More Guns. Less Crime. Again.

[quade 3]

Quote

Attempted robbery is still considered a violent crime, so it replacing actual robbery doesn't change the crime statistic.

Of course, he's missed the fact that could actually work in his favor in the hands of a skilled PR person.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

BTW, you're back to claiming that guns stop crime again, just as you started. In the middle you insisted it was just that it was irrelevant to crime rates.

And you're back to putting words in my mouth again.
See message #112.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I don't follow you. See my link in message #118. A gun gives you a better chance of fending off an attack and minimizing the consequences. I call that "making you safer".

I agree that your odds of fending off the criminal are greatly improved when you are armed. But if they happen to be a good aim and they get the first shot off, you are definitely not going to be safe.

Don't get me wrong, my position on guns have changed over the years. I am onside in your right to protect yourself. But being armed does not automatically make you safer.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kelpdiver 2]

"Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening."

I don't have to put words in your mouth - you're not being ambiguous. Why you're flip flopping about it is the puzzling bit.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

Nifty little lead thrower.
I'd been thinking about an LCP, but I'm reconsidering.

Good luck finding ammo.

.380 is almost impossible to find and very pricey when you can find it.

You don't need shelves of ammo for it to be useful.

You need a fair amount.

At least 200 rounds to establish reliability. More if you find the first or second choice isn't reliable.

Add another couple hundred to get proficient with the pistol. (those don't need to be the high-end self defense rounds, anything that functions will do).

Those little pocket pistols are really hard to shoot well.

Add 50-100 per month to stay proficient.

I happen to believe that a person needs to practice at least once a month to maintain minimum proficiency.

Others may disagree.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[skipbelt 0]

it can be useful for pistol whipping !

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

it can be useful for pistol whipping !

Meh.

One of the selling points it that they are awfully small, they almost hide in your hand.
Not enough of it sticking out to really hurt much.

And another one is how light they are. Not enough mass to have any "punch".

You'd do as well or better with a roll of quarters in your hand.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

it can be useful for pistol whipping !

Meh.
One of the selling points it that they are awfully small, they almost hide in your hand.
Not enough of it sticking out to really hurt much.
And another one is how light they are. Not enough mass to have any "punch".
You'd do as well or better with a roll of quarters in your hand.

point taken !

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Add 50-100 (rounds) per month to stay proficient. I happen to believe that a person needs to practice at least once a month to maintain minimum proficiency. Others may disagree.

I disagree. People successfully defend themselves all the time without that level of involvement in proficiency. The criminals aren't exactly Ninja Green Berets. And often, the criminals are armed with something less than a gun themselves. Then there's the element of surprise, being on your home turf in your home and knowing the layout, and so on. There are too many factors involved to simply say that you need to fire 50-100 rounds per month to have a chance of successfully defending yourself with a gun. Of all the successful armed self defense stories in the news, I'll bet less than 1% of the intended victims have shot that much on a regular basis. And they still win.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening."

I don't have to put words in your mouth - you're not being ambiguous. Why you're flip flopping about it is the puzzling bit.

I just told you about message #112 two posts ago, and you're already ignoring it.

You need to quit judging each individual post as if it's a world unto itself, and instead try to remember the other things that have been said leading up to that point, and consider the whole body of debate.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening.

There we go again; unsubstantiated claim attempting to link gun ownership with crime stats.
I rest my case.

how would you determine and track crimes prevented ?

Ask JR. It's not my claim.

I will say this, if a person is being mugged and a concealed carry person pulls out a gun to "stop" the crime, THE crime hasn't been prevented. It's possible that ANOTHER crime, for instance murder, has been prevented, but it's also just as likely it wasn't unless you go so far as to say all muggings end up as murders, which I'm fairly certain they don't.

All this mumbo jumbo hocus pocus...it's simple: mugger attacks concealed weapon carrier, concealed weapon carrier protects himself, it's his right....end of story. Who cares about meaningless statistics?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening.

There we go again; unsubstantiated claim attempting to link gun ownership with crime stats.

Then you're cherry picking the threads/posts you read, because I've given that info several times.

Studies have shown that between 700k and 2.5M crimes are prevented by defensive use of a gun per year. (Kleck/Gertz 1995 and Police Foundation 1996)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Owning a gun DOES often prevent a crime from happening.

There we go again; unsubstantiated claim attempting to link gun ownership with crime stats.

Then you're cherry picking the threads/posts you read, because I've given that info several times.
Studies have shown that between 700k and 2.5M crimes are prevented by defensive use of a gun per year. (Kleck/Gertz 1995 and Police Foundation 1996)

conservative , if it is good and wholesome and makes sense , do it
liberal , if it's all that and we don't like it , study it till we get the right outcome , propagandise it , demagogue and berate it till the browbeaten capitulate !

[quade 3]

Quote

conservative , if it is good and wholesome and makes sense , do it

And if it's not good and wholesome, be sure you have a secret C-Street address where nobody can track you. Whatever you do, don't do it in an airport restroom, you'll just look like an idiot when you try to explain it away as having a "wide stance."

Oh come the fuck on . . . there's more than enough idiots to go around on both sides of the aisle. Attempting to claim some sort of "moral superiority" by either just makes people look silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Studies have shown that between 700k and 2.5M crimes are prevented by defensive use of a gun per year. (Kleck/Gertz 1995 and Police Foundation 1996)

Prevented or downgraded? In the example above, when a robbery turns into attempted robbery, a crime has been downgraded, it has not been prevented.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

Add 50-100 (rounds) per month to stay proficient. I happen to believe that a person needs to practice at least once a month to maintain minimum proficiency. Others may disagree.

