Guys running around beating the hell out of random people...
Are tasers legal over there? I'd give a few of them a good shock and unleash while they convulse.
Aussie Clockwork Orange?
Guys running around beating the hell out of random people...
Are tasers legal over there? I'd give a few of them a good shock and unleash while they convulse.
"People were trapped on the Tram and there was nowhere to go"???
I don't know, would it be too much to say "Hey, guy, you splashed BLOOD on me, man, knock it off already!"
Especially if you and 20 of your fellow Tram traveller's all said it together.
Easy solution: make concealed or open carry of a firearm legal. Possibly require a permitting program to ensure that people get appropriate training. We did that here in Michigan and there hasn't been an uptick in shootings since it went into effect. At least here in Flint violent crime has gone down over the last year.
October 19th, 2007 11:31am
They always go to deadly force. That's not the answer for everything.
And yet, it seems to be effective. The potential for its use does wonders for avoiding its actual use. And very few people are going to cry if these young punks get killed. You'll get the occasional "They killed my baby" hysterical mother when her son was seen by witnesses throwing down on a cop, but they tend to go away within 24 hours.
October 19th, 2007 11:58am
Yeah, you won't see this phenomenon in my neck of the woods, for sure.
Whatever endorphin rush they get off on from this wouldn't be worth the estimated high risk of lead poisoning.
Funny you should say that, Clay, in New York City they had a multi-year case about a "peaceful citizen" who pulled a gun and shot some hoodlums hassling somebody on the subway.
The problem (as always) is "who decides"? And yes, probably their mothers would raise a stink, no matter who the 'hoodlums' are. "Nobody would care" is completely incorrect.
Ah, you already noticed their mothers would care. Good on ya, sorry I missed that.
Happens here too.
They call it "Steaming"
October 19th, 2007 12:36pm
"make concealed or open carry of a firearm legal."
Pepper spray is lighter, more compact, more shots before reloading, less lethal to innocent bystanders and packs enough stopping power to make a proper escape :)
Good for a one on one situation. In a mob scene I don't see it helping. The threat of winding up dead is the real deterent to a gun. It occurs to me that knives are allowed for open carry here, so long as the blade is six inches or less in length. In fact, during certain times of the year they aren't even uncommon. Learning the effective, lethal use of a knife takes a good deal longer than a gun though.
October 19th, 2007 1:12pm
I think you'd be doing humanity a disservice if you failed to kick them in the teeth while they writhed on the ground wondering if their eyes would ever stop burning. Then, you can run.
I would point out that while I'm sure some thugs get shot and killed, a warrantless vigilante punishment depending on your stance, those incidents are probably quite rare.
First, people are less likely to go around being dicks if they think they may take a bullet for it. Second, I'm inclined to think that far more incidents end with the assailant(s) fleeing in terror than in ambulances.
I find the risk/reward factor to be pretty beneficial to society on the whole. Even if all we did was cap their knees, I think shooting these imbeciles is simply the honorable thing to do, it could even be pleasurable. You could institute a sort of victim rehabilitation and retaliation where such victims were allowed to shoot perpetrators in the limbs with small caliber firearms.
It has pay-per-view potential, so the program could even pay for itself.
And you can make them clean your house, too.
October 19th, 2007 1:17pm
Well, I'm happy Clay and JoC are so secure in their ability to identify "bad guys" that they want us ALL to be armed and dangerous.
Personally, I prefer a less "Wild West" ethic of having armed Police who are accountable for their actions. True, even if you arm average citizens (and criminals) they are both accountable for their actions, too.
It's just a professional Police force tends to "shoot first and ask questions later" MUCH less often. Better training, too.
Besides, I think the "unintended consequence" of arming everybody is the creation of more gangs and an increase in gun violence. That this hasn't happened yet in "concealed carry" permit areas probably has to do with who gets the permits.
For instance, I don't think passing "permit concealed carry" laws in Washington DC would actually lower the gun death rate there.
For another instance, in Iraq I think everybody is armed. The result is "militias" loyal to one local war-lord or another. Certainly not "peace".
"It's just a professional Police force tends to "shoot first and ask questions later" MUCH less often. Better training, too. "
It would 'seem' that way, I know, but if you look for U.S. accident, injury, and crime statistics regarding the subject, you'll find that police officers have a much less favorable track record than civilians with firearms training.
I've heard these statistics most from firearms proponents who are generally conservatives that have a very hard time saying anything at all bad about the police, military, or Republican politicians.
JOC - are you talking out of you ass again? I would be interested in seeing those stats to backup your claim... otherwise STFU!
