Detroit police chief says armed citizens deter crime

[dawny0826]

There are variances within cultures, too. Canada and the US are both diverse countries. At the same time, there are commonalities that cross borders.

Of course.

I've travelled all over both countries. From what I've seen, I'd say that there's less cultural difference between, say, Michigan and southern Ontario than there is between Michigan and California. Maine - not just the geography, but also the people - feels more like New Brunswick than it does like Florida.

Yes. And all of this comprises an area's demographics.

Alceste said this:

Blaming the MASSIVE gun death statistics in the US on "demographics" is like talking about anything but the elephant in the room.

Dmographics, which comprise characteristics of an area's culture, population growth, ecno=diversity and so forth, DOES influence crime statistics (and gun violence is part of that.)

Further, she references the "massive" number of gun deaths. In comparison to Canada and other countries, I'm sure such numbers do appear massive. But, I don't consider the statistics as "massive" as people project in context of the US population, number of gun owners and overall crime statistics, annually.

With over 300,000,000+ Americans, less than half own guns. If 70-150 million people owned guns (even multiple guns!), it's not innacurrate to say that a small percentage of people are dying yearly from gun related deaths.

Per the FBI, out of the 6,050,049 people victimized in the United States in 2012 through various forms of criminal activity - 8,885 were murdered by firearm.

In proportion to population and the number of gun owners, the number of people murdered by firearms isn't quite "massive" when comparing to the number of people who die via auto accident, annually.

FBI — NIBRS 2012 Home
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/2012/resources/variables-affecting-crime
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

I think terms like "responsible gun owner" are misleading because they suggest a binary distinction that doesn't reflect the real world.

No more misleading then terms like "responsible pet owner", "responsible car owner" or "responsible home owner", right?

There's a saying in transportation engineering: "the only 'safe' road is one with no cars." The same is true of firearms: the only society with no gun crime is one with no guns.

Well, yeah. Because those who have illegal guns in their posession will relinquish their guns if asked.

What we really have is a continuum of risk: at one end is the hypothetical (and fictitious) "perfectly safe" gun owner. At the other end, we have someone who's so reckless that they're certain to hurt or kill themselves or others. In between is an increasing scale of risk, and a threshold where the law implicitly says "up to this level of risk is acceptable; above it is unacceptable."

Right. Well, can the same logic not be applied to a vehicle operater? And again, we aren't knee jerking over the number of auto related deaths which is a more "massive" number. Can you dispute that? As with guns, there are laws that regulate vehicle operations.

... and then we have imperfect enforcement of that threshold.

Legal gun owners fall into several categories:

1. gun owners who will follow the rules for their whole lives
2. gun owners who don't follow the rules but haven't yet been caught
3. gun owners who have followed the rules so far but could be induced to break them in the right circumstances

This is ridiculous. First, if you're going to break it down into a spectrum of sorts, you need to take the time to fully encompass the spectrum onto which a gun owner could fall.

What rules, specifically, are you referencing? I assume these are rules that apply, post gun purchase. Please expound.

... I think it's foolish to base policy on the assumption that any gun owner who hasn't yet been convicted of a firearm offense falls into category 1..

That's not the way it works in the United States. We're innocent until proven guilty of a crime and ARE, from a legal perspective, considered responsible, law-abiding citizens until we've given law enforcement reason to suspect otherwise and are tried and convicted of a crime.

... The law can't tell the difference between "responsible" and "irresponsible" gun owners. It can only tell the difference between gun owners who have been caught breaking the law and those who haven't been.

From a legal perspective, the law only needs to differentiate between criminals and non criminals, as it's the American right to bear arms. Unless one has been convicted or doesn't meet a basic set of requirements or is genuinely incapable due to mental health to own a gun - the law cannot discriminate in the fashion that you suggest.

In fact, by your logic, I would be justified to assume that you are a sex offender or any heinous type of person. I have no way of knowing where you might fall on the spectrum of "legal" and "moral", so, without being able to place you on the spectrum, perhaps discriminating against you is the best way to protect myself and others.

Statistics suggest that you're probably not a sex offender, but, I have no way of knowing where you fall on the spectrum. So, perhaps restricting your rights because I fear for my safety and others is the best way to go.

Sorry, Jeff. Unless a person has been convicted of a crime or outwardly projects criminal intention or characteristics, we typically don't assume them to be criminal or "irresponsible" and this is imperative if you want to function in a society that is as non discrminative as possible and upholds the rights of its citizens.

