Armed Citizens are Better & Safer than Armed Police!

[Freewill]

I can't think of a time when the police actually stopped a crime in progress.

Seriously - you don't think the fact that police are often visible on the streets prevents a hell of a lot of crimes from ever taking place in the first place?

I can also remember a few cases where police have got to domestic abuse cases here and made an arrest before the woman and/or kids would likely have been killed.

OK, maybe in some spontaneous situtation that may happen. But, for them to act even in those situation they are merely keeping the situtation for escalating not happening.

Again, I can only use where I live and what I see as an example. We have a park that is on one of the main roads through our community. It has been subject to a lot of vandalism. So what was the solution? More lighting was installed. Obviously we had a place where there was repeated crime but never an arrest that I know of. Not sure if the lights help and or if the expense is less then the damage that was done.

 

[Saigon]

Sull Pilot -

No, I don't think you or anyone else should be punished. What I think you should be is realistic.

It is essential that government balances the rights you have as a gunowner and citizen with the rights of unarmed Americans and potential victims of gun violence. For decades now, no one seems to have given a lot of thought to the rights of people who get killed at Colombine or Virginia Tech.

Getting assault weapons off the street and making it just a little harder for people to acquire guns does that. It balances those rights and responsibilities.

I really think gun owners and the NRA should be the ones backing this legislation. It's better for everyone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I can't think of a time when the police actually stopped a crime in progress.

Seriously - you don't think the fact that police are often visible on the streets prevents a hell of a lot of crimes from ever taking place in the first place?

I can also remember a few cases where police have got to domestic abuse cases here and made an arrest before the woman and/or kids would likely have been killed.

OK, maybe in some spontaneous situtation that may happen. But, for them to act even in those situation they are merely keeping the situtation for escalating not happening.

Again, I can only use where I live and what I see as an example. We have a park that is on one of the main roads through our community. It has been subject to a lot of vandalism. So what was the solution? More lighting was installed. Obviously we had a place where there was repeated crime but never an arrest that I know of. Not sure if the lights help and or if the expense is less then the damage that was done.

All a so called police presence does is delay a crime until the cops are gone.

Do you really think a person intent on committing a crime won't wait a few minutes until the cops are stuffing their faces at a doughnut shoppe?

 

[Freewill]

Seriously - you don't think the fact that police are often visible on the streets prevents a hell of a lot of crimes from ever taking place in the first place?

I can also remember a few cases where police have got to domestic abuse cases here and made an arrest before the woman and/or kids would likely have been killed.

OK, maybe in some spontaneous situtation that may happen. But, for them to act even in those situation they are merely keeping the situtation for escalating not happening.

Again, I can only use where I live and what I see as an example. We have a park that is on one of the main roads through our community. It has been subject to a lot of vandalism. So what was the solution? More lighting was installed. Obviously we had a place where there was repeated crime but never an arrest that I know of. Not sure if the lights help and or if the expense is less then the damage that was done.

All a so called police presence does is delay a crime until the cops are gone.

Do you really think a person intent on committing a crime won't wait a few minutes until the cops are stuffing their faces at a doughnut shoppe?

I would like to clarify my position, police presences keep the honest people honest. For example, our borough has ordinances concerning a host of property issues. Such as the storage of junk and such. The honest people will follow the ordinances because they worry about the police, the dishonest don't care and the police, by what I see, do little to enforce the ordinances. The same junk has been sitting in the same place for many years so obviously they do nothing. But don't speed or dare to have a drink and then drive home, THAT they will bust you on, if you are not the right person.

 

[Saigon]

Do you really think a person intent on committing a crime won't wait a few minutes until the cops are stuffing their faces at a doughnut shoppe?

It depends on the kind of crime.

For street fights and muggings, a lot of pickpocketing and street crimes - they won't happen if cops are around. NYC proved this by putting cops on the subway. As a result, subway crime plumetted.

 

[JoeB131]

Stop counting suicide. Suicide is not a violent crime in fact it shouldn't be a crime at all.

And I would rather have a gun for protection and never have to use it than to not have a gun if I need one.

The fact is that my owning guns has nothing to do with any crime.

Holding people responsible for the acts of others is unjust and indefensible.

Says you.

Most gun deaths are the result of "law-abiding" gun owners who snap one day... and frankly, 150 gun deaths for one justifiable case of self-defense is probably too many.

No guns = less death.

Every other industrialized country has figured this out.

But Americans, whether it be guns, prisons, religion, the death penalty, drug policy, health care... we're like the retarded kid who keeps writing "2+2=Cat" and wondering why the other kids are laughing at us.

America needs to stop being the retard of the industrialized world.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is probably why Britain disarmed their Bobbies (police).

Actually, they have never been armed with guns. They do have tasers and pepper spray.

UK police don't generally need guns because they have proper gun laws.

What was that again?

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

BBC News - Knife crime tops agenda at National Youth Summit

Its No Knives Better Lives initiative, which has been rolled out across 10 local authority areas, uses work in schools and youth schemes, diversionary activities and advertising to discourage knife carrying.

