• 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

yoda89

On Xtended Vacation
I am stunned. He is right of course. However, I can't believe a police chief in a heavily liberal area has the courage to say this.

Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime | The Detroit News

With Detroit's current economic state it seems like a clever way to say we will not be able to protect you like we used to. Appears to be the necessary thing to be done under present circumstances. It also seems like something a intelligent mayor would have his police chief say to compensate for underfunding.

For those of you who believe that raising gun control laws would prevent crime. If you actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws. Then you must be a special kind of stupid.
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
If you actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws. Then you must be a special kind of stupid.
Actually it would work in much the same way that speed limits and rules about dangerous driving help to identify individuals driving under the influence (by drawing attention to those who are are more likely to be breaking the law) and in so doing reduce the number of accidents caused by those who are under the influence (as well as by speeding, as well as by dangerous driving). Now clearly drunks are not inclined to obey laws against driving while inebriated, yet the reason that such laws are in place is because it is to the benefit of society because having these laws allows behavior which has a significant chance of resulting in harm to society to be punished and thus dissuaded, it is combined with control laws that allow contraventions of drink driving laws to be more easily discerned.

Having tighter gun laws (in particular with regards to regulating the transportation of guns) means that there are far less people carrying guns and that it is easier therefore to assert that someone doing so would need to comply to those regulations (much like driving laws) and that were a person to be seen apparently not complying with those regulations (such as carrying around a gun) then they could be more easily reported and law enforcement would have stronger grounds by which to consider the liklihood that the individual was going to use the firearm for illegal purposes (given their current contravention of firearm regulation).
 
Last edited:

yoda89

On Xtended Vacation
That wonderful mindset is perhaps a large portion of the reason why so many are needlessly killed in America; a situation that would only be considered an affray has a not insignificant chance of ending in a homicide if at least one party has a gun.

Its also the mindset that has made the United States of America the most powerful and influential entity in the world. The underlying source is what truly kills people. In such cases the gun, knife or bomb is just the tool used to achieve an objective. It is fear, hate, greed and many other things that truly kills other. If I have a knife and you don't I will stab you and kill you. If I want to kill you I will find a way.

Criminals don't obey gun control laws and government is only a necessary evil. Therefore those who represent government do what is best for themselves. Those citizens that it serves, (not the other way around like most people tend to think), must have the ability to fight back as a last resort. What stops the politician you voted from becoming a dictator? Most are already masters of propaganda and manipulation.

I wish it were different. However, unless we suddenly need no more government or we all live in peace I don't see it as a good concept to give them up. It is a good reason to live with them because the criminal is the street is not the only one you have to worry about.
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
No what made the US the most powerful was that it used to have a strong industry then it exchanged a significant portion of that for a strong finance sector. That mindset has only undermined the US geopolitical position and enabled competitors like Russia and China to gain influence they may well not have managed to secure were the US to not have had a similar mindset.

Nor do drug dealers obey drug laws nor smugglers obey import/export regulations. It is completely the wrong way to understand the purpose of laws - you dont make laws because everyone is inclined to abide by the law - you make laws so as to codify the expectations of society so that were someone to break such codified expectation (law) then one has objective basis from which to redress that behavior through the exercise of judicial power (to punish offence, to mitigate impact, to rehabilitate individuals etc); this is the very foundation of a 'republic'.


Side note (not really related): The meaning of 'republic' is one of the reasons I find the attitude of the republican party towards regulation to be so amusing.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
That wonderful mindset is perhaps a large portion of the reason why so many are needlessly killed in America; a situation that would only be considered an affray has a not insignificant chance of ending in a homicide if at least one party has a gun.
And what mindset is that?
As far as a fight that results in the killing of another when at least one party has a firearm is a possibility. In any fight there is a possibility of one party killing another. D

I believe you said this:
It also has very little to do with the post you quoted in terms of police-centric focus, my point was most specifically with regards to the use of firearms against agents of the law (though I would assume that this number is low as a % of all such crimes given the rather ludicrous number of crimes) as well as the chances of escalation from minor to major crimes (although in this later case perhaps because they are so badly under resourced, there is an attitude that it will reduce the amount of work they have to do).
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 weaponsI guess some cops like people going around armed in such a fashion as to allow them to kill cops.
First I was advocating that law abiding citizens do not pose a threat to law enforcement officials. Note: I did specify law abiding
Second the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about the type of ammunition one can have; however some states have made this type of ammunition (ammunition that can penetrate ballistic armor) illegal and by doing so did not infringe on the Second Amendment. Then you go on and make the assumption that law enforcement does not approve of large capacity ammunition clips or assault weapons. I really do not think that law enforcement is against law abiding citizens owning a firearm of their choice as long as they meet the legal requirements on certain types of firearms...fully automatic firearms for one.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
With Detroit's current economic state it seems like a clever way to say we will not be able to protect you like we used to. Appears to be the necessary thing to be done under present circumstances. It also seems like something a intelligent mayor would have his police chief say to compensate for underfunding.

