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.
There are plenty of posts here, but little info about my question.
I don't think the data is really aggregated in a way that could answer your question; we have to make guesses based on other statistics.
For example, we know which states have the highest rates of homicide (since homicide is a crime that is very comparable across jurisdictions), but we actually don't know as much about other crimes such as "assault" or "theft," since so much of that depends on classification, local police procedure, and willingness to report by victims.
So, even when it comes to the basic question of 'what is the incidence of CRIME' in general in the US, we don't have good answers.
It's interesting to note that the only large city (450K+) to have gone without a single murder over the course of a year recently was Quebec City, Quebec, which went part of 2006, all of 2007, and part of 2008 with zero homicides.
What are QC's gun laws? Does it matter, or does the incidence of crime have more to do with the people involved?
Homicides are meaningless indicators of statistical criminality. First of all, less than one percent of major crimes are homicides, even in East St. Louis, Illinois, where homicides are outnumbered by other reported felonies, by a factor of 150 to one.
Secondly, homicides are not often solved, ehich militates against their statistical value. In the case of theft, burglary, auto theft, etc. nearly all the perps eventually get caught and prosecuted, because of the repetition of the behavior. But most murderers kill only once or twice, and most get away with it unidentified and unprosecuted. Statistically, about 40 percent of all known homicides are never cleared by arrest, and that counts only the deaths that are recognized as homicides. And thirdly, a great majority of identified homicide perps are known to their victim, so it is a crime that generally remains within a closed loop of society and doesn't spill over into the lives of the law abiding citizenry.
This is advocating shooting someone out of hand? The line you quoted says nothing of the kind, and you say your not twisting my words? Axis gets it, I AM being quite clear. So, please explain to me how not rolling over and giving an attacker ( the word 'goblin' being quite plain) what they want, implies a wild and crazy spraying of bullets without proper cause? I am quite well versed as to what justifies the use of lethal force. Never have I said ANYTHING remotely close to what you are trying to say I have.. I am simply of the mindset that win lose or draw, I will NOT submit to a violent attack on my family or myself. If running away and being shot or stabbed from behind, and leaving your loved ones to fend for themselves, is your solution to a 'best defense' I won't tell you that your wrong, but that does not work in my world. I'm not that type of guy. We all have a fight or flight instinct. Sometimes running might be a viable , and proper , option. In my view, most times, a tenfold violent response to a violent attack is the best course to plot. The varmint throws a punch, I will break his arm, if he pulls a knife I will place a 230 gr JHP in his chest, if he pulls a gun, several . I will quote the words of a great man in support of this position. Former Washoe County DA , Mills Lane, "This type of action, by decent people, deters crime"> Add fist pounding on desk. "If people don't like that position they don't have to live here" This was in response to a question by 60 Minutes reporter , Mike Wallace, in 1986, after an apartment manager shot two fleeing felons, who were burglarizing his apartment complex, for the third time in a week.
Ad hominems are perfectly appropriate responses to arguments that are based entirely on one's personal behavioral preference, without offering any factual data to support the "I'd rather" argument.
It's time for you to provide statistical data that supports that a person who walks away from a robber is more likely to be shot than not. Or whatever the hell you mean by "chances are", which is a pretty vacant presentation of persuasive data.
And you offer nothing at all, only ad hominems.
That should show people exactly which one of us has more credibility.
Restrictions, yes, Eliminating firearm ownership, no. Two different concerns.
Just as with every other right in the Bill of Rights, there are certain restrictions that can be made, especially in the interest of public safety (can't yell theater in a crowded fire ).
I'm glad you used that analogy. Because if you really think about it its inappropriate. There are restrictions & then there are RESTRICTIONS.
As you note, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a packed theatre. But you can speak, you need not surrender your right at the door, only use it responsibly & everyone is entrusted to do so until they actually prove that they cannot be trusted by actually acting irresponsibly. Then after they actually break a law by commiting a real crime they get arested.
However, in the case of firearms & firearms alone there are prior restraints involved & in many cases an outright denial of the right.
