Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/9/2002 1:38:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 1:54:45 PM EDT
Well, if this was a right and just world, I would have a MP5, a .50 BMG rifle, and a M249 SAW, so unless the criminal has access to RPGs and tanks, I think I'd win the arms race. Even back in the "good ol' days" most of your average criminals bought POS guns, didn't they? I mean, the guys who normally threaten citizens usually have shitty handguns and whatnot.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 2:16:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 2:16:58 PM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Does anybody actually know the real story to this? Conservative gunowners say that armed citizens provide a deterrant, and criminals will simply go elsewhere. Liberals believe that if you arm yourself, the criminals will respond in kind. Thus, it is incumbent upon the law abiding citizen to tailor his actions to avoid provoking criminals. The citizen becomes a victim twice, when he is told that his anti-crime efforts invited attack. This is quite a distasteful perspective. I loath any opinion which includes accomodation of criminal behavior, or sympathy for criminals. So, which side is right, and is there any evidence to support either side?
View Quote
As in most things, there's a bit of truth in this. After all, if all it takes to cow a victim is a switchblade, why have a gun? On the flip side, the overwhelming majority of people [i]don't[/i] have a gun for self-defense, which is why only about 18% of all violent crime involves a firearm. Think about it this way - if a mugger has a POS .380 Lorcin, and you've got a .45 Glock, who has whom outgunned? His Lorcin only has to fire once. The question, as you pose it, is backwards. The [i]victims[/i] need to arm up, because nothing is stopping the criminals. We're already [i]in[/i] an arms-race, and our side is losing.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 2:17:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2002 2:21:54 PM EDT by eshell]
I believe that being unarmed invites attack. The inability (or unwillingness) to defend ones self seems to invite attack. Any defense course will suggest that "if you look like food, you'll be eaten". Act defenseless, and you'll be victimized. That's nature at work. The weak are easy to feed on. Animals act the same in this respect-the weak get picked on until they die, leave or otherwise can't pass their genes on. It's healthy for the species. Think back, to more a primal behavior, like elementary school, before our heads were clouded by preconceptions and propaganda. Which kids got picked on, banged around a little, lost their dessert, etc.? The bullies (well armed with attitude and physical strength)? The little kids (unarmed by lack of strength)? Or, the sissies (unarmed by their mother's telling them not to fight back)? I daresay that among peers, the pecking (breeding) order is fairly well established by high school, when many begin breeding. I'm sure the young ladies are fighting over (there we go again) the sissy, hoping he'll father their offspring. To accomodate any criminal activity by acquescing merely encourages the behavior by making it easier. Why else would Florida's "shall issue" concealed weapons permit be so successful? Their violent crime rate dropped like a rock - it seems that nobody can pick out the safe victim, with all those people with the right to defend themselves. How tragic for the felons, maybe they can get workman's comp if they take a hit. If the liberals keep on, don't be surprised. When deprived of food (victims), an organism (criminal) will perish. Unless they stop at my house first.[;)] The liberal side is for big government, with the idea of making citizens entirely dependant on the govt.. Hence the gun/defense issue, the welfare issues, the homeschool issues, etc.. Oh yeah, I forgot to say that I don't have proof. (unless you wanted to look at states crime rates vs. their CCW policy)
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 2:24:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 2:40:49 PM EDT
You typed... Conservative gunowners say that armed citizens provide a deterrant, and criminals will simply go elsewhere. Liberals believe that if you arm yourself, the criminals will respond in kind. Let's take a quick look at England for this answer. They have basically banned private firearms ownership. Their crime rate is up and crime with firearms is also on the rise. Why are more criminals in England using firearms if it is almost certian the average person doesn't have one? The ultimate answer to this is one we have heard for years...Criminals don't care if they break the law. Although it is illegal for them to have a firearm, it makes there job easier.
Link Posted: 9/9/2002 2:45:29 PM EDT
First-you need to consider no police department has an obligation to protect every citizen at all times. Second-criminals who are inclined to use and carry firearms and other weapons will do so with or with out your legal right to carry a fire arm being availible to you. Third-if you feel you need to carry a fire arm for your portection carry the biggest calibre you can accuratly shoot and still conceal if carried on your person. And be able to train with in a structured class on how to use and when to use your weapon. Fourth-criminals who have a fire arm are all ready carrying them and have more than likely committed them selves to useing said weapons. In the question of an arms race most weapons carried by criminals are stolen or very cheaply made. So quality to them is not a huge issue and if it is they will more than likely have a stolen quality gun. To the person who carries for personal protection quality means reliability. So this would be important to the peron who carries for this reason. When the bad guy shows up with a jennings 25 auto or a knife and you are armed with your Glock 40 S&W. You have only met a threat that was already present in socity. Only a prepared person with sound tactics and a plan already in place will come out on top wheather it results in a use of force or the be the best witness possible. As we all know it is not smart to use deadly force in all situations and these are decisions made in each situation. You will make this decision with yours and your families portection in mind. So if this is an arms race I think those who have not prepared in some way are all ready behind and if no effort is made by them to protect them selves they may loose this race no matter what happens on the issue of gun control. [kill]
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 7:47:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By colt_5_5_6: First-you need to consider no police department has an obligation to protect every citizen at all times. . . .