Acid attacks on on the rise. Take a look at some of these before and after photos.

https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+...pGcmUiALrvoDwDw&ved=0CD8QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=775

Clearly all the gun control has not lessened violence. If anything, violence has increased in the UK. There is just no way for the people to defend themselves.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals just need to admit that they want more crime and more deaths at the hands of criminals. Disarm the people, arm the criminals. That's all they want.

 

[Saigon]

Katz -

Clearly all the gun control has not lessened violence

I'm not sure why you are finding this difficult to understand...it isn't difficult.

Crime data: Homicide at 30-year England and Wales low

The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show.

Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.

Offences such as pickpocketing, shoplifting and bicycle theft rose 2%, the only crime category to show a rise.

BBC News - Crime data: Homicide at 30-year England and Wales low

So let's compare:

UK homicides 550 (rate 1.2)
US homicides 14,748 (rate 4.8)

Please acknowledge that you understand this!

 

[editec]

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

Sad but true.

Of course, if I lived someplace where crime was rampant, I too would arm myself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Armed Citizens are Better & Safer than Armed Police!

Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police. Police shoot innocent people over 550% more often than armed civilians do. Civilians are there when the crime or altercation began & know who the bad guy is. Police have no clue when they finally arrive on scene & end up shooting the wrong person. Police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the police are not required to protect you.

"Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.

The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace."

The Contradictions of the Kleck Study

 

[barry1960]

Armed Citizens are Better & Safer than Armed Police!

"Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.

The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace."

Maybe we should arm every citizen and disarm the police.......yea right.

The problem with statistics, and I love statistics, is they may not tell the whole story. A police officer by nature of his job is confronted with different situations than the average citizen. While the police do make mistakes, I would rather place my trust in those trained to enforce the law rather than those not trained to do so. The populace includes crazed wackos such as the Sandy Hook killer and the posters on this message board, many of whom I would not trust with a potato gun.

However, the stats you show do express concerns over law enforcement shooting innocent civilians, even if the numbers are 20 years old.

 

[Katzndogz]

Katz -

Clearly all the gun control has not lessened violence

I'm not sure why you are finding this difficult to understand...it isn't difficult.

Crime data: Homicide at 30-year England and Wales low

The number of murders and killings in England and Wales has fallen to the lowest level in nearly 30 years, Office for National Statistics figures show.

Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983.

Offences such as pickpocketing, shoplifting and bicycle theft rose 2%, the only crime category to show a rise.

BBC News - Crime data: Homicide at 30-year England and Wales low

So let's compare:

UK homicides 550 (rate 1.2)
US homicides 14,748 (rate 4.8)

Please acknowledge that you understand this!

Please acknowledge the relative size of the UK to the US. The UK has a higher rate of violence than any other nation in Europe. Gun violence is up 89%. And that was in 2009!

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Mail Online

Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.

The rise in gun violence is directly attributed to the UK Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006.

Crime in England
The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Crime in the US

Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape and robbery all going down, although crime remains a serious problem in many urban areas, the FBI said on Monday.

The report of all crimes reported to police nationwide showed slightly more than 1.2 million violent incidents nationwide, while property crimes hit a nine-year low.

Compared with 2010, the new figures show violent crime down 3.8 percent overall. Property crime was down 0.5 percent.

Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent.

Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned - Katie Pavlich

 

[KissMy]

Maybe we should arm every citizen and disarm the police.......yea right.

The problem with statistics, and I love statistics, is they may not tell the whole story. A police officer by nature of his job is confronted with different situations than the average citizen. While the police do make mistakes, I would rather place my trust in those trained to enforce the law rather than those not trained to do so. The populace includes crazed wackos such as the Sandy Hook killer and the posters on this message board, many of whom I would not trust with a potato gun.

However, the stats you show do express concerns over law enforcement shooting innocent civilians, even if the numbers are 20 years old.

The 20 year old data is rock solid & stands the test of time. A similar study done just 9 years ago in 2003 show the same thing.

In 2003 Police Shot Innocent People 550% more often than Armed Civilians Did!

"Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)."

The bottom line is that police shoot innocent people over 550% more often than armed civilians do even though armed citizens shoot 250% more criminals than police. Civilians are there when the crime or altercation began & know who the bad guy is. Police have no clue when they finally arrive on scene & end up shooting the wrong person. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the police are not required to protect you. You have to protect yourself.

Lawful gun owners are 8 times less likely to commit murder than non gun owners.

 

[Saigon]

Please acknowledge the relative size of the UK to the US.

The rates posted (1.2 and 4.8) are per capita, genius.

Posting 2009 statistics when 2011 have already been posted?

Well, it's not terribly useful, is it.

If you have a look in the link above you will see a chart which traces crime rates back 20 - 30 years. This info is from the police. You will notice yourself that it shows a clearly falling pattern for several years now.

Try reading what has been posted, and perhaps actually think seriously about the topic rather than just flailing away.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Stop counting suicide. Suicide is not a violent crime in fact it shouldn't be a crime at all.