Yes, and there are very few motorcycle accidents in the rain.
That's not because riding in the rain is safer (it definitely is not, visibility and traction are both worse), that's because very few motorcyclists ride in the rain.
Thus, Police are carrying their guns everywhere. Most people with concealed gun permits are not. Police are called to crime scenes. People with concealed gun permits are not. Police have to write reports for every use of their gun. People with concealed gun permits do not.
So it does not surprise me that Police seem to have a 'worse' record than concealed gun owners. That does NOT make it a good argument for expanded concealed gun use.
The public can buy a gun with absolutely no training. Most people do. Out of 300Mil people, there are a lot of people bringing down the average...
There is a difference between hard facts, and hearing someone tell you something that backs up their beliefs, no?
Weak, and somewhat localized, but more to come...
"With all of the thousands of Tennesseans who have handgun carry permits, to date, not one of those people has ever used their gun in the commission of a crime."
"In fact, in states where carry permit laws have been passed, violent crime, including murder, has gone down."
"Nationwide, a recent survey showed that guns are used by private citizens for protection on the order of between 2.1 and 2.5 million times each year. That's about 139 times the number of all murders combined."
The thing to remember is that most police officers are not firearms experts. They carry a gun as part of their job (like a manager with his clipboard), and not because they like guns.
If you want the TV show "Cops", you will occasionally see them do such newbie mistakes as rack the slide on a semiauto *before* removing the magazine (this puts a round into the chamber, thus loading the gun and making it readier to fire).
They also tend to wave them about, before clearing them and making them safe. "Ooops, sorry about the bystander, chief. It went off before I could unload it."
Rule One: Treat all firearms as if they were loaded.
Rule Two: Never point them at something you're not willing to shoot at or through.
October 19th, 2007 2:16pm
want <--> watch
October 19th, 2007 2:16pm
Here is more along the lines of what I said...
Percentage of times armed police have succeeded in wounding or driving off criminals: 68%
Percentage of times armed private citizens have succeeded in wounding or driving off criminals: 83%
Percentage of persons shot by armed police who are innocent of a crime: 11%
Percentage of persons shot by armed private citizens who are innocent of a crime: 2%
If you doubt the source, ask a police officer about the statistics. Many of them hear the statistics in their firearms training. The police departments aren't proud of it, but the truth is, a cop is much more likely to be involved in either a crime or accident with their gun than a civilian concealed carrier.
It really does not take Einstein to figure out that more guns in the hands of more people in everyday situations would be bad.
Everyone operating under the assumption that everyone else was armed would literally start an intra-national arms race.
"Mutually assured self destruction" seemed to have barely kept us from extinction during the cold war, but does not even apply here... too many actors and not enough risk for drawing/firing..
all to resolve a situation that no one has reasonably demonstrated could not be fixed using pepper spray.
Funny, didn't this thread start out with a suggestion for Stun units?
+1 Arg, by the way.
"Percentage of times armed police have succeeded in wounding or driving off criminals: 68%
Percentage of times armed private citizens have succeeded in wounding or driving off criminals: 83%"
That just means police show more restraint in using guns - are you say wounding and killing is a good thing?
"Percentage of persons shot by armed police who are innocent of a crime: 11%
Percentage of persons shot by armed private citizens who are innocent of a crime: 2%"
That stat is useless. I don't see any stats based on the number of police vs number of armed citizens. ie % police vs % citizens shooting innocent people would be a better stat
It would seem the 2% means a large percentage of citizens a
That would be Bernie Goetz.
>Five assholes met on a train. And one of them had a gun.
October 19th, 2007 2:47pm
Cheers, I'm afraid utter inconsistency makes it kind of hard to respect your opinion. Clipping your post off probably didn't help that much either...
There are many more concealed carriers than police officers. In spite of this, there are both more criminal and accidental acts with firearms by police officers than by those with concealed carry permits.
And I suggested the stun unit as a matter of preference. I'd really rather kick my assailant in the face while electrocuting them than just shooting them. I think it leaves more of a lasting impression that beating up on random folks isn't a very nice thing to do.
For the anti-carry crowd here, your rhetoric may sound good in your ears, but is not born out by facts on the ground. Both JoC and I live in places where people can and do carry weapons. It's not a wild west.