View Quote
Yes, and that's been "resolved" in court. As restrictive as laws are here, and as populated, the police response is still lacking any sense of urgency. In the last five years, I have dialed 911 three times, including one time for a potential car-jacking, which I clearly stated to dispatch (I saw the guys dump the car, leave the doors wide open and run off). The response time has NEVER been less than twenty minutes. Once, unknown to us, the police were already 100 yards up the road from us and didn't get our call until their current business was finished, they had left the neighborhood and checked in as "clear". How long? You guessed it: 100 yards in twenty minutes for an "emergency response" (there were three cars there responding to a domestic dispute) Anyone who has been in a fight, or in real need of police help, will realize that after twenty minutes, they may as well not even show up. Twenty seconds is a long time in those circumstances. From personal experience, I know I would have to solve any real problem myself, and then call the "report-takers".
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 9:26:07 AM EDT
There's been several scientific studies done on this, James Lott for example. Interviews with thugs also show/prove that they shy away from folks who're liable to vent their sorry asses. One thing I've always found to quickly shut up a liberal is to ask him/her to walk in a "bad" part of town, late at night & by their self w/o being armed. They never respond. >gg<
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 10:48:21 AM EDT
Ask any legitimate cop. A civilian with a gun, ccw or not, is a danger to officer safety.
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 10:52:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Ask any legitimate cop. A civilian with a gun, ccw or not, is a danger to officer safety.
View Quote
I'm a lot more interested in my safety.
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 11:10:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Ask any legitimate cop. A civilian with a gun, ccw or not, is a danger to officer safety.
View Quote
I call BS.[flame] The majority of LEO's in Ohio say "give the folks their guns." I'm talkin' cops on the beat. The Chiefs Ass. and other beaurocratics camel-nuts are a different story... I'm sure it's similar elsewhere. And It's Dr. *John* R. Lott Jr. who is the expert. His book "More Guns, Less Crime" is a great one. fwiw Scottmann
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 11:44:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 11:55:31 AM EDT
Haha some people just aren't clued in to the Imbroglio legacy.
Link Posted: 9/10/2002 12:04:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SNorman: Haha some people just aren't clued in to the Imbroglio legacy.
View Quote
Imbor is just stirring the pot. (He's got to be bored !)
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 6:51:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By SNorman: Haha some people just aren't clued in to the Imbroglio legacy.
View Quote
Imbor is just stirring the pot. (He's got to be bored !)
View Quote
Hey, I'm new here! [newbie] Guess I have a name to start my list... I'm near Cleveland, btw. Scott
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 7:17:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2002 10:59:47 AM EDT by eshell]
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Ask any legitimate cop. A civilian with a gun, ccw or not, is a danger to officer safety.
View Quote
A danger to officer safety, or officer job security? I'm looking for the link now, but armed citizens shoot twice as many felons as police, with half as many (or fewer) accidents. (Edited to add this link for civilian vs. police shootings) [url]http://www.gunowners.org/fs9504.htm[/url] www.gunowners.org Jan. 1995 1995 FIREARMS FACT-SHEET Self-defense A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict * Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals over 2.4 million times every year -- or 6,575 times a day. (1) This means that each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. (2) * Of the 2.4 million self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. [green](3) Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1527-606).[/green] (There's more of this if you hit the link - still haven't found the accident ratio again yet. . .)
Link Posted: 9/11/2002 8:44:33 PM EDT
[url]forums.clubsi.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB34&Number=1192868[/url] I think this answers your question in part. Officers have done nothing to protect this guys property until he protected it himself. Without the ability to protect yourself you end up with a society of victims such as the U.K., where you are either predator or prey. And if you do stick up for yourself like the farmer in rural england had constantly been abused by punk trash protected his farm with his shotgun. This was after repeated attempts to get the police to help. He got a life sentence in prison for his troubles. What a God forsaken country.
Top Top