Its not enough to not shoot anyone, we are required to surrender our right to keep & bear arms entirely in many instances & in many cases that costs lives, as in school shootings & other mass shootings where it can be safely assumed that nobody will be armed.
The equivalent to this with freedom of speech would be to duct tape everyones mouth shut before they could enter a theatre & make it a felony to remove the tape. Outside I imagine people could get a permit to go ungaged in public but great scrutiny should be used to be sure only the right folks can speak freely in public. Of course people could speak freely in their own homes.
Quote:
There is no "Pure Right" and that includes the 2nd.
Hmm, we can agree to dissagree I think. Politically & governmentally I think you are right. As long as we have government we sacrafice some freedoms & rights to maintain order.
But there are natural rights we have just because we exist. We have a right to life & as such a right to defend that life. It only follows that free men should have a right to the best tools available to secure the defense of that life. Just as any dog has a right to bite someone or something in defense of its life you & I have a natural right to use whatever force available to defend ours. Guns are unimportant, the principle is what matters & what is lost on most anti gun folks.
Quote:
Certain restrictions can indeed be made without eliminating the right, for law abiding citizens. Registration and licensing requirements, for example, which do not inherently eliminate the right.
In a perfect world yes, I agree. But I realize that we are at a turning point where every compromise see's a little bit of liberty shaved off, never to return if time proves that sliver meaningless. Very few gun laws once passed are ever repealed if its shown that they are a meaningless restriction only effecting the law abiding. The Assault weapon ban was an anomoly in that regard but I think if there wasn't so much wrong with everything right now our current Congress & Pres would have it up & running again. The reason they havent is because theres real work to do.
Registration & licenseing are not needed. We have in place a nationwide instant criminal backround check & most places require pistol permits which pretty much ammount to licensing.
It doesn't matter if I have one gun or 50. I am not a criminal.
You just have more faith in the gov't doing the right thing than I do. I feel politicians are the scum of the earth & I trust them as such. If we passed a law banning carrer politicians from office I think we could get much acomplished.
I'm glad you used that analogy. Because if you really think about it its inappropriate. There are restrictions & then there are RESTRICTIONS.
As you note, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a packed theatre. But you can speak, you need not surrender your right at the door, only use it responsibly & everyone is entrusted to do so until they actually prove that they cannot be trusted by actually acting irresponsibly. Then after they actually break a law by commiting a real crime they get arested.
However, in the case of firearms & firearms alone there are prior restraints involved & in many cases an outright denial of the right.
Its not enough to not shoot anyone, we are required to surrender our right to keep & bear arms entirely in many instances & in many cases that costs lives, as in school shootings & other mass shootings where it can be safely assumed that nobody will be armed.
The equivalent to this with freedom of speech would be to duct tape everyones mouth shut before they could enter a theatre & make it a felony to remove the tape. Outside I imagine people could get a permit to go ungaged in public but great scrutiny should be used to be sure only the right folks can speak freely in public. Of course people could speak freely in their own homes.
Hmm, we can agree to dissagree I think. Politically & governmentally I think you are right. As long as we have government we sacrafice some freedoms & rights to maintain order.
But there are natural rights we have just because we exist. We have a right to life & as such a right to defend that life. It only follows that free men should have a right to the best tools available to secure the defense of that life. Just as any dog has a right to bite someone or something in defense of its life you & I have a natural right to use whatever force available to defend ours. Guns are unimportant, the principle is what matters & what is lost on most anti gun folks.
In a perfect world yes, I agree. But I realize that we are at a turning point where every compromise see's a little bit of liberty shaved off, never to return if time proves that sliver meaningless. Very few gun laws once passed are ever repealed if its shown that they are a meaningless restriction only effecting the law abiding. The Assault weapon ban was an anomoly in that regard but I think if there wasn't so much wrong with everything right now our current Congress & Pres would have it up & running again. The reason they havent is because theres real work to do.
Registration & licenseing are not needed. We have in place a nationwide instant criminal backround check & most places require pistol permits which pretty much ammount to licensing.
It doesn't matter if I have one gun or 50. I am not a criminal.
