The case against guns

[Seth]

Anyone change their mind yet?

Actually, it is getting a little dirty...

I better shove it in the wash, and pop in a new one from the cognitive drawer...

Yeah...the skid marks are starting to impair function.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

On 80,000 DGU's.

I am quite happy to accept that there are 80,000 claims of DGU's each year. Most, of course, will be bullshit claims. I have already told you that I have been physically threatened three times in my life and I did not need to have a gun to handle any of those three. However, if that threat applied to a gun carrier, he would use the gun to obviate the threat, unnecessarily as I showed, but then claim it as a successful DGU. In other words, three fake claims of DGU's per gun carrying person.

I have also showed, from FBI figures, that a quarter of all murders are the result of arguments. Two guys in a passionate argument till one gets so hot under the collar that he puills out a gun and shoots the other guy. But most such arguments will not result in a murder. But lots will result in one guy pulling out a gun and threatening the other. I bet that would then be reported as a successful DGU!

In other words, DGU figures are so completely uncertain, that quoting any number is almost certainly going to plunge you into error. My view is that there will be a lot fewer than claimed.

[Seth]

To Seth

On 80,000 DGU's.

I am quite happy to accept that there are 80,000 claims of DGU's each year.

Well, that's a start.

Most, of course, will be bullshit claims.

Actually, they are fully documented and investigated incidents, which is why the DOJ includes them in their research. The DOJ was extremely conservative in their research and did not count "claims" at all, they only counted cases where police reports were actually filed.

So, you lose again. Thanks for admitting however that there are at least ten times more successful DGUs than there are handgun murders every year. That's a good start.

I have already told you that I have been physically threatened three times in my life and I did not need to have a gun to handle any of those three. However, if that threat applied to a gun carrier, he would use the gun to obviate the threat, unnecessarily as I showed, but then claim it as a successful DGU. In other words, three fake claims of DGU's per gun carrying person.

Really? Are you that desperate that you would concoct such a gross fallacy as to claim that your experience is anything other than your experience?

I have also showed, from FBI figures, that a quarter of all murders are the result of arguments. Two guys in a passionate argument till one gets so hot under the collar that he puills out a gun and shoots the other guy. But most such arguments will not result in a murder. But lots will result in one guy pulling out a gun and threatening the other. I bet that would then be reported as a successful DGU!

Nope. But the other guy pulling out HIS gun and shooting the criminal who threatened him with a gun WOULD be...like this one:

LeBron Shoe Shooting: Atlanta Man Shot, Killed After Attempted Robbery Of LeBron James 'X EXT Denim' Sneaker Customers
By Thomas Barrabi
on June 24 2013 12:30 PM

Sneaker Line Shooting
An unidentified Atlanta man was shot and killed after attempting to rob a line of customers who were waiting to buy LeBron James' new X EXT Denim shoes. WSB-TV

An unidentified man was fatally shot in Atlanta on Saturday after attempting to rob a group of people who were waiting in line to buy $180 LeBron James sneakers.

The shooting took place in Atlanta’s Little Five Points district at around 5:30 a.m. Saturday morning, CNN reports. More than two dozen customers were waiting in line outside of a shoe store to buy the $180 LeBron X EXT Denim sneaker, the same shoes that James wore during the Miami Heat’s NBA championship run.

According to police, an unnamed man approached the group of customers with a gun and attempted a mass robbery. However, one of the customers was carrying a gun of his own, fatally shooting the would-be robber in what has been described as “self-defense,” Atlanta police spokesman Carlos Campos told local CNN affiliate WSB-TV. "A number of witnesses were interviewed, and this appears to be self-defense," Campos said.
Related

LeBron James Would Have Canceled Wedding To Fiancée Savannah Brinson
Nike Foamposite Galaxy and Other Sneakers Sparking Riots for 'Sneakerheads' [PHOTOS]

Campos added that the customer, who has yet to be identified, will not face criminal charges. The customer reportedly carried a concealed carry permit, the New York Daily News reports.

A second customer, Taylor White, described the shooting to WSB-TV. White, a LeBron sneaker enthusiast, had been waiting in line since last Monday.

"I didn't even expect him to come up here, thinking it was that sweet. Thinking it's that candy land like that," White told WSB-TV. "He wanted to pickpocket everybody. But people out here -- they weren't going for none of that."

White also expressed his gratitude to the man who defended the LeBron sneaker customers from the attempted robbery. “He really stood up for all of us,” White told WSB-TV. “I salute the homie that did that.”

