U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-28-2011, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,700 posts, read 17,733,184 times
Reputation: 15755

Advertisements

I know, not another gun thread. Bear with me, I'd like to approach this from a different direction that what most have gone down. My question applies for areas where concealed carry is permitted.

So, what does a criminal learn when he successfully attacks a victim? Well, lets say the victim turns over his property and the criminal takes off with the loot. The criminal has learned that crime does pay. Or perhaps a beating, where the bad guys get off uninjured. They learn that there are no consequences for attacking an innocent person. How about a slightly different scenario-they attack and mug a fairly physically capable person, who fights off the assault, yet the attacker is not apprehended. He learns to attack smaller, weaker victims. Or when he drags a woman into an alley and rapes her, and she doesn't resist. He learns that he is free to satisfy himself with no repercussions.

In all these scenarios the criminal has learned that crime is profitable, either financially, emotionally or sexually. He has learned what kind of victims to look for, how not to get caught or hurt in the attack. He has every reason to continue on this path.

My question is, what responsibility do (past) victims have for the future victims of these predators? They have encouraged him by allowing his success and fed his crime wave.

My stand is that a concealed carry weapon is the most effective way to not just stop a crime, but to terminate or apprehend a criminal in the act. A means of self defense is not just a choice, but a responsibility. And the decision not to carry, thereby empowering predators, is also a responsibility. As such, those that choose passivity or not to proactively stop a crime are guilty to some extent of the attack on future victims.

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men (and women) to to nothing.

This only really applies in areas where carry of a weapon is permitted. In areas where it is banned, the government is responsible.

I'll fess up, I'm a bit of a hypocrite here, my concealed carry permit has expired. And I do feel guilty about that, no one to blame but myself for failing to do my part for society. It will be corrected.

Please discuss.

Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 01-28-2011 at 05:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2011, 06:19 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 32,161,075 times
Reputation: 14898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
So, what does a criminal learn when he successfully attacks a victim?
How to successfully attack a victim?

Quote:
In all these scenarios the criminal has learned that crime is profitable, either financially, emotionally or sexually. He has learned what kind of victims to look for, how not to get caught or hurt in the attack. He has every reason to continue on this path.
O.k...

Quote:
My question is, what responsibility do (past) victims have for the future victims of these predators? They have encouraged him by allowing his success and fed his crime wave.
Absolutely none.

The fact is, there is always going to be someone weaker. If you are a strapping 200 lbs male, there is more than likely going to be a 300 lbs criminal who can and will beat down the 200 lbs guy. Someone is always going to bigger, faster or just plain more conniving or devious. So blaming the victim or calling them sheep is just macho bravado BS. The main concern for a person faced with a being a victim of a crime, particularly a property crime, isn't to teach some potentially violent criminal a lesson, the only concern is to do whatever it takes to cause them the least harm. PERIOD!

If you talk to any serious martial artist or self defense professional they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that it is just plain foolish to try and outdraw someone brandishing either a gun or a knife if the issue only comes down to a matter of simply surrendering your property or standing your ground. So again, to suggest that victims in such situations are responsible for some greater societal goal is just plain... irresponsible.

Having said that, I have no principled problem with citizens armed or otherwise stepping up to thwarting some criminal, but that is a personal decision and props and a hearty bravo to those folks who are successful. But, I would never say that they had a responsibility to do so in the first place.

Quote:
My stand is that a concealed carry weapon is the most effective way to not just stop a crime, but to terminate or apprehend a criminal in the act.
Your permit to carry isn't a license to be some crusading criminal teaching vigilante, it is so that you can carry a weapon to defend yourself or others (depending on the state) in the event of an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death., not to terminate or apprehend perpetrators of criminal acts!

Quote:
A means of self defense is not just a choice, but a responsibility.
Let me repeat;

Your permit to carry isn't a license to be some crusading criminal teaching vigilante, it is so that you can carry a weapon to defend yourself or others (depending on the state) from the immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death., not to terminate or apprehend perpetrators of criminal acts!

