Detroit police chief says armed citizens deter crime

[Apex]

Look... the point I'm getting at is this: if you are so quick to mistrust the police, why would you place so much trust in individual firearm owners, who have much less training and oversight?

I am so quick with the police because our legal system is so backwards that they are rarely held accountable for their actions. This only reinforces their behavior because there is no punishment. But this is really off topic and better discussed in another thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am so quick with the police because our legal system is so backwards that they are rarely held accountable for their actions. This only reinforces their behavior because there is no punishment. But this is really off topic and better discussed in another thread.

They're right on topic if we use the police as a benchmark against which to judge other approaches to crime, such as an armed populace.

We've established that you believe that police aren't accountable enough for their actions. Are armed citizens more or less accountable than police?

 

[Alceste]

Well that really depends on your definition of freedom. Arguably in places such as Canada you compromise your freedoms. Whether you agree with it by giving up your rights so others do not have the ability to have their rights. Stop me if I am wrong when I say that you gave up your right to hold a gun. I don't
mean culinary tool. Defining something as powerful as a gun and using it as lightly as a culinary tool is foolish. Guns are powerful and those who use them responsibly as you intend to do understand that.

I would like to point something out that you may wish to review. We live in two different countries. We live right against each other yet we were born of different peril. Ours through revolution and struggle free from the common wealth that once demanded obedience. Yours still of the common wealth. I am not honestly trying to offend you. However, our country and mentality was born of fire and yours of lengthened negotiation. I ask you to review it as an American. As I wish to view it through your eyes as best I can. Not, all Americans are "gangbangers". To say we are all the same especially in a country so multicultural so complex is a total collapse of self thought.

So I ask you not to judge. Yet, to resolute as I do with many of the issues that you hold personal in your country. I also hold those close in my country. Seek resolutions. Opinions are a dime a dozen. Solutions change the world.

You wish for someone from America to say more guns equal more gun deaths. Yes because of ignorance. Anyone raised around guns or even shoots them every holiday for fun knows the dangers. I'm completely biased as I am from American and I like having guns. However, to give up any right because you believe it will make a problem go away seems a cop out.

This is part of a bigger issue. We have discussed as mentality and rightfully so. So
imagine the United States of America. (I say United States because America has a north, south and is comprised of two continents.) Suddenly backs on its mentality. Deactivates all carriers and bases throughout the world. Where does that leave Canada?

That was a lovely speech, but you're under a few misconceptions. We have guns in Canada. As I mentioned, I'll probably get one myself, since hunting is on my bucket list. Since the purpose of my gun (and most Canadian guns) will be to bring home dinner, it will qualify as a culinary tool. Nothing in that idea requires that guns be handled carelessly.

We have different rights and freedoms up here. Not fewer. For example we have the right to medically necessary health care for free. The right to marry whoever we choose, regardless of their gender. The right for a woman to decide whether to have baby and when. The right to own a different type of gun that is designed for killing people instead of dinner is not one of them, but it seems rather inconsequential in comparison.

 

[dust1n]

Sure it does,

None of what has been provided to me by this guy supported his particular claim, so, no, it (as the person I was responding to and the information provided) doesn't.

when statistics suggest that "victims" who own guns can thwart crime by 70%-80%, through brandishment of their weapons.

Defensive gun use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This does. However, it doesn't do much when one looks at the totality of crime statistics and gun ownership. I can't access the article that was being quoted, so I have to take the exact statistic with a grain of salt. The end of the paper apparently summarizes, among other things, "(4) more general problems in using surveys to measure defensive gun use." Disparity could be in the fact that asking people their experiences via surveys ultimately excludes dead people. But it's much hardier evidence then what I have been given so far.

 

[yoda89]

That was a lovely speech, but you're under a few misconceptions. We have guns in Canada. As I mentioned, I'll probably get one myself, since hunting is on my bucket list. Since the purpose of my gun (and most Canadian guns) will be to bring home dinner, it will qualify as a culinary tool. Nothing in that idea requires that guns be handled carelessly.