 

[oldbadger]

Meh....it's been worse. This nasty stuff happens every now & then, but we're ready for it.
Show thrower technology has advanced, & we have a new plow truck with a Boss V plow.

He he...... bet you ain't got one of them in your museum! Jealous?

Now, how we getting on with this police chief that thinks it's a great idea to have untrained, unqualified, untested folks wandering around with loaded but uninsured guns? Presumably he wants ordinary folks to draw them, point 'em and actually shoot 'em? .......... at what? They are going to be shooting at other honest, decent but dim-witted folks who heard the same bang and pulled their gun..... Have you ever heard of 'friendly fire'? Friendly but uninsured fire. At least if the Detroit Police dept officers shoot you by accident they will be insured. Mrs B could at least bury me and buy a whole kennel full of dachshunds or something, but if old Bert the baker drops me all she'll get is a couple of doggy toys. :biglaugh:

Honestly, what a bad joke. I saw that map of Detroit with all the recent gun-related incidents spewed all over it, which causes me to think of the word 'denial' in relation to the NRA. Oh Gawd..... will this get me Banned?

 

[Revoltingest]

He he...... bet you ain't got one of them in your museum! Jealous?

Now, how we getting on with this police chief that thinks it's a great idea to have untrained, unqualified, untested folks wandering around with loaded but uninsured guns? Presumably he wants ordinary folks to draw them, point 'em and actually shoot 'em? .......... at what? They are going to be shooting at other honest, decent but dim-witted folks who heard the same bang and pulled their gun..... Have you ever heard of 'friendly fire'? Friendly but uninsured fire. At least if the Detroit Police dept officers shoot you by accident they will be insured. Mrs B could at least bury me and buy a whole kennel full of dachshunds or something, but if old Bert the baker drops me all she'll get is a couple of doggy toys. :biglaugh:
Honestly, what a bad joke. I saw that map of Detroit with all the recent gun-related incidents spewed all over it, which causes me to think of the word 'denial' in relation to the NRA. Oh Gawd..... will this get me Banned?

It seems that your main concern is that we buy insurance.
Anyway, concealed handgun carriers have an excellent record.
Certainly, Brits & Cannucks cannot be trusted with this responsibility, but we're a more independent bunch here.

 

[metis]

It is not necessarily that you are lying, it is that he had to have gotten that from some other source with hard data, that is what I am interested in.

Sorry but I can't help you here because I'm pretty certain he didn't name the source. My impression is that it was an estimate but I don't know if that is a correct impression. The reality is that figure would probably approximate the national average, which has to be somewhere around 3 per household (300 million guns per 350 million population).

 

[metis]

Getting a permit to carry in Canada is very difficult, plus the vast majority of guns there are long guns that must be registered.

 

[oldbadger]

It seems that your main concern is that we buy insurance.

Yes. :yes:
That is the truth of it.
That would be a good step to take.
If the cops find a gun and it is not insured...... they seize it. And they crush it .
And they prove that they smashed it. No police nicking guns or anything. The police would need to be 'witnessed' over this.
.....just like uninsured cars getting seized and crushed over here.

Just think on it. Sleep on it. (the idea, not your gun...... very uncomfortable).

Anyway, concealed handgun carriers have an excellent record.

OK..... so let's go with that premise, but if they all carried insurance, then this separates 'honest, decent, legal' from 'bad'. And if an honest, decent person makes a mistake, the victim has immediate attention, convalescence and reparation.
Which part of this would you have difficulty with?

Certainly, Brits & Cannucks cannot be trusted with this responsibility, but we're a more independent bunch here.

Our Police have had difficulties. The recent (imo) white-wash of an incident in 2011 when armed police shot dead a man who was unarmed has been very sad. Our constables have lost their nerve and CS sprayed people who approached them to ask the way.... or argued about something..... etc.
But when private people use force in detentions the police are usually all over the case, looking for any reason to make a fuss. Now imagine that in 2011 a barber going home from work had unknowingly (through fear or stress) put too much pressure on his trigger and sent it past first pressure and onto 'fire' ?

Your citizens need that senior cop to guarantee that that they will be supported 'no matter what' ... after the rubbish he told to your media. Now, if he'd thought that through, he might have kept his mouth shut. IMO this is a very bad mistake, that he made.

