Detroit police chief says armed citizens deter crime

[Father Heathen]

Yeah, I was talking about this with my hubby. We came to the conclusion that, by carrying a weapon, their perception of the world as a dark and frightening place, and of their fellow human beings as potential threats is reinforced. I think about every time I reach into my purse to feel around for my keys, everything I feel in there brings various ideas to mind. Dry hands or lips, headaches, runny noses, etc. Just imagining carrying around something like pepper spray kind of put me off. Do I want to think about being attacked every time I reach for a Kleenex? Even briefly, idly or subconsciously?

By carrying a weapon, you're reinforcing a perception of the world that it's a violent and dangerous place, which is kind of an unpleasant way to live. You have to work pretty hard to justify that, which is why proponents are so black and white about the whole thing, and seem to live in a "two choices: kill or die" paradigm.

That's just our theory. Very speculative, but it makes sense to us.

Either you really are keen to distort things, or you've genuinely poor reading comprehension skills.
I've lost count of how many times I've had to repeat the following points:
Do people who wear seat-belts live in constant fear of automobile crashes?
Do people who have smoke detectors or fire extinguishers in their homes live in constant fear of house fires?
Do cyclists who wear reflective gear live in constant fear of being struck by a car, or do the ones who wear helmets live in constant fear of falling off?
Do boaters who wear life-vests live in constant fear of drowning?
Do people who keep first-aid kits on hand live in constant fear of abrasions?

The only fear is that which is projected by those who wince and knee-jerk in regards to an inanimate object.

 

[Father Heathen]

Aha, the truth comes out. We're not so different then - neither of us need a gun to defuse hairy situations.

Too bad no one has suggested that a gun was always a necessity to "defuse hairy situations." Deadly force should be always a last resort, within the realm of reasonable risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

Either you really are keen to distort things, or you've genuinely poor reading comprehension skills.
I've lost count of how many times I've had to repeat the following points:
Do people who wear seat-belts live in constant fear of automobile crashes?
Do people who have smoke detectors or fire extinguishers in their homes live in constant fear of house fires?
Do cyclists who wear reflective gear live in constant fear of being struck by a car, or do the ones who wear helmets live in constant fear of falling off?
Do boaters who wear life-vests live in constant fear of drowning?
Do people who keep first-aid kits on hand live in constant fear of abrasions?
The only fear is that which is projected by those who wince and knee-jerk in regards to an inanimate object.

The accusation of fear motivating gun owners is naught but an attempt to dismiss our motives & reasons.
Fear is a healthy thing when properly managed. Dysfunctional fear will afflict some owners, but we should
note that it also afflicts some in the anti-gun crowd. Over-generalizations prove nothing, eh?
I've no shame admitting some fears which cause me to take precautions eschewed by most folk:
- Checking tire pressure & lug nut torque before & during every trip.
(Have one of your own wheels pass you on a highway once, & you'll get new habits.)
- I use redundant straps to fasten down machinery on my trailer.
(I've had hooks break.)
- I change any tenant locks whenever there is any question of security lapse. Their assault would be a huge liability.
The above things are far higher on my list of concerns than being personally assaulted, but still...I take reasonable security precautions.

 

[Alceste]

Fascinating, but point being?

He said he's never heard of anyone preventing violence without a gun. Now he has. End of tangent. The point of your jumping in being?

 

[Alceste]

Either you really are keen to distort things, or you've genuinely poor reading comprehension skills.
I've lost count of how many times I've had to repeat the following points:
Do people who wear seat-belts live in constant fear of automobile crashes?
Do people who have smoke detectors or fire extinguishers in their homes live in constant fear of house fires?
Do cyclists who wear reflective gear live in constant fear of being struck by a car, or do the ones who wear helmets live in constant fear of falling off?
Do boaters who wear life-vests live in constant fear of drowning?
Do people who keep first-aid kits on hand live in constant fear of abrasions?

The only fear is that which is projected by those who wince and knee-jerk in regards to an inanimate object.

I responded to that point. A seat belt, helmet, fire extinguisher, etc. is not a weapon specifically designed for mortally injuring other human beings. There is an inherent risk of accidentally killing someone, your kids killing themselves, your gun being stolen by criminals, or yourself dying as a direct result of deciding to carry a gun. It may be small, but the risk of armed men kicking in your door is, IMO, far smaller.

In order to justify carrying a deadly weapon as a "precaution", a person must first hugely exaggerate the potential risks posed by their fellow human beings. Again, IMO. To me, that seems paranoid.

 

[McBell]

In order to justify carrying a deadly weapon as a "precaution", a person must first hugely exaggerate the potential risks posed by their fellow human beings.

No I don't.
Nor do police officers....
Or security guards...

 

[Reverend Rick]

In order to justify carrying a deadly weapon as a "precaution", a person must first hugely exaggerate the potential risks posed by their fellow human beings. Again, IMO. To me, that seems paranoid.

To me, dismissing that possibility seems nieve. :sorry1:

Then again I have a jack, spare and impact tool to change a tire. I have a jump start box and air compressor. I keep a fire extinquisher and a first aid kit in my truck. I have bottled water and energy bars. I'm not paranoid, I know crap happens and I want to be able to deal with most anything MYSELF. I feel I am responsible where you would ask me for a bandaid or a bottle of water when in need. You live your life traveling light most likely, that is your choice. I have no problem with that. Here is the thing, why DO YOU have a problem with people who feel differently than yourself?

I will tell you why, you don't believe I should be self sufficient. You believe we need a whole villiage to raise a single child and no one should try to be personally responsible.

 

[Alceste]

To me, dismissing that possibility seems nieve. :sorry1:

Then again I have a jack, spare and impact tool to change a tire. I have a jump start box and air compressor. I keep a fire extinquisher and a first aid kit in my truck. I have bottled water and energy bars. I'm not paranoid, I know crap happens and I want to be able to deal with most anything MYSELF. I feel I am responsible where you would ask me for a bandaid or a bottle of water when in need. You live your life traveling light most likely, that is your choice. I have no problem with that. Here is the thing, why DO YOU have a problem with people who feel differently than yourself?

I will tell you why, you don't believe I should be self sufficient. You believe we need a whole villiage to raise a single child and no one should try to be personally responsible.

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.

 

[Juhurka]

In addition to preventing both a sexual assault and a burglary by simply saying "**** off or I'll call the police", I've also been physically attacked and dropped the attacker (a woman) with a punch to the solar plexus - and that was before I took lessons.

Now you know of three successful attempts to defend oneself or others without packing a gun around everywhere.

You're welcome!

Or I will call the police? really? the sad reality is that people with this mid set make laws. No wonder we live in a society where murderers are treated with all the dignity in a resort like jail while victims mourn their family members because some brain dead liberal who thinks that he or she lives in some la la land where you can scare away a criminal who is ready to commit a crime by waiving a phone at him. Self righteousness at the expense of others, if you feel so sorry for the criminal why don't you join him in jail.

 

[Alceste]

Or I will call the police? really? the sad reality is that people with this mid set make laws. No wonder we live in a society where murderers are treated with all the dignity in a resort like jail while victims mourn their family members because some brain dead liberal who thinks that he or she lives in some la la land where you can scare away a criminal who is ready to commit a crime by waiving a phone at him. Self righteousness at the expense of others, if you feel so sorry for the criminal why don't you join him in jail.

Er - did you miss the part of the story where the attempted rape, the burglary and the physical assault did not succeed?

 

[oldbadger]

Nope, nor do I own a firearm. But if I did I would take proper courses.



Not a damn thing other than stay behind cover. I'm not being attacked, and no professional cop would request for a civilian to engage in a gun fight.

I'm curious as to what sort of answer you were expecting?

Excellent! Keep your head down. Me too!
I have no idea what was happening either..................
Now........ out of 100 folks in that situation, what % do you think would make mistakes? Bad mistakes?

Sticking to the thread about what the senior cop said, rather than gun controls', (which this is not about,) I think he made a mistake, because his words (whatever they exactly were) could lead some folks to believe that he meant 'you can act to help us out on those wicked streets' or whatever.