For those of you who believe that raising gun control laws would prevent crime. If you actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws. Then you must be a special kind of stupid.

Either that or we actually live in countries with gun control laws and observe first hand that criminals very rarely use firearms here.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If this correlation is causation (Has it improved? Links?), then could
the dropping US crime rate be due to more guns carried by citizens?
Note that it dropped even during a declining economic climate.

As I pointed out earlier, it also started dropping when the babies born after Roe v. Wade and the phase-out of environmental lead came of age. What does your particular correlation have going for it that all the others don't?

And do you even have a correlation? I'm not entirely sure what it is you're claiming. Is the percentage of people who are armed now significantly higher than it was in the past? Because if the number of guns per capita really has gone up, I'm not sure how this could have any appreciable effect on crime if it's just a matter of people with guns owning more guns each. As I pointec out earlier, it seems that thd number of individuals and households with firearms has been slowly dropping for decades.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
With Detroit's current economic state it seems like a clever way to say we will not be able to protect you like we used to. Appears to be the necessary thing to be done under present circumstances. It also seems like something a intelligent mayor would have his police chief say to compensate for underfunding.

For those of you who believe that raising gun control laws would prevent crime. If you actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws. Then you must be a special kind of stupid.

While advances in 3D printing might change this in the future, right now, every firearm used in crime started out as a legal weapon. It's the "law-abiding citizens" - or an element of them, at least - that is feeding the illicit gun trade.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Either that or we actually live in countries with gun control laws and observe first hand that criminals very rarely use firearms here.
I have no desire to live in a country that has as strict gun control laws that the majority of the countries do. Maybe if those that are bothered by the legal ownership of firearms should advocate for harsher sentences on those that commit crimes where a firearm is involved vice attempting to restrict the rights of law abiding citiizens.
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
Namaste

All I know, as a legal, trained, certified gun owner, I cherish my right in that regard. But if and when you DO use a gun for self-defense such as against a home invasion, I am suggesting do not use a shotgun, use a low caliber and aim to hit otherwise the bullet can go into the wall, out the other side, and hit something else or even kill another animal or pet or human.

At this point in time, in America, as well as in other parts of the world, there is NO WAY that "gun control" is ever going to work. There are too many guns, and as I predicted (others, too, having observed what is currently happening in South America and in Mexico - but good in examples are also in "garage factories" in some very scary areas of the world such as in Afghanistan), the average Joe with a few thousand dollars will soon be able to make and produce copy-cat guns from actual vendor guns. Just use the example of the "3-D printer" and such devices. Unfortunately, some criminal elements are now making "plastic guns" (very, hard plastic like material) using such printers, but metal guns are also being made mass-produced in garages in areas where there is Mexican cartel gangs in the US.

I think the "dark genie" is out of the bottle, and no one is going to put it back in. Thus everyone should have the right to keep arms. But the world certainly is getting more dangerous where I live everyday. Very soon crime will become the number one issue in Presidential elections here in the US.

Om Namah Sivaya
 

Alceste

Vagabond
While advances in 3D printing might change this in the future, right now, every firearm used in crime started out as a legal weapon. It's the "law-abiding citizens" - or an element of them, at least - that is feeding the illicit gun trade.

Totally. The obvious reason the criminals haven't got pistols here is that they're not finding them in half the houses their associates burgle. Also, those who do have pistols would be nuts to carry them around, since they are so difficult to acquire.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I have no desire to live in a country that has as strict gun control laws that the majority of the countries do. Maybe if those that are bothered by the legal ownership of firearms should advocate for harsher sentences on those that commit crimes where a firearm is involved vice attempting to restrict the rights of law abiding citiizens.

The main negative effect of wide availability of firearms is suicide. It's hard to come up with a harsher punishment for someone who's already dead.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Of course it looks peaceful; why would that data be included in a report entitled "Major Crimes in Detroit"?