And I would rather have a gun for protection and never have to use it than to not have a gun if I need one.

The fact is that my owning guns has nothing to do with any crime.

Holding people responsible for the acts of others is unjust and indefensible.

Says you.

Most gun deaths are the result of "law-abiding" gun owners who snap one day... and frankly, 150 gun deaths for one justifiable case of self-defense is probably too many.

No guns = less death.

Every other industrialized country has figured this out.

But Americans, whether it be guns, prisons, religion, the death penalty, drug policy, health care... we're like the retarded kid who keeps writing "2+2=Cat" and wondering why the other kids are laughing at us.

America needs to stop being the retard of the industrialized world.

Do you care to support your claim that most gun deaths are committed by law abiding gun owners?

And of those gun deaths how many were caused by cops, criminals and people defending themselves.

it's retarded to think that the fucking government can protect you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

OK, maybe in some spontaneous situtation that may happen. But, for them to act even in those situation they are merely keeping the situtation for escalating not happening.

Again, I can only use where I live and what I see as an example. We have a park that is on one of the main roads through our community. It has been subject to a lot of vandalism. So what was the solution? More lighting was installed. Obviously we had a place where there was repeated crime but never an arrest that I know of. Not sure if the lights help and or if the expense is less then the damage that was done.

All a so called police presence does is delay a crime until the cops are gone.

Do you really think a person intent on committing a crime won't wait a few minutes until the cops are stuffing their faces at a doughnut shoppe?

I would like to clarify my position, police presences keep the honest people honest. For example, our borough has ordinances concerning a host of property issues. Such as the storage of junk and such. The honest people will follow the ordinances because they worry about the police, the dishonest don't care and the police, by what I see, do little to enforce the ordinances. The same junk has been sitting in the same place for many years so obviously they do nothing. But don't speed or dare to have a drink and then drive home, THAT they will bust you on, if you are not the right person.

What you have described are priorities - speeders and drunk drivers are a threat to innocent civilians and their property. Your local PD likely has a Code Enforcement Officer who oversees issues such as the one your are complaining about. They will take anonymous complaints and will follow through.

Penal code violations are and should be the priority for sworn officers; code enforcement is conducted by a civilian with the power to cite offenders. In cases wherein the offender leaves junk all over the front yard, in your example the local government will send a letter or two requesting compliance; if the offender does not act local government will remove the junk and bill the homeowner. Hence, the junk is gone, and the offending homeowner will pay the bill or have a lien put on their property - all with in the confines of due process.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sull Pilot -

No, I don't think you or anyone else should be punished. What I think you should be is realistic.

It is essential that government balances the rights you have as a gunowner and citizen with the rights of unarmed Americans and potential victims of gun violence. For decades now, no one seems to have given a lot of thought to the rights of people who get killed at Colombine or Virginia Tech.

Getting assault weapons off the street and making it just a little harder for people to acquire guns does that. It balances those rights and responsibilities.

I really think gun owners and the NRA should be the ones backing this legislation. It's better for everyone.

No one on this earth is my potential victim unless of course it's a criminal breaking into my home while I am there.

And don't get on that whole "assault weapon" bullshit. I and others here have shown you all why a so called assault weapon is absolutely no different than any other semiautomatic rifle except that it looks scary.

I don't care about the NRA. I am not and never have been a member.

All I care about is being able to protect myself and my wife. Period.

Anyone who wants to deny me that right or to make it difficult to do so is violating my rights.

 

[Saigon]

Skull Pilot -

The point that we seem to be stuck on is the fact that not every gun owner is as responsible as you are - just as not every car or dog owner is as responsible as they might be.

Thus, the law needs tke into conideration the risk of those who are not entirely responsible. Which is why we have ay kind of law, right?

If no one committed murder, we wouldn't need laws against it. Unfortunately, we need those laws.

Likewise, we need laws which both filter the kinds of people who can get their hands on a weapon, and we need to try to limit access to the kinds of weapons most often used in killing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull Pilot -

The point that we seem to be stuck on is the fact that not every gun owner is as responsible as you are - just as not every car or dog owner is as responsible as they might be.

Thus, the law needs tke into conideration the risk of those who are not entirely responsible. Which is why we have ay kind of law, right?

If no one committed murder, we wouldn't need laws against it. Unfortunately, we need those laws.

Likewise, we need laws which both filter the kinds of people who can get their hands on a weapon, and we need to try to limit access to the kinds of weapons most often used in killing.

I am not responsible for the behavior of others and I don't want to be.

It's a full time job looking after myself and my wife.

I realized a long time ago that the only person who is going to protect me is me and I will not ever abrogate that responsibility to the government or anyone else for that matter and I will never agree to rule of law that prevents me from doing so.

I believe that only people who actually break the law or actually commit a crime should be the target of the law and be held responsible for crimes. In fact I am all in favor of life in prison without parole for any person committing a violent crime with a gun.

I place individual rights at the top of the list all other rights are below those and societal or collective rights are on the bottom of the list as they should be.