Yay for vigilantes!

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/ny...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

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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 .

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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:

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STFS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Mark

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?

Quote:

---

This kind of citzen watch groups always end badly.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I agree on all points.

Quote:

---

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.

Shhh that goes against the mantra.

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

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.

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:

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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?"

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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'.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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 ?

No, he's not saying that at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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............

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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 ?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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?