delta1 Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 i mean, the fact that he MIGHT get shot wouldn't prevent him from doing the things s/he is compelled to do. Actually, it does. Several years ago a study was done where prison inmates were asked what things detered them from commiting crimes. Part of the findings was that the biggest deterrent to breaking into a home or business when someone might be there was if the criminal had reason to suspect the occupants might be armed. Explains the dramatic drop in crime in areas that pass laws requireing everyone to be armed. Criminals look for easy prey. That usually doesn't include people with the means to defend themselves. That's one of the reasons some of us train in martial arts, and a good reason for others to buy a firearm. Freedom isn't free!
PrideampPoise Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 IMHO, requiring, or encouraging, everyone to arm themselves would be good for some, but would do little in the overall scheme of things. Yes, criminals look for the easy targets. But if they think someone is armed, it doesn't stop them from committing a crime, they merely shift to another target. I seriously doubt that the would-be criminals in the town mentioned earlier turned over new leaves and became model citizens. They merely chose victims somewhere else. Also, expecting that everyone will pass such laws and arm themselves isn't a realistic expectation. Further, those who are deterred by the fear that their victim is armed are not likely to stop committing crimes, but instead will find other ways to reduce their own risk while committing crimes. Truly violent criminals would probably shift to a "shoot first" mentality, since they would have to perceive everyone as a threat. Also, I live in a fairly congested suburban area, and I've seen a lot of people do a lot of stupid things in response to the issues caused by traffic jams, accidents, and a variety of other percieved affronts. I'm glad that its unlikely most of them had a gun at their immediate disposal.
Drunken Monkey Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 but you are talking about burgularies. i was talking about the minority out there who are psychologically compelled to commit murder, rape and abduction. in my opinion, it is these people that are the more dangerous because you are not aware of their presense. they could be your next door neighbour. anyway... i'm way off the topic... sorry guys. simple answer to the original post. no. in my opinion, arming oneself with a gun is a logical step in self defence. we already have knife/blade techniques and learning how to use a gun is simply the next step. post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
Shorinryu Sensei Posted November 21, 2003 Author Posted November 21, 2003 Just another angle to consider if we encourage, or they pass a law for everyone to carry a firearm. What would it be like to be a cop in that given situation, where you know every situation, whether it be a traffic stop, domestic disturbance call, or even sitting down in a restaurant while on duty and having a cup of coffee? Now, they have to assume that everyone is armed and act accordingly, but a law requiring people to be armed, or at least easingthe restrictions on carrying a weapon where everybody can legally..would make their job a whole lot harder I would think. My nightly prayer..."Please, just let me win that PowerBall Jackpot just once. I'll prove to you that it won't change me!"
JerryLove Posted November 21, 2003 Posted November 21, 2003 Let's ask the police in Kennesaw or one of the other juristictions with similar rules. In most areas, any given person *could* be armed; and the unknown is worse than a known. It's fine and dandy to speculate "I think this", but to ignore the presence of actual data in favor of speculation seems silly. https://www.clearsilat.com
Drunken Monkey Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 how about making body armour compulsory and firearms illegal. that way, the police can just shoot everyone on sight in the chest... post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
PrideampPoise Posted November 24, 2003 Posted November 24, 2003 It's fine and dandy to speculate "I think this", but to ignore the presence of actual data in favor of speculation seems silly.There's a difference, though, between ignoring it and keeping it in context. Assuming the data posted about Kennesaw is correct, and that the law is truly the reason for it, then one could definitely make a case that doing something similar in other areas could have a similar impact. But if we're talking about expanding the geographical area significantly, other factors have to be considered that aren't addressed in a smaller scale example. The most basic being, do criminals actually stop committing crimes, or do they move to other areas? Also, if the option of moving to another area were removed, would they then stop committing crimes, or would they simply commit them differently? Also, there could be very valid reasons why the program worked in Kennesaw, but might not work everywhere. I'm not saying the data should be ignored, only that it has to be kept in context.
Drunken Monkey Posted November 25, 2003 Posted November 25, 2003 and then it also depends on what kinda of crime you look at. how about of all the corporate frauds and thefts (and the other 'blue collar' crimes) making guns compulsory isn't going to change that much. post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
Recommended Posts