You just have more faith in the gov't doing the right thing than I do. I feel politicians are the scum of the earth & I trust them as such. If we passed a law banning carrer politicians from office I think we could get much acomplished.
While I certainyl agree with much of your post, a few considerations...
One cannot stand on a street corner with a sign containing lewd language. There are more limitations on Free Speech than you might think.
There are indeed regulations, and then eliminations. I believe we differ only on the level of restrictions that may be required and may be lawful.
Sometimes running might be a viable , and proper , option.
Oh no, you said that would result in certain death, being shot in the back. All goblins are highly predictable. You insist that they always do the same thing. They all have the primary intent of killing somebody, and just commit other crimes as a sideline, and the only way to stop them from killing me is to kill them first.
Statistically, more than 99% of all burglaries and thefts occur without a homicide. But you say every burglary and theft will be a homicide if the person being robbed turns his back. Reno, Nevada, 2007. 6,511 thefts, 1,835 burglaries, 1,072 car thefts, 578 robberies, 17 murders. It doesn't sound to me like the criminals in Reno are trying very hard to kill their victims. I'd say it looks like a pretty safe place to walk away from a goblin.
The basic difference between you and me, is that I do not want to kill a human being with a gun, and I do not arm myself for that purpose. You do.
Oh no, you said that would result in certain death, being shot in the back. All goblins are highly predictable. You insist that they always do the same thing. They all have the primary intent of killing somebody, and just commit other crimes as a sideline, and the only way to stop them from killing me is to kill them first.
Statistically, more than 99% of all burglaries and thefts occur without a homicide. But you say every burglary and theft will be a homicide if the person being robbed turns his back. Reno, Nevada, 2007. 6,511 thefts, 1,835 burglaries, 1,072 car thefts, 578 robberies, 17 murders. It doesn't sound to me like the criminals in Reno are trying very hard to kill their victims. I'd say it looks like a pretty safe place to walk away from a goblin.
The basic difference between you and me, is that I do not want to kill a human being with a gun, and I do not arm myself for that purpose. You do.
Firstly, how many armed muggings?
Secondly, if a tiger was stalking you, would you let it chew on you or would you kill it in self defense?
Secondly, if a tiger was stalking you, would you let it chew on you or would you kill it in self defense?
First, I don't know, they are not classified as such in the crime statistics.
Second, I, being a rational and prudent human being with an opposible thumb, am intellectually capable of drawing a distinction between a stalking predator with twice my body weight, intent on killing his weak prey, and a goblin prowling around looking for something he can steal, who might carry some kind of a weapon to defend himself against some crazed armed lunatic who shoots first if he senses some kind of a threat. One tiger will kill more victims in a couple of months than the entire population of Reno kills in a year, because that's what tigers predictably and dependably have evolved to do. Think about that for a minute, and see if the diference sinks in.
Ten thousand felonies a year in Reno, and only 17 murders. And you expect me to believe that every criminal who owns a gun is walking around looking for unarmed people to kill by shooting them in the back as they run away, and the only way to keep them from killing you is to kill them first.
Last edited by jtur88; 08-25-2009 at 03:25 PM..
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.
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.
. I am simply of the mindset that win lose or draw, I will NOT submit to a violent attack on my family or myself. If running away and being shot or stabbed from behind, and leaving your loved ones to fend for themselves, is your solution to a 'best defense' I won't tell you that your wrong, but that does not work in my world. I'm not that type of guy. We all have a fight or flight instinct. Sometimes running might be a viable , and proper , option. In my view, most times, a tenfold violent response to a violent attack is the best course to plot. The varmint throws a punch, I will break his arm, if he pulls a knife I will place a 230 gr JHP in his chest, if he pulls a gun, several . I will quote the words of a great man in support of this position. Former Washoe County DA , Mills Lane, "This type of action, by decent people, deters crime"> Add fist pounding on desk. "If people don't like that position they don't have to live here" This was in response to a question by 60 Minutes reporter , Mike Wallace, in 1986, after an apartment manager shot two fleeing felons, who were burglarizing his apartment complex, for the third time in a week.
).