Many years ago a Brit senior cop told the press that he wanted more civilians to get involved over crimes, which caused the Headlines 'Chief Constable appeals to the public 'Have a go'!' Oh bl--dy dear ..... Police are mighty keen to look for fault after a civilian has used any force on a crime suspect. It's not just physical risk for the 'have a go' hero, it's Legal risk as well.

Also, all those folks concealed-carrying have little deterrent effect, as well. So I think he made a mistake. That's all

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This doesn't tell us anything about the efficacy of various approaches to self defense though. In Americastan, the murder-by-gun rate is far far smaller than the rate of guns used in self defense, which points towards a net effect of guns being useful for this purpose.

Claims like this have been made in threads about guns like this one, but I don't think they're actually supported. It seems clear to me that the most reliable objective evidence - the body count - shows that a firearm is much more likely to kill its owner (or a member of the owner's household) than an attacker. As I've pointed out many times, the story of gun violence is mainly about suicide.

On your side, all I've ever seen are results from self-reported surveys that have a number of problems:

- they count all times when a gun is used or brandished and the owner feels threatened, not only the ones where the owner actually had a significant chance of dying.

- they rely on subjective data and the reporter's own perception, which can be problematic in any survey.

- they're prone to over-reporting defensive gun use, since any gun advocate with half a brain would probably realize that the more defensive gun use gets reported in the survey, the better it looks for the pro-gun position. I've seen no way to screen out this sort of bias.

The objective, reliable evidence suggests that owning a gun for defense actually makes a person less safe, on average.

 

[Revoltingest]

Claims like this have been made in threads about guns like this one, but I don't think they're actually supported.

Au contraire. I've provided numbers, reasoning & links to studies.
You might disagree, but to say they're unsupported is incorrect.

It seems clear to me that the most reliable objective evidence - the body count - shows that a firearm is much more likely to kill its owner (or a member of the owner's household) than an attacker. As I've pointed out many times, the story of gun violence is mainly about suicide.

Ya know, there's danger in challenging one's lack of support, & then making a claim with no argument or evidence.

On your side, all I've ever seen are results from self-reported surveys that have a number of problems:
- they count all times when a gun is used or brandished and the owner feels threatened, not only the ones where the owner actually had a significant chance of dying.

Isn't the best use of a gun to diffuse a conflict without a shot being fired? While you're correct that there is a potentially large error margin, even if half of the uses are erroneous, this is still an order of magnitude short of countering the argument I just made.

- they rely on subjective data and the reporter's own perception, which can be problematic in any survey.
- they're prone to over-reporting defensive gun use, since any gun advocate with half a brain would probably realize that the more defensive gun use gets reported in the survey, the better it looks for the pro-gun position. I've seen no way to screen out this sort of bias.
The objective, reliable evidence suggests that owning a gun for defense actually makes a person less safe, on average.

I'm unconvinced by the mere claim of objectivity & evidence.

 

[CMike]

Originally Posted by CMike
And he correctly states that honest citizens having the right to be armed deters criminals from victimiziting.

Yet, still no actual evidence for the statement.

Yet there is.

What really scares criminals: Armed citizens - National self-defense | Examiner.com

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States.

Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994].

 

[CMike]

Below is a link that gives more detail about it.

NRA-ILA | The Armed Criminal In America=

 

[Alceste]

Yet there is.

What really scares criminals: Armed citizens - National self-defense | Examiner.com

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States.

Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994].

They can't have been all that worried about it, since they kept going until they ended up in prison. (Thanks to the cops they are not worried about).

In fairness, I'm not even a criminal and I'm also more concerned about the fact a lot of people are carrying loaded weapons down there than any other risk factor. That, idiot border guards and the lack of public health care is why I never visit, even though it's not that long of a drive.

 

[CMike]

They can't have been all that worried about it, since they kept going until they ended up in prison. (Thanks to the cops they are not worried about).

In fairness, I'm not even a criminal and I'm also more concerned about the fact a lot of people are carrying loaded weapons down there than any other risk factor. That, idiot border guards and the lack of public health care is why I never visit, even though it's not that long of a drive.

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

 

[Alceste]

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.

 

[Knight of Albion]

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

Spotted this on BBC Ceefax and thought of this thread...

BBC News - Florida man shot dead in cinema texting row

The world needs less guns, preferably no guns, definitely not more...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

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.