The fact that your consider something as potentially dangerous as a gun as a culinary tool displays how in fact ill educated you are about them. No, responsible gun owner I know would ever say yeah I use this to cook. I hope they teach you about them before you try to kill an animal. Its not like the super market.

I have not said guns have nationalities. Claiming them to be Canadian or American is simply your way of diverting the fact you think all Canadians are superior in dealing with weapons.

We have different rights and freedoms up here. Not fewer. For example we have the right to medically necessary health care for free. The right to marry whoever we choose, regardless of their gender. The right for a woman to decide whether to have baby and when. The right to own a different type of gun that is designed for killing people instead of dinner is not one of them, but it seems rather inconsequential in comparison.

I simply said you gave up your freedom to have a gun of your choosing so that others may not have guns of their choosing. Have you not? Tell me what other choices are you willing to give up so others cannot? Now we can go into health care or any other subject when the post deems it so. Ill be more than happy to discuss those in other threads. Create one and link it here.

Yet, when you seem to be loosing grip on a discussion you suddenly tilt it. Now, to include other things. Not discounting the fact you ignore most of my argument because you cannot respond to it all.The fact of the matter is your only defense appears to be nationalist and ill-informed. You seem to view Americans as nationalist and misled. Yet, you are completely nationalistic. You yell women's rights. Yet if a woman asked to have a gun to protect yourself and deter crime. You would take it away from her because that doesn't fit your agenda. Your defense is because we do it better. When in fact you don't even know how things work in Canada. "I'll register permits if I have to." You don't even know.

Frell do you even know what is the difference between a shotgun and rifle without googling it?

 

[Alceste]

The fact that your consider something as potentially dangerous as a gun as a culinary tool displays how in fact ill educated you are about them. No, responsible gun owner I know would ever say yeah I use this to cook. I hope they teach you about them before you try to kill an animal. Its not like the super market.

I have not said guns have nationalities. Claiming them to be Canadian or American is simply your way of diverting the fact you think all Canadians are superior in dealing with weapons.



I simply said you gave up your freedom to have a gun of your choosing so that others may not have guns of their choosing. Have you not? Tell me what other choices are you willing to give up so others cannot? Now we can go into health care or any other subject when the post deems it so. Ill be more than happy to discuss those in other threads. Create one and link it here.

Yet, when you seem to be loosing grip on a discussion you suddenly tilt it. Now, to include other things. Not discounting the fact you ignore most of my argument because you cannot respond to it all.The fact of the matter is your only defense appears to be nationalist and ill-informed. You seem to view Americans as nationalist and misled. Yet, you are completely nationalistic. You yell women's rights. Yet if a woman asked to have a gun to protect yourself and deter crime. You would take it away from her because that doesn't fit your agenda. Your defense is because we do it better. When in fact you don't even know how things work in Canada. "I'll register permits if I have to." You don't even know.

Frell do you even know what is the difference between a shotgun and rifle without googling it?

Wow. This doesn't actually address anything I wrote.

Here's the cliff notes version of my post, if you want to try again:

1. The intent to use guns to put food on the table instead of shooting at or threatening humans by no means requires that they be handled carelessly.

2. Canada has different rights and freedoms than the US, not fewer rights and freedoms. Many examples were given.

3. In comparison with the many rights and freedoms Canadians enjoy that Americans do not, the fact that we can only buy guns that are designed for killing moose instead of people is a very trivial inconvenience to get worked up about.

If you can't work with that, just ignore it. Don't embarrass yourself by trying to wind me up with nonsense and insults. It doesn't work on me.

 

[CMike]

Firearm deaths per year in your country are only slightly less than auto collision deaths per year. You really think that police abuses of power are a "much bigger" issue than gun control?


De-escalation techniques are part of the standard training for front-line officers here. I would be very surprised if they weren't part of American training.


Since we're talking about Detroit, how about Michigan?

Here are the requirements of the 8-hour pistol safety course for a Michigan CPL:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mcoles/CCWSuccCompletion_253744_7.pdf
https://www.michigan.gov/mcoles/0,4607,7-229--148860--,00.html

While the required curriculum includes "avoiding criminal attack and controlling a violent confrontation", it's only one of several topics, and the entire classroom component is only 5 hours. How much do you think is spent on de-escalation or alternatives to lethal force?