But, all in all...... you are right..... I think gun insurance for all would be a good move without limiting or removing your ancient rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. :yes:
That is the truth of it.
That would be a good step to take.
If the cops find a gun and it is not insured...... they seize it. And they crush it .
And they prove that they smashed it. No police nicking guns or anything. The police would need to be 'witnessed' over this.
.....just like uninsured cars getting seized and crushed over here.

Just think on it. Sleep on it. (the idea, not your gun...... very uncomfortable).

OK..... so let's go with that premise, but if they all carried insurance, then this separates 'honest, decent, legal' from 'bad'. And if an honest, decent person makes a mistake, the victim has immediate attention, convalescence and reparation.
Which part of this would you have difficulty with?



Our Police have had difficulties. The recent (imo) white-wash of an incident in 2011 when armed police shot dead a man who was unarmed has been very sad. Our constables have lost their nerve and CS sprayed people who approached them to ask the way.... or argued about something..... etc.
But when private people use force in detentions the police are usually all over the case, looking for any reason to make a fuss. Now imagine that in 2011 a barber going home from work had unknowingly (through fear or stress) put too much pressure on his trigger and sent it past first pressure and onto 'fire' ?

Your citizens need that senior cop to guarantee that that they will be supported 'no matter what' ... after the rubbish he told to your media. Now, if he'd thought that through, he might have kept his mouth shut. IMO this is a very bad mistake, that he made.

But, all in all...... you are right..... I think gun insurance for all would be a good move without limiting or removing your ancient rights.

I've never mentioned it, but I'm open to the idea of liability insurance.
There's a risk of politicians tacking on onerous taxes as a back door attack on gun rights though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Getting a permit to carry in Canada is very difficult, plus the vast majority of guns there are long guns that must be registered.

FYI: the long gun registry was scrapped a few years ago. Handguns still need to be registered.

 

[metis]

FYI: the long gun registry was scrapped a few years ago. Handguns still need to be registered.

So, there's literally no background checks on the purchase of a rifle or shotgun now? That's quite a change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, there's literally no background checks on the purchase of a rifle or shotgun now? That's quite a change.

No, there are still background checks. It's just that the ownership of the weapon doesn't get registered with the government when it's bought and sold. You're still legally required to have an FAC to buy the weapon.

 

[metis]

No, there are still background checks. It's just that the ownership of the weapon doesn't get registered with the government when it's bought and sold. You're still legally required to have an FAC to buy the weapon.

OK, I now see what you're saying. Thanks.

BTW, since I live near Detroit for 2/3 of the year, we go to Windsor, Ontario very often, as my wife, who's from Italy, has relatives there, plus Erie street is the Italian area there whereas we do some of our grocery shopping for some items we can't find here in the Detroit area.

 

[oldbadger]

I've never mentioned it, but I'm open to the idea of liability insurance.
There's a risk of politicians tacking on onerous taxes as a back door attack on gun rights though.

i meant that you suggested that insurance was my only thingy. You were right about that.
your Congress doesn't let tack ons happen over issues such as this.
as insurers get to know a person, so they reduce premiums. An idiot who shoots somebody through nrhlecg would never be able to afford another premium.

oldb, on a mobile...!

 

[Revoltingest]

i meant that you suggested that insurance was my only thingy. You were right about that.
your Congress doesn't let tack ons happen over issues such as this.
as insurers get to know a person, so they reduce premiums. An idiot who shoots somebody through nrhlecg would never be able to afford another premium.
oldb, on a mobile...!

I just find your interest in insurance to be a funny geeky thingie.
I too obsess over great ideas which interest no one else.
You know that you're abnormal, don't you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. And all of this comprises an area's demographics.

Alceste said this:



Dmographics, which comprise characteristics of an area's culture, population growth, ecno=diversity and so forth, DOES influence crime statistics (and gun violence is part of that.)

When I hear "demographics", I think of statistics like age, income, and gender distribution, not things like culture and traditions.

Further, she references the "massive" number of gun deaths. In comparison to Canada and other countries, I'm sure such numbers do appear massive. But, I don't consider the statistics as "massive" as people project in context of the US population, number of gun owners and overall crime statistics, annually.

With over 300,000,000+ Americans, less than half own guns. If 70-150 million people owned guns (even multiple guns!), it's not innacurrate to say that a small percentage of people are dying yearly from gun related deaths.

Per the FBI, out of the 6,050,049 people victimized in the United States in 2012 through various forms of criminal activity - 8,885 were murdered by firearm.

