Sickening Attack!

[Richardols]

shockerfan:

The safest places here in the US are those that have laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons by law abiding citizens. The places with the highest crime rates tend to be those that have strict gun control laws.

You are presuming that there is a direct connection between the crime rate and gun control. I suggest that the places with the highest crime rates are cities with more criminals, rather than cities with more restrictive laws. And those criminals are mostly not armed. Burglars, thieves, con-artists, strong-arm men, etc. don’t need to use guns - and don’t.

I don’t know where you live, but as a former Brooklynite, I don’t like the idea of anyone in New York City except the police going armed, I don’t care how virtuous he or she may be. There are too many crazies-though-not-criminals there who’d be eligible to go around strapped.

 

[shockerfan]

Richardols:

You are presuming that there is a direct connection between the crime rate and gun control. I suggest that the places with the highest crime rates are cities with more criminals, rather than cities with more restrictive laws. And those criminals are mostly not armed. Burglars, thieves, con-artists, strong-arm men, etc. don’t need to use guns - and don’t.

I don’t know where you live, but as a former Brooklynite, I don’t like the idea of anyone in New York City except the police going armed, I don’t care how virtuous he or she may be. There are too many crazies-though-not-criminals there who’d be eligible to go around strapped.

1. My point is that there is that gun control laws do not make cities / states safer. If anything, the opposite is true. If criminals know that the house they are breaking into may house a person with a gun ready to use it, they may think twice about their actions.
2. I live in Kentucky, grew up in Kansas (thus the name Shockerfan). I have been around guns my entire life. My dad bought me my first gun (20-gauge shotgun) when I was 13. The people I know who had guns were the most responsible, upstanding people I knew. I felt safe around them. Perhaps a person’s view of guns depends on where you grew up. However, the facts back the 2nd amendment and concealed carry laws as being good ideas.
3. Perhaps the police in Brooklyn are extraordinary, and can respond fast enough to catch the criminals in the act. However, my life experience has taught me that the police will catch the criminals after the crime, not during the crime. Not wanting be a statistic, I plan on defending myself and family, should the need arise.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

I don’t know where you live, but as a former Brooklynite, I don’t like the idea of anyone in New York City except the police going armed, I don’t care how virtuous he or she may be. There are too many crazies-though-not-criminals there who’d be eligible to go around strapped.

The problem is, you don’t have that choice. The criminals in New York City DO go armed – and graveyards are full of their unarmed victims.

It isn’t a case of, “if we let honest people carry guns, criminals will carry them too.” It’s a case of “The criminals are ALREADY carrying guns.”

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

The criminals in New York City DO go armed – and graveyards are full of their unarmed victims.

Flat wrong. You’re one for statistics. Look up homicides in NYC vs property crimes where most criminals operate.

 

[condan]

Matt25:

The most recent year for which I could find figures was the 2001 libr.port.ac.uk/images/roads/info.gif International comparisons of criminal justice statistics

which shows

Since the definition of homicide is similar in
most countries, absolute comparisons of
rates are possible. For the period 1999 to
2001, the average rate (the number of
homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.6 in
the EU with the highest rates in Finland (2.9),
Northern Ireland (2.7) and Scotland (2.2). For
the other countries, the highest rates were
found in Russia (22.1), Estonia (10.6),
Lithuania (10.6) and the USA (5.6).

In the EU capital cities, the average number
of homicides over the period 1999 to 2001
was 2.3 per 100,000 population with the
highest rates in Belfast (5.6), Amsterdam
(3.1), Vienna (2.8), Stockholm (2.8) and
London (2.6) and Berlin (2.3). There were
higher rates in some American cities:
Washington DC (42.9), New York NY (8.7)
and San Francisco CA (8.1).

A red herring.

If you compare the rates of violent crimes excluding homocides (which includes this knife attack, by the way), you will see that the cities that do not permit its citizens to carry guns have a much higher victim rate.

Law abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves. I read a great suggestion: If you are anti-gun, put a sign on your front door showing a picture of a handgun with a circle and a red line through it, indicating your home is a “gun-free zone”. Let’s see how long you last.

The bottom line is that this young mother wouldn’t have been stabbed if she had been a man the same size or larger as her attacker. Guns, sad to say, even the playing field. Had the attacker thought that maybe she was packing a piece, he would have not had the inclination to stab her in the neck.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Flat wrong. You’re one for statistics. Look up homicides in NYC vs property crimes where most criminals operate.

You mean there aren’t any homicides in New York City?

That’s funny – a quick Google search yields “New York City had 422 homicides year-to-date through Oct 3, 2004” Those are the latest figures, and projecting forward would suggest there would be about 600 (+/-) by December 31st of last year.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

You mean there aren’t any homicides in New York City?