Look... the point I'm getting at is this: if you are so quick to mistrust the police, why would you place so much trust in individual firearm owners, who have much less training and oversight?

The course which I took btw is focused on defending yourself using a gun when your life or someone else's is in danger.

It's not about a therapy session for the person coming at you to kill you.

At that point it's too late.

 

[CMike]

Possibly. Although I thought all major theater companies banned them regardless of local laws.

Not necessarily. Theater companies are private enterprises.

 

[CMike]

Ha, you got me. I live simply and travel light, but that doesn't mean I don't have an emergency kit in the car and an earthquake survival bag packed and ready. This is Canada. The West Coast. There are plausible dangers here, and I'm prepared for them. What I'm NOT carrying is anything I might accidentally kill someone with, or anything that can easily be used to kill me.

OTOH, when I move out further into cougar country and start to keep chickens and rabbits, I'll probably get a rifle, because the cougars can be a real nuisance. People, though? I can handle people just fine empty handed. Especially considering the fact that, as I said, my five foot tall middle aged female cousin could handle a cadre of African warlords empty handed, as well as a living room full of drugged up child soldiers and a refugee camp in flipping Darfur.

How do you accidently kill someone with a gun if you are resonsible with it?

Here are some tips:

1) Treat every gun as if it's loaded

2) Don't point it at anything you aren't ready to destroy

3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot

Follow those tips and you won't accidently kill someone.

 

[CMike]

Originally Posted by CMike
How any many crimes using a gun were committed by people having a CPL and carrying their gun?

Beats me, but I did read about a legal gun owner who accidentally shot and killed his own four year old son. It's almost too awful to even think about.

Where I grew up, some kids got hold of one of their dad's rifle and were playing with it when it went off and killed one of them. Again, too awful to even think about. The poor kid who pulled the trigger was never the same. I used to bump into him on the swings sometimes. We both had a habit of sneaking out of our houses in the middle of the night to get some fresh air and contemplate how much life sucked.

That wasn't my question.

I asked about CPL holders carrying a gun.

How many of them used it to committ a crime?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That wasn't my question.

I asked about CPL holders carrying a gun.

How many of them used it to committ a crime?

You may have missed my post when I addressed this question:

By my count, there were 251 of them in Wayne County (the county that includes the City of Detroit) for the last year on record, not counting the "unknown if carried during crime" column:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2012_Concealed_Pistol_Licensing_Annual_Report_434112_7.pdf

Actual documented cases, that is. This listing doesn't count cases where the CPL holder committed a crime and didn't get caught.

Assuming 90,030 CPL holders in Wayne County (based on 18,006 licences issued in that year including renewals and 5 years between renewals), this means that in that year, about 0.3% of Wayne County CPL holders were found to not only have committed a crime but were found to have been carrying their firearm while committing it.

 

[Alceste]

That wasn't my question.

I asked about CPL holders carrying a gun.

How many of them used it to committ a crime?

The mostly Penguin fellow already answered you.

 

[Alceste]

You may have missed my post when I addressed this question:

Yeah.

 

[CMike]

You may have missed my post when I addressed this question:

I did miss it.

According to the stats:

In the entire state of Michigan 341 were charged with brandishing or use of a pistol.

There are

In Michigan, gun seekers line up for permits

Statewide, as of Jan. 2, there were 355,586 approved CPL permits with nearly two-thirds of them new applications and nearly a third of them renewals, according to the statistics.

341/355,586= 0.000959

So of all the CPL holders in Michigan only 0.00959% were charged with brandishing or using a pistol

Once again these are only charges not convictions.

Open cary activists are active here. And I know a few were charged with brandishing even though they clearly weren't. The gun never left their holster, and they didn't make any motion for it.

The police just added that charge even though they were legally open carrying their firearm.

So to summarize in Michigan, of all the Michigan CPL holders
0.00959% were charged (not necessarily convicted) with brandishing or use of a pistol.

