• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Detroit police chief says armed citizens deter crime

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You know, I bet when the anti-gun folks checked the article and saw that the homeowner was black, their heart sank because they couldn't pull the racism card from their arsenal. :eek:
Hmmm....they made Zimmerman a "white Hispanic", so maybe they could make this guy a "white black".
There must've been a banker in the woodpile somewhere in his lineage. (Kudos to anyone getting that reference.)
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I'll answer your question if you answer mine - Would you rather suck a man's unwashed penis or allow a small child you don't know to be thrown into a wood chipper? No dodging - what's your preference?

Nah, I asked first. Also, my question is actually relevant to the topic.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
If I lived in Detroit, I'd take a glock over your "kick ***" skills anyday.

It's asinine to term precaution in a city like Detroit as "paranoia", considering the crime statistics.

I don't think that our Canadian friends have a clue as to the differences in cultural demographics in America and how this impacts crime. There are certain places in the US, where it's unwise not to be cautious and certain people feel more at ease with a gun over your brand of self defense.

That's not paranoia. For some, it's survival. I don't know where the hell you live, but, in certain parts of my city, there have been accounts of women and children losing their lives while sleeping in their own apartments because the young drug dealers outside their apartments (with stolen, unregistered guns), were shooting at each other and innocent people were snuffed in cross fire.

When you live in such an environment, your attitude towards self defense changes.

You may not be able to relate to this type of culture. There are many Americans who can. A lot of people feel more confident with a gun. And if a perp is packing, do you think your punches and kicks are going to stand up to a gun shot? Ha!

Arming yourself legally with a gun may not be the right thing for YOU, but, it's certainly not a paranoid precaution for many Americans and as per Detroit law enforcement, it's had positive impact on crime in certain areas.

If I lived in a city or country where guns were so ubiquitous that you could get killed in the crossfire of rival gangs shooting at each other, I'd move to a more civilized place. A place with fewer guns, and therefore lower risk of being shot. Having a gun under my pillow would not save me from being struck by a stay bullet in my sleep - it would just be one more item a thief with malicious intent could steal and add to his own arsenal.

Blaming the MASSIVE gun death statistics in the US on "demographics" is like talking about anything but the elephant in the room. You're dying at 8 times Canada's rate of gun death because your country is chock full of guns you can conceal on your person. You think we don't have gangs and crappy neighborhoods in Canada? We do. Loads of them. But you're not going to get caught in the crossfire of a knife fight. Those of the criminal element that do have guns are pretty cautious about using them, for fear of losing them and not being able to easily get more.

By the way, we can still get guns here. They're for shooting dinner, but they work just fine for protecting your home against burglars if that's what you're into, and you pretty much always know who's got one on their person.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
Nah, I asked first. Also, my question is actually relevant to the topic.

No it isn't. It's simply a silly question designed to bail yourself out of being caught presenting a false dichotomy by attempting to shift focus to me.

No, you can not force me to choose one of two unacceptable propositions. I choose to neither kill somebody nor get raped. Deal with it.
 

CMike

Well-Known Member
You guys just sound paranoid to me. All kinds of terrible things COULD happen, but we have to prioritize what we're actually going to be concerned about and try to protect ourselves from. I pick my general health, and try to avoid major, common, serious health risks like obesity and cancer. That occupies my time enough that I don't need to make a hobby about imagining all the awful things another human being might try to do to me. I've traveled alone all over the world without a gun since the age of 17 and I'm still here to tell you about it. So have millions of other people.
It's called reality.

You aren't safe anywhere.

I can concern myself with more than one thing at a time.

General health is important, protecting yourself from someone with ill intent is important too.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
It's called reality.

You aren't safe anywhere.

I can concern myself with more than one thing at a time.

General health is important, protecting yourself from someone with ill intent is important too.

Sure it's important, but in my experience seldom any more complicated than steering clear of people who stink of malice or violence. Sure, that strategy could one day prove not to be 100% effective and I'll have a bad time, but in the mean time we're all safer here because we aren't all packing guns around, so we're eight times less likely to get shot to death than Americans are.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Look it up first if you want to avoid embarrassing yourself. Crime rates in the US vs. the rest of the western world, where gun control is the norm. Google is your friend.
Your exact term was "soaring" crime:

soaring - definition of soaring by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
soar·ing

adj. Ascending to a level markedly higher than the usual:
(emphasis added)

Seems you lied. Our crime is not ascending, it is falling. And has been for a while.
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
If I lived in a city or country where guns were so ubiquitous that you could get killed in the crossfire of rival gangs shooting at each other, I'd move to a more civilized place. A place with fewer guns, and therefore lower risk of being shot. Having a gun under my pillow would not save me from being struck by a stay bullet in my sleep - it would just be one more item a thief with malicious intent could steal and add to his own arsenal.

Blaming the MASSIVE gun death statistics in the US on "demographics" is like talking about anything but the elephant in the room. You're dying at 8 times Canada's rate of gun death because your country is chock full of guns you can conceal on your person. You think we don't have gangs and crappy neighborhoods in Canada? We do. Loads of them. But you're not going to get caught in the crossfire of a knife fight. Those of the criminal element that do have guns are pretty cautious about using them, for fear of losing them and not being able to easily get more.

By the way, we can still get guns here. They're for shooting dinner, but they work just fine for protecting your home against burglars if that's what you're into, and you pretty much always know who's got one on their person.