That’s funny – a quick Google search yields “New York City had 422 homicides year-to-date through Oct 3, 2004” Those are the latest figures, and projecting forward would suggest there would be about 600 (+/-) by December 31st of last year.

That’s not what I said. You’ve got the number of homicides. Now see how many property crimes were committed. And compare the numbers.

 

[condan]

Richardols:

Flat wrong. You’re one for statistics. Look up homicides in NYC vs property crimes where most criminals operate.

I lived in NYC for 45 years. Criminals don’t commit property crimes “where they operate”. They commit them where the nice, law-abiding, contributing folks live.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

That’s not what I said. You’ve got the number of homicides. Now see how many property crimes were committed. And compare the numbers.

Why?

The right to self-defense applies to threats to life or grevious bodily harm, not to property.

Are you proposing to make it lawful to use deadly force to prevent property loss?

 

[Matt25]

condan:

A red herring.

If you compare the rates of violent crimes excluding homocides (which includes this knife attack, by the way), you will see that the cities that do not permit its citizens to carry guns have a much higher victim rate.

Violent crime statistics are less comprable because of different definitions. Here in the UK criminal damage counts as a violent crime. So if a window gets broken intentionally that is recorded as a violent crime. I doubt if that applies in all 50 States in the Union. Also when a person in a single incident attacks three people it is recorded as three separate crimes whereas a few years ago it was recorded as one. This explains apparent rises in violent crime. Again this is not directly comparable across the 50 states of the Union.

The value of homicide figures is their compatability across different legal systems other crimes are harder to pin down.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

Violent crime statistics are less comprable because of different definitions. Here in the UK criminal damage counts as a violent crime. So if a window gets broken intentionally that is recorded as a violent crime. I doubt if that applies in all 50 States in the Union. Also when a person in a single incident attacks three people it is recorded as three separate crimes whereas a few years ago it was recorded as one. This explains apparent rises in violent crime. Again this is not directly comparable across the 50 states of the Union.

The value of homicide figures is their compatability across different legal systems other crimes are harder to pin down.

It’s true that country-to-country standards make comparisons difficult. However in the US, we rely on the FBI Uniform Crime Report, which sets a standard for the whole country – which makes state-to-state and city-to-city comparisons much more valid.

In attacks on multiple victims, the FBI counts each victim separately.

 

[buzzcut]

I saw something like this on the net a while back. From what I remember it has happened before in England. The police had hypothesized that it was an envy attack. The attackers are people who are jealous of anyone who is comfortably off or who is enjoying life. They attackers injure their victims with the sole purpose of making them suffer. If that is true, it is sheer evil.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buzzcut:

I saw something like this on the net a while back. From what I remember it has happened before in England. The police had hypothesized that it was an envy attack. The attackers are people who are jealous of anyone who is comfortably off or who is enjoying life. They attackers injure their victims with the sole purpose of making them suffer. If that is true, it is sheer evil.

The phrase “The police had hypothesized” is chilling – it means they can’t catch these people (otherwise, they’d know their motivation.)

I did a study on murder in the US may years ago – and it was no intution buster. It showed exactly what you’d expect – people who commit murder usually have a background of violence short of murder. A person who does things like this is a murderer-in-training.

 

[Richardols]

condan:

I lived in NYC for 45 years.

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

Criminals don’t commit property crimes “where they operate”. They commit them where the nice, law-abiding, contributing folks live.

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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

Which is why it makes sense to be prepared wherever you may be – and that includes being armed.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

Which is why it makes sense to be prepared wherever you may be – and that includes being armed.

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

 

[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.

 

[Richardols]

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 think that a lot of those on this Forum enthusiastic for going armed like to think of the United States as a criminal jungle to justify their position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

I think that a lot of those on this Forum enthusiastic for going armed like to think of the United States as a criminal jungle to justify their position.

If the violent crime rate in this country is negligible, then who cares if someone carries a gun or not?

On the other hand, if the violent crime rate is NOT negligible, then carrying a weapon is justified.

Now, as I have pointed out in other posts, liberalized concealed carry has a lot of history in this country. About 2/3s of the states have such laws. Arkansas has had a concealed carry law for about a decade. Many other states have had such laws even longer.

And none of the predicted evils have occurred. No towns have turned into Dodge City. No shootouts over parking spaces have occurred. What HAS happened is that violent crime has gone DOWN with the passage of liberalized concealed carry laws.

Given this history, the time is passed where it can be considered moral or ethical to talk about what MIGHT happen when ordinary citizens can go armed. The only moral and ethical stance is to honestly report what DID happen – violent crime went down, and innocent lives were saved.

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

violent crime went down, and innocent lives were saved.

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

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.