Those are extremely good statistics for those whom believe in the right to carry a firearm.

 

[dust1n]

I did miss it.

According to the stats:

In the entire state of Michigan 341 were charged with brandishing or use of a pistol.

What stats did that number come from?

 

[CMike]

What stats did that number come from?

From the link that Penguin posted.

Thanks Penguin.

 

[dust1n]

From the link that Penguin posted.

Thanks Penguin.

Thanks.

341/355,586= 0.000959

So of all the CPL holders in Michigan only 0.00959% were charged with brandishing or using a pistol

First of all, the correct equation for finding a percentage would be as such.

(x/100)=(341/355,586)
x=(34100/355,586)
x=0.096

Secondly, the report in which you retrieved the number says "Applications Issued: 78721." The 355k number you go was from a newspaper reporting a number after the number jumped 300%. One would have to see a study for 2013/2014 to get a correct measurement with the "341" one number.

Accoriding to the report, the situation looks a little more like this.

(x/100)=(341/78721)
x=(34100/78721)
x=0.433

A little over four brandishing or use of a gun charges per 1000 ccl holders.

Once again these are only charges not convictions.

Right... it doesn't necessarily correlate with reality because not all crimes involving guns get charges, let alone convictions. There would naturally be an increase in that percentage, unless one assumes that all ccl holding, gun brandishing crimes led to a charge.

 

[CMike]

Thanks.



First of all, the correct equation for finding a percentage would be as such.

(x/100)=(341/355,586)
x=(34100/355,586)
x=0.096

Secondly, the report in which you retrieved the number says "Applications Issued: 78721." The 355k number you go was from a newspaper reporting a number after the number jumped 300%. One would have to see a study for 2013/2014 to get a correct measurement with the "341" one number.

Accoriding to the report, the situation looks a little more like this.

(x/100)=(341/78721)
x=(34100/78721)
x=0.433

A little over four brandishing or use of a gun charges per 1000 ccl holders.



Right... it doesn't necessarily correlate with reality because not all crimes involving guns get charges, let alone convictions. There would naturally be an increase in that percentage, unless one assumes that all ccl holding, gun brandishing crimes led to a charge.

The applications in that report received were just for that one year.

However, there were Statewide, as of Jan. 2, there were 355,586 approved CPL permits with nearly two-thirds of them new applications and nearly a third of them renewals, according to the statistics.

That is the total pool of people with CPL's in Michigan.

Of that total pool of 355,586, 341 were charged (not necessarily convicted) of brandishing or using a pistol.

So once again the math is:

341/355,586 which is 0.000958

To make it a percent move the decimal to the right which makes it

0.0958%

So out of the total pool of CPL holders in Michgian, 0.0958% were charged of brandishing or using it as a pistol.

Obviously the people actually convicted would be significantly less.

 

[dust1n]

The applications in that report received were just for that one year.

However, there were Statewide, as of Jan. 2, there were 355,586 approved CPL permits with nearly two-thirds of them new applications and nearly a third of them renewals, according to the statistics.

Aye, you are right.

That is the total pool of people with CPL's in Michigan.

Of that total pool of 355,586, 341 were charged (not necessarily convicted) of brandishing or using a pistol.

So once again the math is:

341/355,586 which is 0.000958

To make it a percent move the decimal to the right which makes it

0.0958%

So out of the total pool of CPL holders in Michgian, 0.0958% were charged of brandishing or using it as a pistol.

That' is correct. An order of magnitude makes all the difference.

0.00959% were charged

1/1000, or 1/10,000.

Obviously the people actually convicted would be significantly less.

Right. The people actually convicted would be less than those charged. And the number of those charged would be less than those who actually committed a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

Looking at Detroit's crime rates over the years.....
Crime rate in Detroit, Michigan (MI): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics
....we see that Michiganistan's becoming a "shall issue" concealed carry state correlates with
a decrease in crime. Of course, the declining population also correlates with this, so I only
point out that more legal handgun carriers does not appear to be a problem.