It's a joke, FH. It is true that Windsor has no violent crime involving guns, and almost no murder. So a map including that city's gun crime statistics would look exactly the same anyway. It's a subtle joke, I admit. Probably only amusing to Canadians. :cool:
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
OK, if you're not presenting a false dichotomy, (IOW, that the only possible outcomes are being raped or shooting somebody to death), then you are presenting a straw man - a false position that you find easier to debate against than what has actually been said. IOW, you're claiming that if you DON'T want to murder people left and right who you feel threatened by, that must mean you WANT to get raped. Who said that?

..and there is your straw man. It's rather nonsensical and asinine to equate killing in self defense with murder. Also, nothing I've said could be construed to suggest that people "want to get raped". That's rather disgusting and dishonest on your part.

Either way, you've tried exactly this tactic on me ("Kill or get raped! Choose now!") a number of times and it has never worked before. It won't work now. I PREFER to NEITHER be raped NOR shoot somebody to death.
Why are you inserting yourself into this? This isn't a "Choose Your Own Adventure" story, and you are not the star, so why are you trying to make it one? Again, here is my original statement: "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." I don't understand why you're struggling to process that sentence, or inferring more than what was said. What the statement meant was that some people believe that killing someone is always wrong, regardless of reason. Therefore, they would be rather see a woman be raped than for her to kill her attacker in self-defense. Not that they condone or desire that outcome, but because they don't regard self-defense as a justifiable reason to kill someone, and in fact regard it as "murder", so they consider the rape as a lesser offence and thus preferable.

Is it clicking now?
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'll bet you're an insurance agent!


Nah......... but if you'll pay the airfares and lodgings, I'll come over and clean your carpets! Well, I won't, really..... Mrs B likes me at home these days. :)

EDIT:- P.S. I hope all is ok with you in Michigan. Your State was featured on Brit Telly as having the worst weather in the whole of USA. The pictures looked shocking.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Nah......... but if you'll pay the airfares and lodgings, I'll come over and clean your carpets! Well, I won't, really..... Mrs B likes me at home these days. :)

EDIT:- P.S. I hope all is ok with you in Michigan. Your State was featured on Brit Telly as having the worst weather in the whole of USA. The pictures looked shocking.
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.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Source? And is that legal guns, or illegal ones?

Source was the former chief of police of the DPD. He did not differentiate between the legal and illegal, so I would suppose the figure includes both.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
..and there is your straw man. It's rather nonsensical and asinine to equate killing in self defense with murder. Also, nothing I've said could be construed to suggest that people "want to get raped". That's rather disgusting and dishonest on your part.

Why are you inserting yourself into this? This isn't a "Choose Your Own Adventure" story, and you are not the star, so why are you trying to make it one? Again, here is my original statement: "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." I don't understand why you're struggling to process that sentence, or inferring more than what was said. What the statement meant was that some people believe that killing someone is always wrong, regardless of reason. Therefore, they would be rather see a woman be raped than for her to kill her attacker in self-defense. Not that they condone or desire that outcome, but because they don't regard self-defense as a justifiable reason to kill someone, and in fact regard it as "murder", so they consider the rape as a lesser offence and thus preferable.

Is it clicking now?

You're flailing. One single word does not a straw man make.

Also, regardless of whether it's me or you or someone else, I choose that they are NEITHER raped NOR kill the person who is trying to rape them.

Is it clicking now?
 

yoda89

On Xtended Vacation
Either that or we actually live in countries with gun control laws and observe first hand that criminals very rarely use firearms here.

Yet after still having the option to own a gun taken away you still have criminals and homicides. If criminals are not using guns to kill others they must be using something else. So in an environment without guns people are still killing each other by various other means. Are they not?

Now, you live in a large country with a military. Your military personal are allowed to use and carry guns because they are trained to do so. These military personal are placed within a training process know as boot camp. During this boot camp their minds are readjusted through fatigue to follow orders given to them without question. They follow orders of an individual/s you have not met in person and frankly do not know. You believe these people you have not met have your best intentions in mind because your vote tells them so. Now are these people elected as politicians in your country always great and outstanding individuals?

Now these politicians that you have given large power to suddenly believe knifes are too dangerous for you to have. They point to the statistics as more and more people are being killed with knifes. They point to evil knife gangs. You believe it is silly absolutely outrageous. But others disagree and with mass propaganda suddenly those around you believe so as well. But, perhaps I am wrong. Maybe all those in your country are intelligent and are never persuaded.
 
Top