My intentions were not to paint a picture of guns being ubiquitous in the United States. Clearly, they aren't, considering the number of people who are anti-gun violence and anti-gun ownership.

I wasn't pulling that scenario out of my ***. There are parts of Norfolk and Newport News (VA) that are less safe for living, primarily attributable to drugs and relatable violence. That type of scenario certainly doesn't happen everyday, though.

I wanted to convey to you the differences in relatablility. Often, in debate, you insist on comparing American issues to Canadian issues, when our culture and demographical concerns can be quite different.

Don't simplify as it relates to the underpriviliged. Those who live in crime infested areas are typically imbedded in horrible cycles of dependence, themselves. If you live below or at the poverty level, it's unlikely that you can up and leave to find greener, safer pastures. Unfortunately, in our country, our underpriviliged areas are often synonymous with our more crime ridden areas.

Alceste, poverty, drug abuse, lack of education and cultural attitudes direclty correlate to crime in the United States.

You hear about the school shootings which may happen in suburbia to seemingly normal people in normal communities and gun violence does happen everywhere. IN addition to the given - mental disturbances and illnesses behind such tragedy - demographics do play a direct role in crime and violence in the United States.

This is what makes Detroit a more violent place vs. my own city. This is what makes New York a more violent place over my own city. Population, demographics, culture - all of this has an impact on crime.

As diverse as your country is - America is even moreso and we can't compare your country's demographics to our own. Honestly - it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Still, statistically, more people die each year in the US via automobile than via gun violence. That has yet to change, last I checked...
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
If I lived in a city or country where guns were so ubiquitous that you could get killed in the crossfire ......................

Yes indeed..... and the crossfire of untrained, over-reacting, wild-shooting citizens can also kill in the crossfire.

However, a tiny light in the US tunnel of gun-crazy is that States are once again attempting to introduce mandatory third-party insurance for all gun carriers. The fact that the USA has been unable to enforce this common sense policy in all time is just the tip of the silly-billy iceberg. You own a car? Get insurance! You own a gun? No probs! :biglaugh:

Here's the news :-
Lawmakers propose liability insurance for U.S. gun owners | Reuters


Lawmakers propose liability insurance for U.S. gun owners
BY IAN SIMPSON
WASHINGTON Wed Feb 6, 2013 3:30pm EST
20 COMMENTS
Proponents argue that operators of vehicles, for example, must have liability insurance, so gun owners should as well. Those who take safety courses, have fewer and safer weapons, and store them securely could get lower rates than those who did not, they say.

"We may not be able to reduce intentional shootings as a result of liability insurance, but I do believe we can reduce accidental shootings," said David Linsky, a Democratic representative in Massachusetts who has proposed mandatory insurance for gun owners.

California on Tuesday became at least the fourth state to have a liability insurance bill introduced, following Massachusetts, Maryland and Connecticut.

No state has a gun liability insurance law. Since 2003, almost two dozen such bills have been rejected nationwide, 15 of them in New York, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
No it isn't. It's simply a silly question designed to bail yourself out of being caught presenting a false dichotomy by attempting to shift focus to me.

My original quote was: "Apparently There are people who believe that it would be better for a woman to be raped rather than for her to kill her attacker in self-defense." Meaning some people would prefer that the former happen over the latter if it actually came down to it, not that those were the only two possibilities if such a situation were to occur. The fact that you attempted to twist it into something outside my actual point is not my problem, and is actually quite telling.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Yes indeed..... and the crossfire of untrained, over-reacting, wild-shooting citizens can also kill in the crossfire.

However, a tiny light in the US tunnel of gun-crazy

Once someone uses the term "gun-crazy" their post gets dismissed as rubbish, because if you find it necessary to rely on ridiculous generalizations and stereotypes it's a telltale sign that your post will be devoid of actual substance and credibility.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
Yes indeed..... and the crossfire of untrained, over-reacting, wild-shooting citizens can also kill in the crossfire.
I think you could use some more hysterical adjectives in there. Because, you know, the more you have, the more "right" you are.
 

dust1n

Zindīq

I was speaking more specifically about the article, but, yes, really...

A correlation between two factors while discounting all other possible variables hardly resonates as "evidence" in my book. Maybe my standards for "evidence" are unabashedly high.

Will there ever be evidence which satisfies both sides of the issue?

I don't know. That would require me to access information from the future, which, I unfortunately, am not yet capable of doing.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't know. That would require me to access information from the future, which, I unfortunately, am not yet capable of doing.
Interestingly, a newsaper from the future fell thru a wormhole & landed in me lap. People of the future are arguing
over the same things we are, & they aren't any smarter or civiller (yes, it's a word) than we. Don't hold yer breath.
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
I would have thoughts cops would be really against an unfettered second amendment - what since they dont like 'cop killer' ammunition, I would have assumed they would also not like large clip sizes and assault weapons.

I guess some cops like people going around armed in such a fashion as to allow them to kill cops.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Interestingly, a newsaper from the future fell thru a wormhole & landed in me lap. People of the future are arguing
over the same things we are, & they aren't any smarter or civiller (yes, it's a word) than we. Don't hold yer breath.

Yea, I've only gotten one newspaper from the future, but it was all ads and a single story credited to AP. No help there.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
A correlation between two factors while discounting all other possible variables hardly resonates as "evidence" in my book.
This is only what we have been trying to say to anti-gun posters in every gun-debate thread on RF... ever.
 
Top