The LeBron X EXT Denim sneakers may cost $180, but they had no shortage of customers in Atlanta. By 11:30 a.m. Saturday, a group of 45 people had queued outside of the Little Five Points shoe store, WSB-TV reports. The LeBron X EXT Denim was released at noon that day and sold out just two hours later.

In other words, DGU figures are so completely uncertain, that quoting any number is almost certainly going to plunge you into error. My view is that there will be a lot fewer than claimed.[/quote]

Uh oh, more data...this time on video!

[Tero]

I think I lost interest in the Zimmerman case. Forensics will show nothing new and there may be some push for racist elements.

What this puzzles me is that we let wannabee cops patrol around and get involved in other people's business. If you just carry the gun in your dangerous community or work as personal last resort security, I don't have a problem with that.

But these untrained people! Why would someone approach a teenage black kid who may be high on cough syrup at all? It really does not help you to have the gun if you have no other defense skills. Zimmerman was at the level where he was best patrolling inside his truck. If he had to wait for something happens to call 911, then wait!

Some other wannabe cops out there with similar skills will just get themselves with their own gun.

[Seth]

I think I lost interest in the Zimmerman case. Forensics will show nothing new and there may be some push for racist elements.

What this puzzles me is that we let wannabee cops patrol around and get involved in other people's business. If you just carry the gun in your dangerous community or work as personal last resort security, I don't have a problem with that.

But these untrained people! Why would someone approach a teenage black kid who may be high on cough syrup at all? It really does not help you to have the gun if you have no other defense skills. Zimmerman was at the level where he was best patrolling inside his truck. If he had to wait for something happens to call 911, then wait!

Some other wannabe cops out there with similar skills will just get themselves with their own gun.

The authority to enforce the law and arrest lawbreakers originates with the people and it's co-equal in power with that granted by the people to the police. This is important because liberty is protected by our ability to revoke whatever power we have granted to government. But as Sir Robert Peel said:

• The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
• The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
• Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
• The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
• Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
• Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
  
• Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
• Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
  The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Thus, as the highlighted section says, it's incumbent on EVERYONE to assist when they can in keeping the peace and bringing malefactors before the bench.

We don't "let" citizens enforce the law, it's their right to do so. If they get hurt or killed doing so that's their decision to make.

[MrJonno]

The whole point of the police is to avoid vigilante justice, and the most important part of this is the victims and relatives do not determine guilt, do not determine punishment and that this role is done by specialists ie judges

[Seth]

The whole point of the police is to avoid vigilante justice, and the most important part of this is the victims and relatives do not determine guilt, do not determine punishment and that this role is done by specialists ie judges

You need to read what I wrote again. The distinction between citizens acting lawfully in arresting someone and "vigilante justice" is that the former detain a suspect and turn him/her over to police or the court (depending on who is more available) for prosecution and judgment, which is what I was very careful to point out, and the latter extract their own notion of "street justice" out of wrath after taking the malefactor into custody. The vast, vast majority of "vigilante justice" incidents are perpetrated by the police themselves administering "street justice" to people they know will never be convicted of some crime.

Citizens in the US rarely engage in "vigilante justice."

And just to be clear, because I know you'll mention it, engaging in lawful self-defense in the midst of a deadly or harmful attack is not "vigilante justice" it's merely self-defense. One is not required to allow one's attacker to beat one to a pulp or murder one in order that the malefactor can "have his day in court." He only gets that if he survives your legitimate use of self-defense tactics.

[MrJonno]

Going looking for trouble is vigilantism, that's the police job not civilians

[Seth]

Going looking for trouble is vigilantism, that's the police job not civilians

No, it's not, it's good citizenship. Places where pussies and cowards leave it to the police have more crime and no ethics.

How dare you expect someone else, even a police officer to see to your safety and protect you from danger. That's cowardice of the highest order. If you are capable of caring for yourself it is immoral and unethical to expect, nay demand that someone else put themselves at risk just to save your scrawny neck.

If you're not willing to fight for the safety and security of your community, you don't deserve to be protected by anybody.

Even cops have the right to go home hale and hearty and uninjured...and alive, at the end of their shift, which means that for the most part, your safety is YOUR concern and nobody else's.

If a cop, or a firefighter or anyone else, professional or otherwise comes to your aid and puts themselves in jeopardy doing so they do it VOLUNTARILY out of a sense of altruism, charity, rational self-interest and honor, and for no other reason. You have no right to DEMAND that they do so, and if they don't want to do so, they are free to refuse to do so and watch you die. That's a legal fact.

Society owes you exactly nothing.

[MrJonno]

If a cop, or a firefighter or anyone else, professional or otherwise comes to your aid and puts themselves in jeopardy doing so they do it VOLUNTARILY out of a sense of altruism, charity, rational self-interest and honor, and for no other reason

Strange I thought it was because they were paid to

[Seth]

If a cop, or a firefighter or anyone else, professional or otherwise comes to your aid and puts themselves in jeopardy doing so they do it VOLUNTARILY out of a sense of altruism, charity, rational self-interest and honor, and for no other reason

Strange I thought it was because they were paid to

They are paid to do particular things, but throwing away their lives is not on that list. Any cop or any firefighter can refuse to perform a rescue if they judge it to be too dangerous to their own health and safety.

The only category of persons I know of who may be compelled to perform a duty where their death is probable or certain is soldiers. But they know that when they enlist...unless they are conscripted...which is why conscription is so evil.

[MrJonno]

If a cop, or a firefighter or anyone else, professional or otherwise comes to your aid and puts themselves in jeopardy doing so they do it VOLUNTARILY out of a sense of altruism, charity, rational self-interest and honor, and for no other reason

Strange I thought it was because they were paid to

They are paid to do particular things, but throwing away their lives is not on that list. Any cop or any firefighter can refuse to perform a rescue if they judge it to be too dangerous to their own health and safety.

The only category of persons I know of who may be compelled to perform a duty where their death is probable or certain is soldiers. But they know that when they enlist...unless they are conscripted...which is why conscription is so evil.

They are paid to take reasonable risks, as opposed to the public who are paid to take zero risks. Don't want to deal with criminals don't become a cop, don't want to put out fires don't become a fireman.

Soldiers, fireman and police do a job that puts their life at risk and market forces decides what their reward is for it (its typically not that high as wages aren't that high and presumably lots of people want to do it)

[Seth]

If a cop, or a firefighter or anyone else, professional or otherwise comes to your aid and puts themselves in jeopardy doing so they do it VOLUNTARILY out of a sense of altruism, charity, rational self-interest and honor, and for no other reason

Strange I thought it was because they were paid to

They are paid to do particular things, but throwing away their lives is not on that list. Any cop or any firefighter can refuse to perform a rescue if they judge it to be too dangerous to their own health and safety.

The only category of persons I know of who may be compelled to perform a duty where their death is probable or certain is soldiers. But they know that when they enlist...unless they are conscripted...which is why conscription is so evil.

They are paid to take reasonable risks,

Yup. And THEY get to determine what's "reasonable." The worst that can happen to them if they refuse to take a risk is that they get disciplined or fired by the agency that employs them, and even then they can sue and make the argument in court that their actions were reasonable and prudent.

The point is that NOBODY (except a soldier) can be COMPELLED to come to your aid. The police can just stand there and watch you get beaten to death by a crowd of outlaw bikers and there's not a damned thing your family can do about it because the law is extremely clear on this particular point: the police have NO duty or obligation to protect any particular person against any particular crime.

as opposed to the public who are paid to take zero risks.

Your mistake is thinking that just because you don't get paid to take risks that risks are not an inherent part of life that you have to face and deal with on your own.

Don't want to deal with criminals don't become a cop, don't want to put out fires don't become a fireman.

Good advice, but not relevant. No cop or fireman is compelled to sacrifice their life or safety to save your. That's simply a fact.

Soldiers, fireman and police do a job that puts their life at risk and market forces decides what their reward is for it (its typically not that high as wages aren't that high and presumably lots of people want to do it)

A Marxist like you talking about "market forces?" That's rich. And irrelevant. Having been a cop for a long time you can take it from me, as a subject matter expert, that nothing in the law, or indeed in the operating procedures of most modern police departments, requires an officer to risk his own life, health or safety to protect the public. Indeed, most departments these days give specific orders to officers NOT to take unreasonable or unnecessary risks lest the department be held financially liable for the officer's death or injury.

[MrJonno]

Oh well if there is a fire and the fire brigade doesn't do their job tough I die then, still rather trust them putting a fire out than I trust me. Same with the police. I put my life in many people's hands every day , I have to trust whoever made my food knows hygiene, I have to trust the bus driver can drive, living near an airport I have to trust the many 100's of pilots above my head do their job as well. They are quite simply more capable of keeping me alive than I am

[Collector1337]

Oh well if there is a fire and the fire brigade doesn't do their job tough I die then,

Yup. Now you get it.

And we can only hope.