Police tell Detroiters to buy guns

[2aguy]

Gun do prevent crime...some studies put the number up to 2 million times a year...the gun grabbers even claim the number is only 100,00 times a year but that is obviously way too low...a more modest figure is that guns prevent crime 250-350,00 times a year...that is crimes stopped and lives saved...

it has also been shown in long term studies of states that issue permits to carry weapons that crime patterns change...criminals seek less contact with victims and move to property crime...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Isn't it obvious?

Your point is that Gun Control laws and Crime Rate have no real relevance to each other at all.
The topic here centers around the idea that more legally armed citizens means less crime.

So, again, I ask: How is your point relevant to the topic?

Do you think that gun control laws are unrelated to the number of people that legally own guns?

I can promise you, there's no shortage of guns in Detroit. Why hasn't it helped?

 

[2aguy]

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

"A widely-known study conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

For these reasons, the Cato researchers investigated published news reports which much more often reveal how Americans use guns in self-defense. The data set is derived from a collection of nearly 5,000 randomly selected incidents published between October 2003 and November 2011. Still, the authors also recognize limitations with this approach, since many defensive incidents are never reported by victims, or when they are, never get published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the successful self-defense outcomes are those where the defendants’ guns are presented but never fired.

Most of the actual self-defense shootings in the Cato study didn’t involve concealed carry licenses, but more typically had to do with responses to residential invasions. Of these, 488 involved home burglaries. In addition, there were 1,227 incidents where intruders were induced to flee the scene by armed inhabitants, circumstances that might otherwise have resulted in injurious assaults including rapes and murders. There were 285 news accounts indicating that the defender had a concealed weapon license, which in the majority of these incidents took place outside a home or place of business. Pizza delivery drivers were common robbery targets."



Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.

 

[ChrisL]

Testing. Having some posting issues.

 

[ChrisL]

Every time I try to post, I get an error message! Testing!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you think that gun control laws are unrelated to the number of people that legally own guns?

Ok, so, you -can't- explain how a discussion of how gun control affects crime is relevant to a discussion on the effect that legally-armed armed law-abiding citizens have on crime rates. Point taken.

I can promise you, there's no shortage of guns in Detroit. Why hasn't it helped?

The chief says it has helped - how do you know better?

 

[ChrisL]

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes

"A widely-known study conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.

For these reasons, the Cato researchers investigated published news reports which much more often reveal how Americans use guns in self-defense. The data set is derived from a collection of nearly 5,000 randomly selected incidents published between October 2003 and November 2011. Still, the authors also recognize limitations with this approach, since many defensive incidents are never reported by victims, or when they are, never get published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the successful self-defense outcomes are those where the defendants’ guns are presented but never fired.

Most of the actual self-defense shootings in the Cato study didn’t involve concealed carry licenses, but more typically had to do with responses to residential invasions. Of these, 488 involved home burglaries. In addition, there were 1,227 incidents where intruders were induced to flee the scene by armed inhabitants, circumstances that might otherwise have resulted in injurious assaults including rapes and murders. There were 285 news accounts indicating that the defender had a concealed weapon license, which in the majority of these incidents took place outside a home or place of business. Pizza delivery drivers were common robbery targets."



Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.

I would imagine that more times than not, a person doesn't even have to pull the trigger, but only has to point the weapon at an intruder, and he would probably run away.

 

[Yarddog]

A gun may not stop violent crime for everyone, but it can stop violent crime for You.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A gun may not stop violent crime for everyone, but it can stop violent crime for You.

It can start a violent crime, too.

 

[ChrisL]

A gun may not stop violent crime for everyone, but it can stop violent crime for You.

It can start a violent crime, too.

I think I would prefer to take my chances with than without.

 

[Yarddog]

A gun may not stop violent crime for everyone, but it can stop violent crime for You.

It can start a violent crime, too.

Are you trying to say that if you lived in Detroit for instance and you owned a gun you would go out and commit a violent crime? The gun isnt going to do it all by itself.

 

[KissMy]

How is this possible?
More guns = more crime, right?
I thought we didn't need guns to protect ourselves, that we have the police for that...?

More police = more tickets, warrants, fines, taxes, attacks on protestors & taking away your right to vote. Just ask the people of Ferguson, MO.

Cameras, Dogs, CCW training & Guns lower & prevent crime.

 

[ChrisL]

I always wonder how the horrible home invasion in Connecticut would have turned out if that doctor had a gun.

Poor guy was tied up in the basement while his wife and daughters were brutalized and murdered and set on fire. I wonder if HE wishes he had kept a weapon in the house? Perhaps he or his wife would have had an opportunity to get to it and at least make a fighting attempt to save themselves from the ensuing carnage.

 

[Yarddog]

How is this possible?
More guns = more crime, right?
I thought we didn't need guns to protect ourselves, that we have the police for that...?

More police = more tickets, warrants, fines, taxes, attacks on protestors & taking away your right to vote. Just ask the people of Ferguson, MO.

Cameras, Dogs, CCW training & Guns lower & prevent crime.

good point. some people feel the police are the problem. so if they just go out and buy a gun they can bypass the middleman. Dogs help too.

 

[Yarddog]

I always wonder how the horrible home invasion in Connecticut would have turned out if that doctor had a gun.

Poor guy was tied up in the basement while his wife and daughters were brutalized and murdered and set on fire. I wonder if HE wishes he had kept a weapon in the house? Perhaps he or his wife would have had an opportunity to get to it and at least make a fighting attempt to save themselves from the ensuing carnage.

good to have other weapons in the house as well, in case you cant get to your gun in time. I got this great little massai war club made out of ebony wood, lightwweight but designed to split bone. unfortunantly when confronted by animals in your own home, you have to meet them on their own level, then show them how its done.

 

[ChrisL]

How is this possible?
More guns = more crime, right?
I thought we didn't need guns to protect ourselves, that we have the police for that...?

More police = more tickets, warrants, fines, taxes, attacks on protestors & taking away your right to vote. Just ask the people of Ferguson, MO.

Cameras, Dogs, CCW training & Guns lower & prevent crime.

good point. some people feel the police are the problem. so if they just go out and buy a gun they can bypass the middleman. Dogs help too.

Even if they don't feel that police are a "problem" per se, who wants to be defenseless while waiting for police to arrive? Who knows what can happen between the time you call them and the time when they arrive?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I always wonder how the horrible home invasion in Connecticut would have turned out if that doctor had a gun.

Poor guy was tied up in the basement while his wife and daughters were brutalized and murdered and set on fire. I wonder if HE wishes he had kept a weapon in the house? Perhaps he or his wife would have had an opportunity to get to it and at least make a fighting attempt to save themselves from the ensuing carnage.

He was asleep on the porch when the attack happened - he woke up to a baseball bat to his head and a gun in his face.

There's no reason to think he didn't own a gun.

 

[ChrisL]

I always wonder how the horrible home invasion in Connecticut would have turned out if that doctor had a gun.

Poor guy was tied up in the basement while his wife and daughters were brutalized and murdered and set on fire. I wonder if HE wishes he had kept a weapon in the house? Perhaps he or his wife would have had an opportunity to get to it and at least make a fighting attempt to save themselves from the ensuing carnage.

He was asleep on the porch when the attack happened - he woke up to a baseball bat to his head and a gun in his face.

There's no reason to think he didn't own a gun.

His wife, his daughters, one of them MIGHT have been able to get to a gun and kill or injure those guys. I never heard anything about a weapon, and I'm sure that if there had been a weapon in the residence, it probably would have been at least mentioned.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I always wonder how the horrible home invasion in Connecticut would have turned out if that doctor had a gun.

Poor guy was tied up in the basement while his wife and daughters were brutalized and murdered and set on fire. I wonder if HE wishes he had kept a weapon in the house? Perhaps he or his wife would have had an opportunity to get to it and at least make a fighting attempt to save themselves from the ensuing carnage.

He was asleep on the porch when the attack happened - he woke up to a baseball bat to his head and a gun in his face.

There's no reason to think he didn't own a gun.

His wife, his daughters, one of them MIGHT have been able to get to a gun and kill or injure those guys. I never heard anything about a weapon, and I'm sure that if there had been a weapon in the residence, it probably would have been at least mentioned.

Why would it have been mentioned?

 

[ChrisL]

I always wonder how the horrible home invasion in Connecticut would have turned out if that doctor had a gun.

Poor guy was tied up in the basement while his wife and daughters were brutalized and murdered and set on fire. I wonder if HE wishes he had kept a weapon in the house? Perhaps he or his wife would have had an opportunity to get to it and at least make a fighting attempt to save themselves from the ensuing carnage.

He was asleep on the porch when the attack happened - he woke up to a baseball bat to his head and a gun in his face.

There's no reason to think he didn't own a gun.

His wife, his daughters, one of them MIGHT have been able to get to a gun and kill or injure those guys. I never heard anything about a weapon, and I'm sure that if there had been a weapon in the residence, it probably would have been at least mentioned.

Why would it have been mentioned?

Why wouldn't it have been?

I'm sure the anti-second amendment people would have used that to further their own agenda. They would say, "oh, that family had a gun, and it didn't save them."