Just around the corner from a buddy of mine, two wisenheimers thought they'd rob a pizza delivery guy. Turns out they picked the wrong dude, because after they beat him over the head with a pipe, he shot them. One dead, one wounded and caught the next day. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
The way it works here, people with a permit to carry concealed are subject to much more stringent rules about what they can get away with. If stopped by a law officer, they must declare that they have a weapon. They can't carry while intoxicated, not even a little snort of whiskey. And cops don't look the other way on that one, it's a felony and you're headed to the pokey.
So we don't get the wild west scene, no matter what your fevered anti-gun delusions must think. Until you've seen it in practice, sit down and shut your fool mouth.
October 19th, 2007 3:21pm
"There are many more concealed carriers than police officers."
Another stat I would like to see is how many criminal incidents "carrying" citizens are involved in a year. For most it would be zero. No? Now how many incidents are police involved in? Daily - it's their job. So it obvious that the police would have a higher total of shootings.
Those % stats are misleading because they are based on the % of victims not the % of police incidents vs % of citizen incidents
You are trying to say that private citizens with guns are safer but your stats are not clear enough or are misleading.
you are assuming everyone will get permits. I reject that out of hand.
people drive on suspended lisences, cheat on taxes, drink & drive... all because they know statistically they will more than likely get away with it.
If everyone (or most people) have a gun whats the chances of getting stopped or searched?
If everyone has a gun, what's the chances of teens going around in groups and kicking the snot out of people for fun? Pretty low I'm thinking. For the second time, at least.
October 19th, 2007 3:32pm
Check towards the bottom int he statistics section.
I seriously doubt there are two million police officers in Florida, as an example of my stament 'there are far more concealed carry holders than police officers'.
Clay, the teens won't be kicking. They will be shooting.
Why wouldn't they? They are acting out on psychotic, violent, extremely criminal agressive behavior. They will still be violent and agressive, and want to hurt or kill people.
Also, pepper spray is not a "non-lethal" defense alternative. It's a "mostly harmless" tool, as there are people whom have died after being spritzed with it (asthma sufferers, etc)
October 19th, 2007 3:59pm
Not that many people ever die after you kick 'em in the teeth though. I guess if you electrocute them first, that increases the risk. So to be PC, just kindly ask your assailant to lie down so you can kick them in the face.
arg!, around here the teens are already shooting. So a little return fire, possibly from someone who has actually spent time at the range, will slow them down a bit. Or at least pull the untalented out of the general population.
Your dislike of arms is a problem. You see, it's already caused you to come to this battle of wits unarmed.
October 19th, 2007 4:09pm
On the other hand, your love of arms has caused you to start making ad-hominem remarks already.
Funnily enough, I haven't seen the teens around here "blazing away". In DC, where guns are still illegal and concealed weapons are illegal, now THERE we have people getting killed.
I'm not sure what 'side' that serves, I'm just saying it's what's going on.
More to the point, by your argument it sounds like you'd prefer to be stomped by a crowd of youths than to defend yourself. Sure, it would be neat if the police could take care of the problem, but cops can't be everywhere. All I'm proposing is that you should have the ability and right to do it. You'd rather take the kick in the teeth, that's your business.
But please, if you're opposed to people being allowed to defend themselves, make the change at home first. Darwin favors the paranoid.
October 19th, 2007 4:14pm
"an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."
I would rather work to decrease the overall amount of lead in the air during my commute, not increase it.
And to kids, that would be an escalation, not a deterrant.
Clay, you still haven't answered, if concealed carry WAS allowed, what would prevent the afore-mentioned yahoos from spraying the train (instead of merely beating up a guy)?
"it sounds like you'd prefer to be stomped by a crowd of youths than to defend yourself"
Nope. there are plenty of other ways than guns, as I have been advocating the whole thread.
"I would prefer every jon dick and harry NOT have the capability to blow me or a loved one away by accident because of some percieved threat (real or imaginary) somewhere within 2,000 feet of me"
---""In fact, in states where carry permit laws have been passed, violent crime, including murder, has gone down."----
True, but it went down in nearly all the other states too. It's a nationwide trend.
I don't really like guns. My little brother busted his lip the first time we were taken out to shoot one. It kicked up and nailed him.
A month or so ago, there was huge crash into our door we've yet to figure out what it was (apartment). I armed myself and investigated, but admittedly, I removed the magazine. In retrospect, that was stupid. If what crashed had a gun and they saw I had one, they might have been more tempted to shoot me and I'd have had no bullets. But that is the first time I've ever had a mysterious reason like that and I wasn't crazy about the prospect of capping the neighbors' kid.
Guns are like everything else though. Some self-righteous assholes get it in their head that they have the right to control what others do and suddenly we're embroiled in an argument over something that had no grounds to be argued to begin with.