In proportion to population and the number of gun owners, the number of people murdered by firearms isn't quite "massive" when comparing to the number of people who die via auto accident, annually.

The annual number of firearm deaths in the US (2010: 31,672*) is only slightly less than the number of motor vehicle collision deaths (2010: 33,657*). It's a massive number by any rational measure.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

No more misleading then terms like "responsible pet owner", "responsible car owner" or "responsible home owner", right?

I've noticed more of a black-and-white dichotomy from firearm proponents than in most other contexts, and more of a refusal to acknowledge that the average gun owner has any associated risk at all. I think this is different from how we look at, say, car use. People tend to acknowledge that average drivers can still create risk.

Right. Well, can the same logic not be applied to a vehicle operater? And again, we aren't knee jerking over the number of auto related deaths which is a more "massive" number. Can you dispute that? As with guns, there are laws that regulate vehicle operations.

It's only slightly more massive, as I pointed out.

And yes, that's how we approach car use: we don't try to make roads entirely risk-free (since this is impossible); we try to identify factors that are especially risky and work to either eliminate them or reduce their associated risk.

This is ridiculous. First, if you're going to break it down into a spectrum of sorts, you need to take the time to fully encompass the spectrum onto which a gun owner could fall.

What part of that spectrum isn't reflected in those three categories?

What rules, specifically, are you referencing? I assume these are rules that apply, post gun purchase. Please expound.

You insinuated that law-abiding gun owners are "safe". If those laws are adequate, this implies that, except for instances of actual self-defense, when someone is hurt or killed by a firearm, some sort of law or rule has been broken.

The alternative is that the rules are inadequate, in which case greater regulation is required.

That's not the way it works in the United States. We're innocent until proven guilty of a crime and ARE, from a legal perspective, considered responsible, law-abiding citizens until we've given law enforcement reason to suspect otherwise and are tried and convicted of a crime.

I don't think your assessment of your country's legal perspective is correct. Law-abiding American citizens are restricted in all sorts of ways. Heck - you're even required to show ID to buy Sudafed.

From a legal perspective, the law only needs to differentiate between criminals and non criminals, as it's the American right to bear arms. Unless one has been convicted or doesn't meet a basic set of requirements or is genuinely incapable due to mental health to own a gun - the law cannot discriminate in the fashion that you suggest.

In fact, by your logic, I would be justified to assume that you are a sex offender or any heinous type of person. I have no way of knowing where you might fall on the spectrum of "legal" and "moral", so, without being able to place you on the spectrum, perhaps discriminating against you is the best way to protect myself and others.

Statistics suggest that you're probably not a sex offender, but, I have no way of knowing where you fall on the spectrum. So, perhaps restricting your rights because I fear for my safety and others is the best way to go.

Sorry, Jeff. Unless a person has been convicted of a crime or outwardly projects criminal intention or characteristics, we typically don't assume them to be criminal or "irresponsible" and this is imperative if you want to function in a society that is as non discrminative as possible and upholds the rights of its citizens.

We don't assume that they must be a criminal, but we generally make allowances for the possibility.

For instance, you mentioned sex offenders. I have my vulnerable sector screening (the term here for the super background check needed to work with kids), so it's established as well as can be that I've never been convicted or even charged of any offense that might even hint at me being a threat to children, but despite this, the organization I volunteer with still forbids volunteers from being alone with children.

And when I get reimbursed for expenses, I have to provide receipts. Our treasurer doesn't just take my word for what I spent, despite the fact I've never been so much as charged in any sort of theft or fraud.

You'll find similar approaches in all sorts of other contexts. Just because someone hasn't been identified as a criminal doesn't mean we give them completely unqualified trust.

 

[Alceste]

A common argument from firearm opponents here is that the availability of firearms in the US is a major factor in our homicide rate.If you (Canadians) can still "have all the guns you want", except handguns, then it should follow that your homicide rate should be comparable to ours when comparing only those firearms available in both countries.

Here is that data for 2010:
US: 826 homicides*, 2.7 per million people
Canada: 55 homicides, 1.6 per million people

The US rate is still 69% higher. What accounts for that?


*(This does not include firearms of unknown type)
source 1
source 2
source 3
source 4

As I said before, our guns are almost all hunting rifles. They stay locked in a cabinet, ammo stored separately, and they're only pulled or for target shooting or hunting. Criminals don't use them, since they can't be concealed, and there is little chance of arguments escalating into shootings because you'd have to go home for your gun, by which time you'd have calmed down.