I disagree. People successfully defend themselves all the time without that level of involvement in proficiency. The criminals aren't exactly Ninja Green Berets. And often, the criminals are armed with something less than a gun themselves. Then there's the element of surprise, being on your home turf in your home and knowing the layout, and so on. There are too many factors involved to simply say that you need to fire 50-100 rounds per month to have a chance of successfully defending yourself with a gun. Of all the successful armed self defense stories in the news, I'll bet less than 1% of the intended victims have shot that much on a regular basis. And they still win.

I didn't say you need that level of proficiency to successfully defend yourself with a gun (to take it to a ridiculous level, you don't need a loaded gun or even a real gun under certain circumstances).The majority of armed confrontations are resoved without a shot being fired.

And while these little .380s are becoming very popular, they aren't the first choice for anything but backup or deep concealment.

But, to repeat, the very small "pocket pistols" are very difficult to shoot well.

And the person carrying the weapon has the responsibility to know how to use it properly. To not endanger the rest of the world with stray shots.

I really hope (and believe) that more than 1% of carry permit holders go out to the range for a box per month of currency training.
Although I see some folks where the safest place to stand while they are shooting is directly in front of the target.

Maintaining proficiency (and keeping proof of it on file) is something that was highly recommended during my training.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Studies have shown that between 700k and 2.5M crimes are prevented by defensive use of a gun per year. (Kleck/Gertz 1995 and Police Foundation 1996)

Prevented or downgraded? In the example above, when a robbery turns into attempted robbery, a crime has been downgraded, it has not been prevented.

Yes, by all means, lets play word games instead of admitting that an attempted rape/murder/robbery is an infinitely better outcome than a completed rape/murder/robbery.

Tell you what - YOU look up the cases for all the defensive gun uses and find out if the suspects in all of them were charged with their attempted crimes or not, since that's evidently what's most important to you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Studies have shown that between 700k and 2.5M crimes are prevented by defensive use of a gun per year. (Kleck/Gertz 1995 and Police Foundation 1996)

Prevented or downgraded? In the example above, when a robbery turns into attempted robbery, a crime has been downgraded, it has not been prevented.

If the intent was to rob you (give me your wallet!) and the robbery did not take place because the intended victim was able to defend themselves and not give into the demands, then yes it was prevented.

Nice try though.





______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Yes, by all means, lets play word games instead of admitting that an attempted rape/murder/robbery is an infinitely better outcome than a completed rape/murder/robbery.

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean a crime was prevented.

The statement is just as silly as "think of the children", its a play on emotion.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You need to quit judging each individual post as if it's a world unto itself, and instead try to remember the other things that have been said leading up to that point, and consider the whole body of debate.

To be clear, you're saying that we can't take your words at face value? That we have to consider your whole body of work and then try to discern what you really mean to say?

Try this, John. Write what you mean. And stop trying to pretend you meant something else later. That's Kallend's game.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

To be clear, you're saying that we can't take your words at face value? That we have to consider your whole body of work and then try to discern what you really mean to say?

Try this, John. Write what you mean. And stop trying to pretend you meant something else later. That's Kallend's game.

First of all, one or your criticisms of me is that I took a single year of statistical change and tried to attribute that to "more guns". False. The very fact that I used the word "again" in the title (look up there at the top of the page) should have been a clue to you that this wasn't something that happened just one year. It's happened repeatedly.

I've started threads with this theme several times, because with some people, it takes numerous reports of the same trend, over time, before it sinks in with them that it's really true. It's easy to deny one news report of something you don't like. But if you keep seeing them over and over again, at some point you have to admit that it's real, and not just an aberration, easily dismissed.

You've seen those prior posts, and we've had these same arguments in those prior threads. So all that is ground that's already been covered, and anyone who has read them already should know it. You, are not a new guy to these themed posts. Do a search. You were there in the April 6, 2010 thread. You were there in the Jan. 8, 2010 thread. And so on. You know these arguments already, or at least you should.

So for you to claim you don't know what's going on here, and that my title misled you, is disingenuous.
And it appears that you just like being argumentative.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And it appears that you just like being argumentative.

And you don't?

I'm just better at it. But I do give you advice...you just seem content to fail. It's a shame, because it leads to boring threads.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

And it appears that you just like being argumentative.

And you don't?

I'm just better at it. But I do give you advice...you just seem content to fail. It's a shame, because it leads to boring threads.

You sure seem to spend a lot of time yakking away in my boring threads.
And hurling insults.
Feel free to ignore them in the future.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean a crime was prevented.

News:

Gun carriers intervene, stop ‘beating’ in parking lot

"A man accused of abusing his girlfriend in front of her children reportedly was stopped by two peo­ple carrying handguns Sunday night at McDonald’s..."

Story: http://medinagazette.northcoastnow.com/2010/09/21/gun-carriers-intervene-stop-beating-in-parking-lot/

Was a crime prevented?
No: the beating was already underway.
Yes: a greater crime may have been averted, and the beating was discontinued.

As far as the statistics go on this incident, nothing will have changed - a domestic assault.
But the woman was saved from further beating, and that's a darned good thing.
Thank goodness those two armed citizens had the guts to do something about it.
We shouldn't judge everything by statistics alone.

[quade 3]

Quote

We shouldn't judge everything by statistics alone.

The stats on this line reads: "+15 to Irony."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver