Armed Citizens

[westwall]

In an ideal world, a property owner would be able to give an intruder the chance to surrender themselves to the [armed] occupant to be held until the authorities arrive. Reality, on the other hand, reminds us that there are x amount of variables to contend with in such a volatile and unpredictable situation.

In general, I don't really see a problem with homeowners being able to use deadly force in clear-cut scenarios without fear of prosecution. This is an area in which the UK could really learn from the US. In the UK, thanks to over twelve years of an ultra-liberal, slavishly pro-EU government, that means laws remain in place that by-and-large favour an injured intruder over a terrified homeowner that has taken matters into his own hands by forcibly repelling an intruder, you stand a good chance of going to prison for shooting or injuring an intruder. I kid you not when I tell you that I've lost count of how many times I've read in the papers that an intruder has successfully sued his victims for damages because in confronting the intruder on their property the homeowner infringed upon the intruder's human rights.

I don't, and never will, condone legislation that permits citizens to walk the streets with a concealed handgun.

You should. Crime plummets wherever concealed weapons are allowed. As you have also noted crime skyrockets wherever guns are denied to the civilian population. Australia is a wonderful example with violent crime increasing 44% after the gun bans.

The UK's situation I find particularly distasteful. An intruder can break into your home with a gun, you somehow manage to take it away from him and shoot him and you are the one who go's to prison. The UK is on a downhill slide from which I doubt she will recover for many decades.

As much as my patriotic conscience wants to refute and dismiss your observation, with what I'm assuming is focused on how UK law favours criminals - yes, you're right, we've allowed an intolerably liberal agenda to eradicate our right to defend ourselves and our property. We should take note from America's aggresive stance on intruders who will often use violence to avoid sanction for their crimes. I also think you're right that it will take a long time to re-establish ourselves as a people with a reputation for proudly being able to defend themselves without fear of prosecution. But, saying that, we only really have ourselves to blame for this inexcusable, liberally induced mess we've got ourselves into.

Sad but oh so true. I have family in Scotland (keep it to yourself!) and the crime there is atrocious. Some day the UK will come back to its senses but it will be a long time and a lot of good people are going to suffer in the interim.

 

[Grace]

Huntsville, AL -

After casing the location on two previous visits, an armed robber entered the Chazz liquor store in Florence, Ala. and attempted to strong-arm the clerk. An altercation ensued in which the clerk was able to retrieve a gun and fire at the criminal, striking the robber and causing him to flee. In his escape, the criminal only made it to the store parking lot, where he collapsed and died. After an initial investigation, police determined that the robber was on probation for a previous robbery conviction. Chazz manager Terry Rhodes hoped that the incident would deter future robbery attempts, stating, “I know times are hard and everything, but I hope they'll think twice, because this is not something anybody enjoys doing. You don't want to kill anybody, but sometimes you're afraid for your life, you don't know what they're gonna do.” Police do not plan to charge the clerk.




Anniston, AL -

A woman was alone in her home in Piedmont, Ala., when she heard a suspicious noise. After retrieving a handgun, the woman searched the house and noticed that her sliding glass door had been broken and a man with a flashlight was inside the home. The intruder yelled something at the homeowner, who then shot the intruder several times, killing him. Police noted that it is unlikely the homeowner will face any charges, with Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson stating, “She was totally within her rights to defend herself.”




Birmingham, AL -

Career criminal Kevin Duane Dudley entered the Bait Shop in Bessemer, Ala., drew a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money from the owner. While Dudley was holding the owner at gunpoint, two customers walked into the store, distracting Dudley long enough for the store owner to grab his pistol. The owner then fired at Dudley, striking and killing him. After an investigation, it was shown that Dudley had been convicted of robbery in 1996 and spent time in prison. More recently, Dudley had been a suspect in a number of other armed robberies as well as a murder

Billings, Montana -

Out for a Sunday morning drive with his wife and two children, Buford Harris was feeling good. It was a beautiful day, Buford's wife, Clara, was in the seat next to him, singing happily and, best of all, Buford had his trusty, .357 magnum right next to him there in the center console, loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come Buford's way.

Directly behind Buford was a pickup truck being driven by Billy Bob Cutler, another married man. There were only two occupants of the Cutler vehicle - Billy Bob and his fully loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come his way, .38 caliber, Glock, semi-automatic handgun.

Buford was driving a tad slower than Billy Bob. Billy Bob went to pass Buford. As he did so, Buford sped up to prevent Billy Bob from passing him. Billy Bob looked over at Buford and shot him a dirty look as he sped up even faster. As Buford flipped Billy Bob off, Billy Bob cut sharply in front of him, causing Buford to have to brake sharply.

This was trouble. Both men instantly pulled up their respective fire arms and began firing at each other. When it was all over, Buford's wife was dead, one of his children was blinded for life and Billy Bob was in a coma. He would die three weeks later.

Thank GOD Montana has a law authorizing citizens to carry weapons. Think what would have happened if that had not been the case . . .

No one would have just run the other off the road.

So maybe we should not allow people to drive.

Especially if they are named BillyBob or Buford.

 

[westwall]

Billings, Montana -

Out for a Sunday morning drive with his wife and two children, Buford Harris was feeling good. It was a beautiful day, Buford's wife, Clara, was in the seat next to him, singing happily and, best of all, Buford had his trusty, .357 magnum right next to him there in the center console, loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come Buford's way.

Directly behind Buford was a pickup truck being driven by Billy Bob Cutler, another married man. There were only two occupants of the Cutler vehicle - Billy Bob and his fully loaded and ready for whatever trouble might come his way, .38 caliber, Glock, semi-automatic handgun.

Buford was driving a tad slower than Billy Bob. Billy Bob went to pass Buford. As he did so, Buford sped up to prevent Billy Bob from passing him. Billy Bob looked over at Buford and shot him a dirty look as he sped up even faster. As Buford flipped Billy Bob off, Billy Bob cut sharply in front of him, causing Buford to have to brake sharply.

This was trouble. Both men instantly pulled up their respective fire arms and began firing at each other. When it was all over, Buford's wife was dead, one of his children was blinded for life and Billy Bob was in a coma. He would die three weeks later.

Thank GOD Montana has a law authorizing citizens to carry weapons. Think what would have happened if that had not been the case . . .

There's no such thing as a .38 caliber Glock. 9mm yes, .40 S&W yes. .38....no.

Whatever. My post is not an actual haplpening. I made it up to illustrate the objection to arming citizens. Stuff like that would happen all too often, and the danger from citizens shooting other citizens in road rage incidents or just because they got mad at them, far outweighs the benefit from citizens being able to shoot genuine bad guys.

Think about it - which happens more often, road rage incidents or citizens observing an actual crime taking place? By far, confrontations between citizens happen much more often than citizens actually observing a crime in progress. How many times have YOU been involved in a confrontation with someone else? How many times have you seen an armed criminal committing a crime?

I am in favor of getting bad guys. But I am not in favor of arming citizens for that purpose. Once again - compare the number of times you have been in a confrontation with another citizen that could well have resulted in weapons being drawn or fired if both of you had been armed, to the number of times a real criminal has threatened you (or someone in your presence) with life threatening action.

Yes George, we realised that. Now please show us where situations like you describe have happened. I can show probably 100,000 times a year where a news report has a citizen defending themselves from a criminal. There are estimates as high as 2 million times a year but I think that is a bit much, I figure a million times a year is a better estimate. Most of the time the citizen doesn't even pull the trigger (which is why it doesn't get into the news) but the bad guy still doesn't harm the citizen and that is the point.

You can post your personal opinion all you like, but the facts prove you very wrong. Wherever citizens are allowed to carry concealed violent crime drops. Wherever people are denied the means to protect themselves crime increases. It is simple really, criminals don't like getting shot.

 

[westwall]

You should. Crime plummets wherever concealed weapons are allowed. As you have also noted crime skyrockets wherever guns are denied to the civilian population. Australia is a wonderful example with violent crime increasing 44% after the gun bans.

The UK's situation I find particularly distasteful. An intruder can break into your home with a gun, you somehow manage to take it away from him and shoot him and you are the one who go's to prison. The UK is on a downhill slide from which I doubt she will recover for many decades.

As much as my patriotic conscience wants to refute and dismiss your observation, with what I'm assuming is focused on how UK law favours criminals - yes, you're right, we've allowed an intolerably liberal agenda to eradicate our right to defend ourselves and our property. We should take note from America's aggresive stance on intruders who will often use violence to avoid sanction for their crimes. I also think you're right that it will take a long time to re-establish ourselves as a people with a reputation for proudly being able to defend themselves without fear of prosecution. But, saying that, we only really have ourselves to blame for this inexcusable, liberally induced mess we've got ourselves into.

If we could somehow guarantee that armed citizens would act responsibly, then I might agree with you. But we can't. So I don't.

Let's see here. 300 million people. 320 million firearms in their possession. 40,000 on averge killed by guns every year. That includes cops killing bad guys, good guys killing bad guys (twice as often as cops), bad guys killing good guys (sadly) and bad guys killing bad guys (the overwhelming majority of gun deaths) and of course accidents (around 900 per year).

62 million cars kill 40,000 as well, with the majority being drunk driving (25,000 on average)

800,000 doctors according to the AMA kill 100,000 people every year due to misdiagnosis, malpractice, faulty drug prescription and simple mistakes.

In other words you are far more likely to die at the hands of a doctor then you are from a firearm. And more to the point one million times a year a citizen saves his/her life or his/her families by having a gun when it was needed.

I don't think your qualified to render an opinion on this because you clearly know nothing of the subject.

 

[George Costanza]

There's no such thing as a .38 caliber Glock. 9mm yes, .40 S&W yes. .38....no.

Whatever. My post is not an actual haplpening. I made it up to illustrate the objection to arming citizens. Stuff like that would happen all too often, and the danger from citizens shooting other citizens in road rage incidents or just because they got mad at them, far outweighs the benefit from citizens being able to shoot genuine bad guys.

Think about it - which happens more often, road rage incidents or citizens observing an actual crime taking place? By far, confrontations between citizens happen much more often than citizens actually observing a crime in progress. How many times have YOU been involved in a confrontation with someone else? How many times have you seen an armed criminal committing a crime?

I am in favor of getting bad guys. But I am not in favor of arming citizens for that purpose. Once again - compare the number of times you have been in a confrontation with another citizen that could well have resulted in weapons being drawn or fired if both of you had been armed, to the number of times a real criminal has threatened you (or someone in your presence) with life threatening action.

Yes George, we realised that. Now please show us where situations like you describe have happened. I can show probably 100,000 times a year where a news report has a citizen defending themselves from a criminal. There are estimates as high as 2 million times a year but I think that is a bit much, I figure a million times a year is a better estimate. Most of the time the citizen doesn't even pull the trigger (which is why it doesn't get into the news) but the bad guy still doesn't harm the citizen and that is the point.

You can post your personal opinion all you like, but the facts prove you very wrong. Wherever citizens are allowed to carry concealed violent crime drops. Wherever people are denied the means to protect themselves crime increases. It is simple really, criminals don't like getting shot.

I would like to think you are correct. But it seems to me that the chances of me (or anyone) getting popped by some other citizen out there who gets mad at me for something, is much greater than me being attacked by a genuine criminal with a gun.

I have never been attacked by a criminal with a gun. I have never even been present when a criminal with a gun has attacked any other person. Have you? On the other hand, I have been in lots of situations where I have gotten into the type of argument with some other person where, if we both had guns, there might well have been shots fired.

 

[George Costanza]

As much as my patriotic conscience wants to refute and dismiss your observation, with what I'm assuming is focused on how UK law favours criminals - yes, you're right, we've allowed an intolerably liberal agenda to eradicate our right to defend ourselves and our property. We should take note from America's aggresive stance on intruders who will often use violence to avoid sanction for their crimes. I also think you're right that it will take a long time to re-establish ourselves as a people with a reputation for proudly being able to defend themselves without fear of prosecution. But, saying that, we only really have ourselves to blame for this inexcusable, liberally induced mess we've got ourselves into.

If we could somehow guarantee that armed citizens would act responsibly, then I might agree with you. But we can't. So I don't.

Let's see here. 300 million people. 320 million firearms in their possession. 40,000 on averge killed by guns every year. That includes cops killing bad guys, good guys killing bad guys (twice as often as cops), bad guys killing good guys (sadly) and bad guys killing bad guys (the overwhelming majority of gun deaths) and of course accidents (around 900 per year).

62 million cars kill 40,000 as well, with the majority being drunk driving (25,000 on average)

800,000 doctors according to the AMA kill 100,000 people every year due to misdiagnosis, malpractice, faulty drug prescription and simple mistakes.

In other words you are far more likely to die at the hands of a doctor then you are from a firearm. And more to the point one million times a year a citizen saves his/her life or his/her families by having a gun when it was needed.

I don't think your qualified to render an opinion on this because you clearly know nothing of the subject.

When I want your opinion on my qualifications to render an opinion on anything, I will ask you for it. In the meantime, keep your God damn, obnoxious pie hole shut on the subject. Got it?

I question your statistics. As for your interpretation of those statistics, that goes without saying.

 

[George Costanza]

You should. Crime plummets wherever concealed weapons are allowed.

Hog wash. Right wing, gun nut propaganda:

Ayres and Donohue examined Lott and Mustard’s data set and added in data from states where eased concealed weapons rules made firearms more common. Their conclusion published in the 2003 Stanford Law Review was: “We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.”

Here - read all about it:

Fresno Pacific University - Do armed citizens deter crime?

Oh, I forgot. These are scientific studies. You probably don't believe in the results of scientific studies.

 

[Grace]

Im no expert, but Im willing to bet some dude thinking about doing a crime and knowing his/her target also has fire power will make him think twice about that particular target. Maybe.
I own one gun. Fixin' to buy a shotgun too. Do I aim to kill with it? Only if someone comes in my house uninvited to take something that belongs to me or do me harm. Then you bet Ill use it.

 

[George Costanza]

Im no expert, but Im willing to bet some dude thinking about doing a crime and knowing his/her target also has fire power will make him think twice about that particular target. Maybe.
I own one gun. Fixin' to buy a shotgun too. Do I aim to kill with it? Only if someone comes in my house uninvited to take something that belongs to me or do me harm. Then you bet Ill use it.

I respect that. But have you ever gotten into a road rage incident with another driver? Come on, now - we all have at one time or another. What if both of you had been armed at the time? You sound like the kind of guy who probably would have kept his cool - but how about that other guy? You can't always predict what someone else might do in such a situation.

I, for one, would find little solace in the fact that I was armed if someone in another car was drawing down on me.

 

[westwall]

Whatever. My post is not an actual haplpening. I made it up to illustrate the objection to arming citizens. Stuff like that would happen all too often, and the danger from citizens shooting other citizens in road rage incidents or just because they got mad at them, far outweighs the benefit from citizens being able to shoot genuine bad guys.

Think about it - which happens more often, road rage incidents or citizens observing an actual crime taking place? By far, confrontations between citizens happen much more often than citizens actually observing a crime in progress. How many times have YOU been involved in a confrontation with someone else? How many times have you seen an armed criminal committing a crime?

I am in favor of getting bad guys. But I am not in favor of arming citizens for that purpose. Once again - compare the number of times you have been in a confrontation with another citizen that could well have resulted in weapons being drawn or fired if both of you had been armed, to the number of times a real criminal has threatened you (or someone in your presence) with life threatening action.

Yes George, we realised that. Now please show us where situations like you describe have happened. I can show probably 100,000 times a year where a news report has a citizen defending themselves from a criminal. There are estimates as high as 2 million times a year but I think that is a bit much, I figure a million times a year is a better estimate. Most of the time the citizen doesn't even pull the trigger (which is why it doesn't get into the news) but the bad guy still doesn't harm the citizen and that is the point.

You can post your personal opinion all you like, but the facts prove you very wrong. Wherever citizens are allowed to carry concealed violent crime drops. Wherever people are denied the means to protect themselves crime increases. It is simple really, criminals don't like getting shot.

I would like to think you are correct. But it seems to me that the chances of me (or anyone) getting popped by some other citizen out there who gets mad at me for something, is much greater than me being attacked by a genuine criminal with a gun.

I have never been attacked by a criminal with a gun. I have never even been present when a criminal with a gun has attacked any other person. Have you? On the other hand, I have been in lots of situations where I have gotten into the type of argument with some other person where, if we both had guns, there might well have been shots fired.

Yes I have been shot at a number of times. Of course I was in Third World countries at the time so it is to be expected, especially when you are the only anglo (hence have money) within 50 miles and there's no help out there. So I allways carried my own.

As far as your other comment, in all the years that we have records for, I can find no case where people with CCW's engaged in combat like you describe. In other words you should probably not be allowed weapons because by your own admission you are not responsible enough to be trusted with them. How sad for you. I know several children, both boys and girls under the age of 15, that I believe would be mature enough in the situation you describe to control themselves and walk away.

 

[westwall]

If we could somehow guarantee that armed citizens would act responsibly, then I might agree with you. But we can't. So I don't.

Let's see here. 300 million people. 320 million firearms in their possession. 40,000 on averge killed by guns every year. That includes cops killing bad guys, good guys killing bad guys (twice as often as cops), bad guys killing good guys (sadly) and bad guys killing bad guys (the overwhelming majority of gun deaths) and of course accidents (around 900 per year).

62 million cars kill 40,000 as well, with the majority being drunk driving (25,000 on average)

800,000 doctors according to the AMA kill 100,000 people every year due to misdiagnosis, malpractice, faulty drug prescription and simple mistakes.

In other words you are far more likely to die at the hands of a doctor then you are from a firearm. And more to the point one million times a year a citizen saves his/her life or his/her families by having a gun when it was needed.

I don't think your qualified to render an opinion on this because you clearly know nothing of the subject.

When I want your opinion on my qualifications to render an opinion on anything, I will ask you for it. In the meantime, keep your God damn, obnoxious pie hole shut on the subject. Got it?

I question your statistics. As for your interpretation of those statistics, that goes without saying.

I can make my observations if i wish too. You're the person who claims to lack the maturity and responsibility to be allowed weapons. I on the other hand am very mature and have carried firearms in all sorts of circumstances and have never once felt like shooting somebody just because they yelled at me. Adults don't behave that way.

As far as the statistics feel free to look them up, they are very easily found on the net.

I was wrong on one of them though (my figures were a little dated) I wanted to find the one about doctors and there has been a new report done by a doctor from Johns Hopkins and she found that doctors are the THIRD leading cause of death in the US at 250,000 deaths.

http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Ldoctordeath.htm

 

[Grace]

Im no expert, but Im willing to bet some dude thinking about doing a crime and knowing his/her target also has fire power will make him think twice about that particular target. Maybe.
I own one gun. Fixin' to buy a shotgun too. Do I aim to kill with it? Only if someone comes in my house uninvited to take something that belongs to me or do me harm. Then you bet Ill use it.

I respect that. But have you ever gotten into a road rage incident with another driver? Come on, now - we all have at one time or another. What if both of you had been armed at the time? You sound like the kind of guy who probably would have kept his cool - but how about that other guy? You can't always predict what someone else might do in such a situation.

I, for one, would find little solace in the fact that I was armed if someone in another car was drawing down on me.

Well, for starters, Im not a guy, lol.
And, i would not have my pistol in my car unless I was driving a very long distance that would take days. Yes, I have gotten into a road rage thing but mostly it was finger flipping.
The other guy in your scenario? Well..if he is so pissed off he feels he needs to shoot my ass because I flipped him off, then all I can say is he better hope Im dead. My plan is to have protection in my home. And I dont drive long distances any more..so its a moot point. Nobody has control over someone else. They only have control of themselves.

 

[George Costanza]

Im no expert, but Im willing to bet some dude thinking about doing a crime and knowing his/her target also has fire power will make him think twice about that particular target. Maybe.
I own one gun. Fixin' to buy a shotgun too. Do I aim to kill with it? Only if someone comes in my house uninvited to take something that belongs to me or do me harm. Then you bet Ill use it.

I respect that. But have you ever gotten into a road rage incident with another driver? Come on, now - we all have at one time or another. What if both of you had been armed at the time? You sound like the kind of guy who probably would have kept his cool - but how about that other guy? You can't always predict what someone else might do in such a situation.

I, for one, would find little solace in the fact that I was armed if someone in another car was drawing down on me.

Well, for starters, Im not a guy, lol.
And, i would not have my pistol in my car unless I was driving a very long distance that would take days. Yes, I have gotten into a road rage thing but mostly it was finger flipping.
The other guy in your scenario? Well..if he is so pissed off he feels he needs to shoot my ass because I flipped him off, then all I can say is he better hope Im dead. My plan is to have protection in my home. And I dont drive long distances any more..so its a moot point. Nobody has control over someone else. They only have control of themselves.

Well, the gun nuts on this thread are the kind who WOULD have their gun with them in the car. They'd have their gun with them in the SHOWER.

And you are so correct that nobody has control over someone else. That is precisely my point. I guarantee you, there are plenty of crazies out there, who would shoot you right between your pretty little eyes for flipping them off - or even looking sideways at them. You were just lucky.

 

[westwall]

You should. Crime plummets wherever concealed weapons are allowed.

Hog wash. Right wing, gun nut propaganda:

Ayres and Donohue examined Lott and Mustard’s data set and added in data from states where eased concealed weapons rules made firearms more common. Their conclusion published in the 2003 Stanford Law Review was: “We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.”

Here - read all about it:

Fresno Pacific University - Do armed citizens deter crime?

Oh, I forgot. These are scientific studies. You probably don't believe in the results of scientific studies.

No, I don't "believe" in the results of scientific studies. I certainly will read them and come to my own conclusions. Belief is for those of a religious persuasion, I am a scientist so have little time for belief systems. That being said here is the Lott response to the critiques leveled by Teret. And I hope you do realise that Lott is a scientist too.


John Lott's response to criticisms by Stephen Teret

 

[Grace]

I respect that. But have you ever gotten into a road rage incident with another driver? Come on, now - we all have at one time or another. What if both of you had been armed at the time? You sound like the kind of guy who probably would have kept his cool - but how about that other guy? You can't always predict what someone else might do in such a situation.

I, for one, would find little solace in the fact that I was armed if someone in another car was drawing down on me.

Well, for starters, Im not a guy, lol.
And, i would not have my pistol in my car unless I was driving a very long distance that would take days. Yes, I have gotten into a road rage thing but mostly it was finger flipping.
The other guy in your scenario? Well..if he is so pissed off he feels he needs to shoot my ass because I flipped him off, then all I can say is he better hope Im dead. My plan is to have protection in my home. And I dont drive long distances any more..so its a moot point. Nobody has control over someone else. They only have control of themselves.

Well, the gun nuts on this thread are the kind who WOULD have their gun with them in the car. They'd have their gun with them in the SHOWER.

And you are so correct that nobody has control over someone else. That is precisely my point. I guarantee you, there are plenty of crazies out there, who would shoot you right between your pretty little eyes for flipping them off - or even looking sideways at them. You were just lucky.

No. Im pretty much a mouthy bitch. I dont think Im lucky. I think they know Im crazier than they are. Must be my aura.

Seriously....I know there are crazies out there. But Ill still flip, still get in their face and if they shoot me twixt my eyes? Thats on them.

 

[Grace]

If I could afford it, Id get another handgun. But the costs are horrendous. Shotgun will suffice. And Im only getting it cuz I have a horrible idea that eventually buying guns will be against the law but those already owned will be grandfathered in.

 

[George Costanza]

I can make my observations if i wish too.

Of course you can - that's what this crazy place is FOR.

You're the person who claims to lack the maturity and responsibility to be allowed weapons. I on the other hand am very mature and have carried firearms in all sorts of circumstances and have never once felt like shooting somebody just because they yelled at me. Adults don't behave that way.

Nice spin, but no dice. I never claimed to lack maturity on this (or any other) issue. My point is that the general public is not so constrained.

As far as the statistics feel free to look them up, they are very easily found on the net.

You can do anything you want with statistics. We all know that. Did you read the link to the studies done on this in my post? It says that the statistics you would have me look up are faulty.

I will say, that the same article also says that the other side of the argument (the public will go around shooting each other) is not borne out either - so I'll give you that.

What doctors have to do with this I don't understand at all, by the way. Whether doctors are responsible for lots of deaths each year, or very few deaths each year, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not armed citizens reduce crime.

 

[westwall]

I can make my observations if i wish too.

Of course you can - that's what this crazy place is FOR.

You're the person who claims to lack the maturity and responsibility to be allowed weapons. I on the other hand am very mature and have carried firearms in all sorts of circumstances and have never once felt like shooting somebody just because they yelled at me. Adults don't behave that way.

Nice spin, but no dice. I never claimed to lack maturity on this (or any other) issue. My point is that the general public is not so constrained.

As far as the statistics feel free to look them up, they are very easily found on the net.

You can do anything you want with statistics. We all know that. Did you read the link to the studies done on this in my post? It says that the statistics you would have me look up are faulty.

I will say, that the same article also says that the other side of the argument (the public will go around shooting each other) is not borne out either - so I'll give you that.

What doctors have to do with this I don't understand at all, by the way. Whether doctors are responsible for lots of deaths each year, or very few deaths each year, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not armed citizens reduce crime.

There is a book you should read called "Gunfighters, Highwaymen and Vigilantes" I don't recall the author but he was a professor at either USC or UCLA and the book is a study of crime rates between one of the most notoriously violent towns of the wild west (Bodie California) and the cities of New York and I believe Baltimore.

Guns were prevalent among all citizens of Bodie and nearly non existent in the big cities. The murder rate was indeed higher in Bodie at around 85 per 100,000, whereas the murder rates in the big cities was in the 14 per 100,000 range. However the victims of those murders were vastly different. In New York the murder victims were mostly women or shopkeepers. In Bodie the vast majority were bad guys killing other bad guys. There were only TWO innocent people murdered by bad guys and they were quickly dealt with by the vigilance committee.

What was even more interesting was the rates of other crimes, in the big cities they were close to the current day rates, however in Bodie rape did not happen, ever. There were few robberies, burglery was likewise very rare with firewood being the most common item stolen. In other words, if you were a bad guy who made your living with a gun you were very likely to meet some SOB who was tougher or meaner then you were. On the other hand if you were a regular citizen it was far, far safer in Bodie with two peace officers of dubious quality, then you would be in New York with 1200 peace officers.

The difference? Everybody was armed.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Here where I live in northwestern Illinois, all of the citizens have arms - a right one and a left one. The only exception would be Earl. He doesn't have a right arm.

 

[George Costanza]

Here where I live in northwestern Illinois, all of the citizens have arms - a right one and a left one. The only exception would be Earl. He doesn't have a right arm.

Thank you very much.