Sickening Attack!

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Sorry, it doesn’t make sense to me. New York City isn’t Mountain Home - not by a long shot.

You’re right about that – New York City is much more violent.

(And oddly enough, is one of those cities where ordinary, law-abiding citizens are not allowed to carry the means of self defense.)

Hmmmm – those two facts just MIGHT be connected.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[condan]

Richardols:

Great. Whereabouts? I lived in Greenpoint, Brooklyn for 25 years, Bay Ridge for three and still return several times a year to visit family.

Like in Harlem? Or Bedford-Stuy? Or Red Hook? Or East New York? Or the South Bronx? Or Inwood? All those neighborhoods with all the nice, law-abiding, contributing folks? Criminals are euqal opportunity when it comes to their prey.

Criminals “operate” city-wide. The entire city is their neighborhood.

I grew up in Flatbush but went to grammar school in Fort Greene (P.S. 20). I moved to Long Island as an adult. We just left the city for the horse country, far from the criminals. The worst thing that happens up here is leaving home without a wallet and ending up on the police blotter for driving without insurance.

In reality, criminals conduct their operations in their home base but they target the “other half” for the serious scores like breaking and entering (i.e., the property crimes being discussed). Sure, they pick on the law-abiding in their own neighborhoods (usually push-ins on grandma or the latchkey kids) because they are low-haning fruit, but the real take is in places like Dyker Heights, sections of your own Bay Ridge (they won’t go near Bensonhurst or Howard Beach…they know better), Todt Hill, the Heights, and the 'burbs, i.e., Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

But, there’s no cause and effect relationship between carrying a gun and the above effect, as you seem to imply…

Actually, there is – as the Lott Study conclusively demonstrates. This is the most comprehensive and exhaustive study of violent crime in the United States, and as much as those opposed to concealed carry laws would like to refute it, no one has.

Richardols:

For example, crime went down dramatically in New York City, a city known for strong gun laws, over the last several years, not because the citizenry started to go about their business strapped, but because the police were pushed to become more vigorous in their law enforcement.

Then explain why crime went down in cities and states that DIDN’T apply the New York City solution.

There is a causal relationship between self-defense and reduction of violent crime, and New York City would have seen an even more dramatic decrease in cime if they had adopted a liberalized concealed carry law.

Now, all hair-splitting aside, clearly no evil comes from liberalized concealed carry – you have to admit that – so why oppose it?

 

[shockerfan]

vern humphrey:

Actually, there is – as the Lott Study conclusively demonstrates. This is the most comprehensive and exhaustive study of violent crime in the United States, and as much as those opposed to concealed carry laws would like to refute it, no one has.

Then explain why crime went down in cities and states that DIDN’T apply the New York City solution.

There is a causal relationship between self-defense and reduction of violent crime, and New York City would have seen an even more dramatic decrease in cime if they had adopted a liberalized concealed carry law.

Now, all hair-splitting aside, clearly no evil comes from liberalized concealed carry – you have to admit that – so why oppose it?

Because people might actually rely on themselves…we can’t have that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

shockerfan:

Because people might actually rely on themselves…we can’t have that.

Of course not!

Next they’ll be thinking if they’re allowed to keep their own money, they can provide for their own needs and have a comfortable retirement.

Next, they’ll stop playing the blame game, and take responsibility for their own actions. What will politicians do then?

Who knows? They might even start running the country!!

 

[Matt25]

Lance:

My son has lived his whole life except for 8 months in and around Chicago and in San Francisco. He lived in London for 8 months. He has never been mugged or robbed in America, in London he was mugged once and robbed once.

I lived in London 17 years and was never robbed or mugged once.
Whats your point?

 

[Matt25]

shockerfan:

Because people might actually rely on themselves…we can’t have that.

Shooting people is better than trial by jury then?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

Shooting people is better than trial by jury then?

When will the man who stabbed this woman come to trial?

It appears he’s gotten away clean, to attack another woman.

Your question is, I am afraid deliberately abtuse. The correct question is, “Is self-defense better than dying, or winding up paralyzed?”

 

[shockerfan]

Matt25:

Shooting people is better than trial by jury then?

Matt,

I’m not sure if you are getting the point I am trying to make. Evidence has been shown in these posts that states with concealed carry laws are safer than those without. This is because it is a good thing to have LAW ABIDING citizens carry weapons, because if they did not, only the criminals would have weapons.

If a person is going to attack me and threaten my life, and I have a gun, then to answer your question, YES, IT IS BETTER TO SHOOT THEM.

If I’m dead because people like you prevented me from buying a gun to protect myself (because I am a LAW ABIDING citizen) , do you think a “trial by jury” will do me any good? Are you going to dig my dead body up and prop me up in a chair behind the prosecution so I can witness justice in action???

 

[Lance]

Matt25:

I lived in London 17 years and was never robbed or mugged once.
Whats your point?

That you can get mugged anywhere. Chicago and SF are perceived as dangerous places while London, at least by many Americans, is perceived as safe because guns are outlawed.

 

[FightingFat]

shockerfan:

If a person is going to attack me and threaten my life, and I have a gun, then to answer your question, YES, IT IS BETTER TO SHOOT THEM.

Doesn’t that just add to a culture of violence though? Say a 10 year old kid is in danger of the same thing- should he carry a gun and shoot the aggressor? Is the best we can come up with an eye for an eye? Is that the message Jesus had for us?

 

[abcdefg]

FightingFat:

Doesn’t that just add to a culture of violence though? Say a 10 year old kid is in danger of the same thing- should he carry a gun and shoot the aggressor? Is the best we can come up with an eye for an eye? Is that the message Jesus had for us?

yeah your 10 year kid is in danger and you “turn the other cheek” by beating him up together with the attacker