and series of questions focusing on the incident, such an instance would be detected and not included.


Awwwwwww rabbit you havn't read it have you , naughty rabbit:whip: :whip:
Keep digging yourself into a hole rabbit .:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Self delusion only ends in disappointment -
The methods used in the study:

The present survey is the first survey ever devoted to the subject of armed self-defense. It was carefully designed to correct all of the known correctable or avoidable flaws of previous surveys which critics have identified. We use the most anonymous possible national survey format, the anonymous random digit dialed telephone survey. We did not know the identities of those who were interviewed, and made this fact clear to the Rs. We interviewed a large nationally representative sample covering all adults, age eighteen and over, in the lower forty-eight states and living in households with telephones.[42] We asked DGU questions of all Rs in our sample, asking them separately about both their own DGU experiences and those of other members of their households. We used both a five year recall period and a one year recall period. We inquired about uses of both handguns and other types of guns, and excluded occupational uses of guns and uses against animals. Finally, we asked a long series of detailed questions designed to establish exactly what Rs did with their guns; for example, if they had confronted other humans, and how had each DGU connected to a specific crime or crimes.

We consulted with North America's most experienced experts on gun-related surveys, David Bordua, James Wright, and Gary Mauser, along with survey expert Seymour Sudman, in order to craft a state-of-the-art survey instrument designed specifically to establish the frequency and nature of DGUs.[43] A professional telephone polling firm, Research Network of Tallahassee, Florida, carried out the sampling and interviewing. Only the firm's most experienced interviewers, who are listed in the acknowledgements, were used on the project. Interviews were monitored at random by survey supervisors. All interviews in which an alleged DGU was reported by the R were validated by supervisors with call-backs, along with a 20% random sample of all other interviews. Of all eligible residential telephone numbers called where a person rather than an answering machine answered, 61% resulted in a completed interview. Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993.

The quality of sampling procedures was well above the level common in national surveys. Our sample was not only large and nationally representative, but it was also stratified by state. That is, forty-eight independent samples of residential telephone numbers were drawn, one from each of the lower forty-eight states, providing forty-eight independent, albeit often small, state samples. Given the nature of randomly generated samples of telephone numbers, there was no clustering of cases or multistage sampling as there is in the NCVS;[44] consequently, there was no inflation of sampling error due to such procedures. To gain a larger raw number of sample DGU cases, we over sampled in the south and west regions, where previous surveys have indicated gun ownership is higher.[45] We also over sampled within contacted households for males, who are more likely to own guns and to be victims of crimes in which victims might use guns defensively.[46] Data were later weighted to adjust for over sampling.

Each interview began with a few general "throat-clearing" questions about problems facing the R's community and crime. The interviewers then asked the following question: "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Rs who answered "yes" were then asked: "Was this to protect against an animal or a person?" Rs who reported a DGU against a person were asked: "How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?" and "Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve months?" At this point, Rs were asked "Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?"

All Rs reporting a DGU were asked a long, detailed series of questions establishing exactly what happened in the DGU incident. Rs who reported having experienced more than one DGU in the previous five years were asked about their most recent experience. When the original R was the one who had used a gun defensively, as was usually the case, interviewers obtained his or her firsthand account of the event. When the original R indicated that some other member of the household was the one who had the, experience, interviewers made every effort to speak directly to the involved person, either speaking to that person immediately or obtaining times and dates to call back. Up to three call-backs were made to contact the DGU-involved person. We anticipated that it would sometimes prove impossible to make contact with these persons, so interviewers were instructed to always obtain a proxy account of the DGU from the original R, on the assumption that a proxy account would be better than none at all. It was rarely necessary to rely on these proxy accounts--only six sample cases of DGUs were reported through proxies, out of a total of 222 sample cases.

While all Rs reporting a DGU were given the full interview, only a one-third random sample of Rs not reporting a DGU were interviewed. The rest were simply thanked for their help. This procedure helped keep interviewing costs down. In the end, there were 222 completed interviews with Rs reporting DGUs, another 1,610 Rs not reporting a DGU but going through the full interview by answering questions other than those pertaining to details of the DGUs. There were a total of 1,832 cases with the full interview. An additional 3,145 Rs answered only enough questions to establish that no one in their household had experienced a DGU against a human in the previous five years (unweighted totals). These procedures effectively under-sampled for non-DGU Rs or, equivalently, over sampled for DGU-involved Rs. Data were also weighted to account for this over sampling.

Questions about the details of DGU incidents permitted us to establish whether a given DGU met all of the following qualifications for an incident to be treated as a genuine DGU: (1) the incident involved defensive action against a human rather than an animal, but not in connection with police, military, or security guard duties; (2) the incident involved actual contact with a person, rather than merely investigating suspicious circumstances, etc.; (3) the defender could state a specific crime which he thought was being committed at the time of the incident; (4) the gun was actually used in some way--at a minimum it had to be used as part of a threat against a person, either by verbally referring to the gun (e.g., "get away--I've got a gun") or by pointing it at an adversary. We made no effort to assess either the lawfulness or morality of the Rs' defensive actions.

An additional step was taken to minimize the possibility of DGU frequency being overstated. The senior author went through interview sheets on every one of the interviews in which a DGU was reported, looking for any indication that the incident might not be genuine. A case would be coded as questionable if even just one of four problems appeared: (1) it was not clear whether the R actually confronted any adversary he saw; (2) the R was a police officer, member of the military or a security guard, and thus might have been reporting, despite instructions, an incident which occurred as part of his occupational duties; (3) the interviewer did not properly record exactly what the R had done with the gun, so it was possible that he had not used it in any meaningful way; or (4) the R did not state or the interviewer did not record a specific crime that the R thought was being committed against him at the time of the incident. There were a total of twenty-six cases where at least one of these problematic indications was present. It should be emphasized that we do not know that these cases were not genuine DGUs; we only mean to indicate that we do not have as high a degree of confidence on the matter as with the rest of the cases designated as DGUs. Estimates using all of the DGU cases are labelled herein as "A" estimates, while the more conservative estimates based only on cases devoid of any problematic indications are labelled "B" estimates.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

The key part for tribey's nonsense is this:

(3) the defender could state a specific crime which he thought was being committed at the time of the incident;

He will of course point out this:

We made no effort to assess either the lawfulness or morality of the Rs' defensive actions.

But that is rendered moot by the part above. Someone using their gun in a unlawful manner wouldn't be able to state any specific crime they were defending against.
Anyone want to take bets on whether tribesy will abandon this inane series of attacks on the study? As for me, I'm going to take the opinion of respected criminologists over forum trolls.

Face it tribes - the best in the biz couldn't do any great damage to this sstudy, and you're certainly not going to.

*sighs* Anyone have a real issue they wish to debate?

EDIT- I'm sure no 'nutter cases' where included in this study. If tribesy wants to go on and on about it, let him show where exactly in the study a case included a clear cut example of that. And considering the vast number of DGUs a year, the once a year example of an old man going crazy is not, in any way whatsoever, significant.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think we have gone far enough downhill for this thread to have served its purpose.

Some excellent contributions were made, so thank you to those posters.

:closed: