For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
And adding gunslinging vigilantes will miraculously end crime?
Click to expand...
I am not sure anyone is advocating hiring “gunslinging vigilantes” to run around – and possessing a valid concealed carry permit can hardly be considered the same.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Show me the causal data analysis that supports this?
Click to expand...
My study, with David Mustard, a graduate student in economics at the University of Chicago, analyzed the FBI’s crime statistics for all 3,054 American counties from 1977 to 1992. Our findings are dramatic. Our most conservative estimates show that** by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. **If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply Criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats.
Click to expand...
largo.org/Lott.html
Click to expand...
 
Some states have horrific crimes that occur, the convenience store robbed and the clerk killed and so on. It is these atrocious crimes as to why many states have pushed measures allowing individuals to defend themselves and I think that is good.
 
40.png
SamH:
Sounds like a correlational study to me, which are notoriously in error when reaching for their conclusions. Do criminals shiver in fear knowing that the average citizen may be carrying a gun? Or do they just learn to shoot first? Sorry, but I say the latter.
 
BroomWagon said:
Some states have horrific crimes that occur, the convenience store robbed and the clerk killed and so on. It is these atrocious crimes as to why many states have pushed measures allowing individuals to defend themselves and I think that is good.
Click to expand...
Well, to be clear- all 50 states permit folks to defend themselves. The difference is in allowing citizens to have the means to effectively defend themselves and where (i.e. the difference between constitutional carry/shall-issue/discretionary-issue/no-issue concealed weapons for both firearms and knives).

CCW doesn’t appear to lower over-all crime rates as much as shifting criminals from violent crime to property crimes. More burglaries of unoccupied dwellings, car thefts or break-ins etc. with fewer homiceds, rapes and assaults.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Sounds like a correlational study to me, which are notoriously in error when reaching for their conclusions. Do criminals shiver in fear knowing that the average citizen may be carrying a gun? Or do they just learn to shoot first? Sorry, but I say the latter.
Click to expand...
voxday.blogspot.com/2012/07/mailvox-aussie-logic.html

Well, it appears when criminals are confident that their victims are disarmed, they are more likely to be violent, based on Australia’s experience. So, yeah I think any rationale criminal takes into account the risks of an armed victim. Call it fear or risk management.:

"Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 – five years after enacting its gun ban – the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault – Australia’s equivalent term for rape – increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States – where no gun-ban exists – both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault – Australia’s equivalent term for rape – increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. "

Note, the US drop occurred as more states liberalized (in the non-political sense of the term) their CCW and self-defense laws.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Sounds like a correlational study to me, which are notoriously in error when reaching for their conclusions. Do criminals shiver in fear knowing that the average citizen may be carrying a gun? Or do they just learn to shoot first? Sorry, but I say the latter.
Click to expand...
Yes, no, and I think you have it backwards. Really, really backwards. The vast majority of garden variety criminals are cowardly thugs. They very much do not want to face armed resistance. You know, that might be why most police officers carry arms?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Sounds like a correlational study to me, which are notoriously in error when reaching for their conclusions. Do criminals shiver in fear knowing that the average citizen may be carrying a gun? Or do they just learn to shoot first? Sorry, but I say the latter.
Click to expand...
The FBI disagrees with you. Your “study” that supports any of your claims?
 
lcburgundy said:
Yes, no, and I think you have it backwards. Really, really backwards. The vast majority of garden variety criminals are cowardly thugs. They very much do not want to face armed resistance. You know, that might be why most police officers carry arms?
Click to expand...
That’s why so many armed police officers are shot and so few disarmed conveince store clerks are shot.

Except the facts show otherwise.

thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/11/12/367139/the-deadliest-jobs/
 
MaryT777 said:
The pay should be relevant to the duties that’s my point.

We could train CCW holders how to enforce traffic issues for a fraction of the cost.
Instead of a police car we could have their own car with a CCW logo on it.
Click to expand...
We already do…they are called police officers. Even police have to have a CCW (in the states that I am familir with any way). No CCW, no acting as an agent of the state. The pay is still irrelevant, because it is up to the state to decide who gets to represent them…not the person with the gun.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Sounds like a correlational study to me, which are notoriously in error when reaching for their conclusions. Do criminals shiver in fear knowing that the average citizen may be carrying a gun? Or do they just learn to shoot first? Sorry, but I say the latter.
Click to expand...

Study paid for by the U.S. Department of Justice attempting to confirm the authors belief that strict gun control lowered crime . That study included a survey of ~1,900 felons

81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.
57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
34% of criminal respondents said that they had been scare off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Well, to be clear- all 50 states permit folks to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
Who said different?? Are you saying there have been no Stand Your Ground/Concealed Carry Weapons Permits/Self-Defense laws enacted in the last 20 years years?
The difference is in allowing citizens to have the means to effectively defend themselves and where (i.e. the difference between constitutional carry/shall-issue/discretionary-issue/no-issue concealed weapons for both firearms and knives).
Click to expand...
That’s was my point!
CCW doesn’t appear to lower over-all crime rates as much as shifting criminals from violent crime to property crimes. More burglaries of unoccupied dwellings, car thefts or break-ins etc. with fewer homiceds, rapes and assaults.
Click to expand...
No figures cited. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top