My point is that in general we are allowing people to control others at unprecedented levels. The idea of such control would've been laughable only fifty years ago.
Clay, you'll dig this... (awe, the one I had found was just labeled 40 reasons to support gun control, this one reveals the true intent before you get into it)
You didn't ask, or I didn't see it.
First, let us suppose that the punks in question weren't carrying heat, or at least not inclined to use it. Since they clearly don't give a good God Damn about the law, let us also assume that the existence of a concealed permit system is irrelevant to this fact.
Second, let us presume that somebody on the bus was carrying heat. That person may or may not have been the assaulted person.
Around about the time the first punk suffered acute lead poisoning, the general beating would have ended. If the behavior of other predators is any indication (and I am using here as exemplars domestic cats and dogs), the demonstration of an effective and possibly lethal response from what had formerly been considered to be defenseless prey would cause them to scatter like cockroaches caught in a spotlight.
A crowd of 10 could quite possibly have mobbed the shooter, but they generally wouldn't be inclined to do so, since it meant that some more of them would probably die. They would need some pretty serious discipline to act as a coordinated unit to take down the shooter, the kind that the military spends a lot of time training into their soldiers.
October 19th, 2007 4:25pm
Stephen, have a look at that wikipedia page on concealed carry. Note the very informative blue/yellow/red state map graphic representating concealed carry policy by state over time. It's 100% relative to your statement.
Representating? Pshhh... lol
STH, I would also be of the school of thought that the carry permit only allows one to legally carry a gun. There are plenty that don't seem to require any such permits and they shoot people all the time. Having carry permits certainly don't make it easier to legally own guns, much the opposite. At best, you have to do extra paperwork outside of just buying the gun.
I enjoy shooting guns. However, I don't agree with firearms aficionados who base their arguments on 1776 revolutionary war propaganda.
When I took firearms training courses, the first thing we were taught was that as soon as you draw a gun on someone, you are automatically going to lose $80,000 in legal fees. This was the average amount people have lost in gun related self-defense court cases, even if everything goes in your favor. If you shoot someone, you are most likely going to bankrupt yourself with legal fees.
The problem I have with the "shoot them before they shoot you" argument when applied to gang-bangers and whatnot, is that the battle isn't over once you blast the other guy. If you kill someone who is involved with semi-organized crime (meaning a small group of neighborhood thugs), you just opened yourself up to having the criminal's buddies all come over to your house and blow your family away in retribution.
Interesting article, although I'd like to point out that Charleton Heston is not currently a credible advocate for the second amendment. The Alzheimer's is something of a disqualifier.
I should also point out to some of you here that I'm slightly more conservative than Gloria Stienham, but less so than Bill Clinton.
October 19th, 2007 4:34pm
Yeah, that's the assumption I really question. I think it's MUCH more likely that some gang-bangers would be carrying than that some passenger would.
But you've made some good points.
Clay, I will offer another scenario:
The second you hear shots fired, everyone ducks for cover and unholsters. Everyone you see is a target, a threat, and a victim... and now... what?
Fear and irrational behavior in many cases. Untrained shooters with bad aim mixed with glory seekers, vigilantes, racists, terrorists even(!!!)... differing personal accounts and testimony of who shot what first, etc.
Sure that's worst case scenario. But you are ignoring all elements of very real problems with your theory. We have progressed so far as a society since the shootout at OK Corral. Would be a shame to slide back.
Again, arg!, not born out by facts on the ground. We have people with permits here. That scenario doesn't happen.
I work with two people who carry. When there was a loud gunfire like sound from the neighboring office, one populated with a lot of people who are treated pretty poorly by management, people didn't all just pull guns and look for something to shoot. There was a fairly careful investigation of the situation by several of us in the office.
So again, you who don't live in these conditions, why are you trying to convince those of us who do that we're in a shooting gallery? That's not the way it is, that's the worst case scenario.
And JoC, why TF did you drop the magazine? I've had to deal with a few intrusion attempts or suspected intrusion attempts, and I've never once been inspired to drop the clip. In fact for a long time I made a point of keeping one handy.
October 19th, 2007 5:00pm
Heh yeah... like I said, in retrospect, it was pretty stupid.
When I've ventured some place out of necessity and felt that I would be much better off with protection I'd have never done that.
I sure don't dash for a weapon every time I hear a bump in the night though, so I've never been confronted with that particular situation. It was VERY loud, and enough to 'bounce' the door knocker. My reasoning in the spur of the moment was that if it were anyone out to do harm, they would still be trying to get in.