 

[esmith]

Seems like the debate on pro's and con's of firearms rises up at various times. Now, I have no issue with debates, they are a means of expressing ones views/opinions on a subject. Each side have their points to be made, some backed up by facts and data other with nothing but hyperbole. I respect the right of others to make their views known on the subject, especially when it is backed up by reliable data. I also think it is meaningful to hear the views of those that are not residents of the US, but what I object to is using data in their country which is based on their laws to attempt to justify their argument. The US is not governed by their laws, but by the laws that are deemed lawful as set forth in our Constitution. Those in other countries also can not expect the social and economic situation in their country to be those in the US. There is also a cultural difference between different countries as there is a cultural difference between different parts of the US. Each and all of these differences affect how each of us perceive different aspects of our lives, as well it should. There is only one agreement in this area and that agreement is that we will never agree to the opposing side.

One other issue that I would like to address and that issue is the entertainment industry, whether it be movies, television, music, or games. There are those in this industry that are very vocal in their condemnation of firearms and the laws that govern their purchase, and possession. Yet they use those same firearms to further their own monetary gain and fame.

 

[Alceste]

Seems like the debate on pro's and con's of firearms rises up at various times. Now, I have no issue with debates, they are a means of expressing ones views/opinions on a subject. Each side have their points to be made, some backed up by facts and data other with nothing but hyperbole. I respect the right of others to make their views known on the subject, especially when it is backed up by reliable data. I also think it is meaningful to hear the views of those that are not residents of the US, but what I object to is using data in their country which is based on their laws to attempt to justify their argument. The US is not governed by their laws, but by the laws that are deemed lawful as set forth in our Constitution. Those in other countries also can not expect the social and economic situation in their country to be those in the US. There is also a cultural difference between different countries as there is a cultural difference between different parts of the US. Each and all of these differences affect how each of us perceive different aspects of our lives, as well it should. There is only one agreement in this area and that agreement is that we will never agree to the opposing side.

One other issue that I would like to address and that issue is the entertainment industry, whether it be movies, television, music, or games. There are those in this industry that are very vocal in their condemnation of firearms and the laws that govern their purchase, and possession. Yet they use those same firearms to further their own monetary gain and fame.

It's amazing how many words some people can use to avoid admitting that a correlation could possibly exist between more people carrying guns and more gun deaths.

You know what they say - guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

 

[esmith]

It's amazing how many words some people can use to avoid admitting that a correlation could possibly exist between more people carrying guns and more gun deaths.

You know what they say - guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

I don't think anywhere in my post did I attempt any correlation for or against. Is it possible that you wanted to read something into it that wasn't there. Hence make a snarky response.

 

[Alceste]

I don't think anywhere in my post did I attempt any correlation for or against. Is it possible that you wanted to read something into it that wasn't there. Hence make a snarky response.

It's not just you - there are many gun proponents here who try to ignore the fact that countries where people carry more guns have higher gun deaths than countries where they don't. America is always "special" for some reason or other, nothing like other countries, no point in even trying to compare, etc. The astronomical rate of shooting deaths in the US has to have some cause besides the fact that millions of Americans are packing heat everywhere they go.

You get the same arguments defending US health care and income inequality. No point checking out how other countries are doing - America and Americans are special and different. The rules don't apply. Even the totally obvious rules, like the fact that more people carrying guns leads to more gun deaths per capita.

Just once, I'd like to see a gun proponent say "yes, obviously in places where people are carrying guns everywhere there are going to be more shootings, both intentional and accidental, both justified and unjustified, but I don't care. That's how I like it."

 

[esmith]

Just once, I'd like to see a gun proponent say "yes, obviously in places where people are carrying guns everywhere there are going to be more shootings, both intentional and accidental, both justified and unjustified, but I don't care. That's how I like it."

Sure it is mathematically true that the more firearms, cars, knives, swords, machetes, or any other implement that there will be more violent issues with said item. That is not hard to understand. However, just because it is mathematically true does not mean that I or anyone else has to agree that said item should be restricted. Yes, I agree that certain laws might be necessary to attempt to limit the danger to the general public. However, at the present time, I feel, that there are enough laws governing the purchase and possession of firearms... if all of those laws were enforced. Satisfied?