Quote:
And the decision not to carry, thereby empowering predators, is also a responsibility.
Again, nonsense, because the reality is your decision as to what sorts of predators that you will attempt to terminate, or apprehend will be predicated on the same power relationship that you have described above. You will go around brandishing your pistol at the pistol-less petty criminal, I will bet a dime to a dollar that you are not going to draw down on some, AK-47 wielding robber or multiple armed predators if you have a lick of sense or one hell of a tactical advantage. Either way your best weapon is going to be a keen memory and a cell phone with 911 on speed dial.

Quote:
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men (and women) to to nothing.
There are a ****load of actions that one can take between nothing and thinking you are Wyatt Earp at the O.K. Coral.

Last edited by ovcatto; 01-28-2011 at 06:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2011, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Durham
1,730 posts, read 2,202,997 times
Reputation: 1771
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
How to successfully attack a victim?



O.k...



Absolutely none.

The fact is, there is always going to be someone weaker. If you are a strapping 200 lbs male, there is more than likely going to be a 300 lbs criminal who can and will beat down the 200 lbs guy. Someone is always going to bigger, faster or just plain more conniving or devious. So blaming the victim or calling them sheep is just macho bravado BS. The main concern for a person faced with a being a victim of a crime, particularly a property crime, isn't to teach some potentially violent criminal a lesson, the only concern is to do whatever it takes to cause them the least harm. PERIOD!

If you talk to any serious martial artist or self defense professional they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, that it is just plain foolish to try and outdraw someone brandishing either a gun or a knife if the issue only comes down to a matter of simply surrendering your property or standing your ground. So again, to suggest that victims in such situations are responsible for some greater societal goal is just plain... irresponsible.

Having said that, I have no principled problem with citizens armed or otherwise stepping up to thwarting some criminal, but that is a personal decision and props and a hearty bravo to those folks who are successful. But, I would never say that they had a responsibility to do so in the first place.



Your permit to carry isn't a license to be some crusading criminal teaching vigilante, it is so that you can carry a weapon to defend yourself or others (depending on the state) in the event of an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death., not to terminate or apprehend perpetrators of criminal acts!



Let me repeat;

Your permit to carry isn't a license to be some crusading criminal teaching vigilante, it is so that you can carry a weapon to defend yourself or others (depending on the state) from the immediate threat of grievous bodily harm or death., not to terminate or apprehend perpetrators of criminal acts!



Again, nonsense, because the reality is your decision as to what sorts of predators that you will attempt to terminate, or apprehend will be predicated on the same power relationship that you have described above. You will go around brandishing your pistol at the pistol-less petty criminal, I will bet a dime to a dollar that you are not going to draw down on some, AK-47 wielding robber or multiple armed predators if you have a lick of sense or one hell of a tactical advantage. Either way your best weapon is going to be a keen memory and a cell phone with 911 on speed dial.



There are a ****load of actions that one can take between nothing and thinking you are Wyatt Earp at the O.K. Coral.
He never said anything about being a vigilante. You concocted that, not him.

What good is your cell phone if you are dying on the street from having your throat cut?

We all know that situations have to be evaluated as to whether we can act. But a string of victims being pacifists just whets the appetite of the criminal.

Several store clerks in our area were murdered during robberies and they had no guns to "play Wyatt Earp". Your words would be very comforting to them if they could hear you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2011, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Columbia, MD
111 posts, read 79,837 times
Reputation: 64
to number 1- society has no rights, only individuals do

to number 2- you set an interesting standard for the use of force. "immediate grievous bodily harm or death", eh? lets say i'm walking down the street armed and some guy comes out and demands my wallet. do i really owe this individual anything with respect to his/her own safety? this person has demanded that i remit my personal property for reasons other than obligation or compassion; s/he has heavily implied a use of force against me if i do not comply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top