I'm wholly convinced it was one of the fat kids next door being pushed by one of their large siblings.
>> Untrained shooters with bad aim mixed with glory seekers, vigilantes, racists, terrorists even(!!!) <<
Actually, concealed carry holders tend to be much better shots than the police (was it Philidelphia where the cops fired 35+ rounds with only one hit on the target?)
This is because the decision to carry concealed is taken very seriously by these people, and they are frequent guests at the shooting range. Your average police officer only goes there to qualify with his weapon when required by the department, and not as a moral duty.
October 19th, 2007 5:19pm
The other cool thing about having a concealed carry permit is that if you are ever pulled over for speeding or a traffic violation, the highway patrol or police gets to approach your car with their guns drawn.
That's good to know, xampl. In my research on this topic, I did find that there IS a permitting process for concealed carry -- it's not like the concealed carry states just hand over the gun, pat you on the head, and tell you to go play Dirty Harry or anything.
So currently, as Concealed Carry is implemented (in like 40 states so far) it seems a reasonably 'sane' way to go about it. Not allowed if you have a criminal record, for one thing.
I only mention "sane" because these people who suggest that ending an altercation on the street would be simple "if everybody was armed" don't really seem to be talking about the current "concealed carry" situation. But then use statistics from the current "concealed carry" situation to prove their point.
I'm glad to know that, even in "concealed carry" states, you STILL don't have "everybody armed". That explains a lot to me about the statistics -- lethal force is STILL being limited to a small group of people, willing (required) to be trained in its appropriate use. It's just that many of them are vetted 'volunteers'.
I am talking about when society shifts from a blacklist(assume unarmed) to whitelist (assumed armed).
People who would normally be unarmed WILL CARRY, some legally and some illegially, regardless of paper lisence or record in a government database.
"people drive on suspended lisences, cheat on taxes, drink & drive... all because they know statistically they will more than likely get away with it."
You assume everyone having a gun will deter crime. But you've really just obfuscated the bad guys, encouraged/scared the average joe to put a gun in his pocket, legally or illegially.
And the gun aficionados will be the only ones with the correct paperwork, to keep up those perfect stats that have been posted above...
No, my scenario above does not play out on the ground because we are still a blacklist society. and I would like for it to stay that way.
You, my good man, live in a very strange world.
October 19th, 2007 7:26pm
... but I would appreciate a point for point rebuttle. That all seems pretty obvious to me?
... but I would appreciate a point for point rebuttle. That all seems pretty obvious to me?
No denying we have a growing problem, but it could be argued that it's newsworthy because it's rather rare, or targets ethnics spotlighted by politics or is, as this thread's caption suggests, a new thrill that needs swift attention.
My grandfather became reluctant to walk up to the shops when Clockwork Orange was released amongst a storm of media disapproval and predictions of copycat bashings (nothing happened).
I don't agree that deregulating firearms would deter violence here. In other altercations weapons such a swords and knives - that are legal to own but not carry around - have been used to deadly effect. Introduce pistols and the kids will have pistols - and that's scary. It's scary enough having cops with guns - and crims caught with guns can wind up in stir.
How people can sit and watch this happen is quite another matter.
Tasers are carried by Western Australia Police:
Other states are "trialling" them. On who or what I do not know.
--"took place on the No. 96 tram in St Kilda on a recent Saturday night"--
When i use to live in Balaclava, a suburb, near st. kilda beach, i use to everyday catch this tram - no 96. Now i have shifted to another suburb. Last stop of the tram is the St. Kilda beach itself, beautiful place, but is not a very safe place on saturdays and sundays. There are many bars around. You can see youngsters drunk and shouting on road. Never understood why they behave that way! :) There are many X clubs and with lot of prostitution happenning there. Such incidents are not common here. May be with the beginning of summer season people are acting wild here. Surely, an unfortunate incident.
It took them a while to catch on, but the wowsers finally abolished the #69 tram from Kew to St Kilda. It's now an extension of the #16.
The #96 is a light rail replacement for the old St Kilda railway. It's a bloody fast tram.
>> Other states are "trialling" them. On who or what I do not know. <<
One of the problems with having Tasers is that since they are less-than-lethal /most of the time/, the cops assume they're non-lethal /all of the time/, which isn't true. There have been a number of people killed by them, because the voltage stopped their heart, or the person was unusually succeptable to them.
Also, unlike a pistol, the cops are much quicker to use them on suspects. Again, because there's this belief that they're non-lethal.
October 20th, 2007 12:29pm