|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Castle Doctrine | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
If more criminals get shot during home invasions they're going to stop invading homes.
Bullshit. Show evidence this is true. Crime statistics do not support this. Crime statistics support that the violence escalates in a society. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
But true. You may be able to deter some criminals but not all of them. All you'll be doing is weeding out the weaklings and gauranteeing that only the strong survive.
Your notion that criminals just have to break into them houses is nonsensical. crashfrog writes:
Your claim is that criminals respond to guns by going straight. I'm disputing that claim with the fact that... they don't. They escalate. ringo writes:
Sure, but of what possible relevance is that? Haven't you ever heard of gang warfare? Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote right this time. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And yet, police training did change because of the incident. Failure of training. It doesn't follow that the training was wrong simply because the training changes over time. But now you appear to be arguing against the training that, previously, you said was so important. Which is what I've been saying all along - police aren't trained in such a way as to give them superior judgement, they're trained to give them superior proficiency when it comes time to use their firearms.
They're trained to open fire under appropriate circumstances. Being under fire is one of those situations, and to the best that they could determine they were under fire. They had overwhelming evidence that they were, to Amadou Diallo's misfortune.
I will if you'll list the civilians that you want accidentally killed in the name of safety. We could start with the criminals who choose to needlessly put their fellow citizens' lives in danger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It isn't a strawman if that is what he is advocating. It's not what he's advocating, as he's said and as I've shown.
He is advocating the right to shoot and killing someone for breaking into a house and stealing. No, he's not. He's advocating the right to use force to stop felony crimes inside your home, which is a right that the legal residents of a home have at all times. If CS was advocating what you say he's advocating, then it wouldn't matter when you were stealing; CS would believe that if you broke in while he was gone he could track you down and kill you. But he doesn't believe that. It's only if you pose a physical risk to CS, by being engaged in a felony inside his home when he's there, that CS feels legally justified in using appropriate force. And he's right, he is justified. Nobody's being killed for a microwave. But somebody might die because a criminal decided to break the law and put people at risk, and in a just world, it's the criminal. CS certainly has a right to make sure it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Show evidence this is true. Crime statistics do not support this. Crime statistics in the US and other areas almost universally show that legal gun ownership and crime rates are inversely related:
quote: John Lott, New England Journal of Medicine
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199905203402020 No webpage found at provided URL: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/LottJLS98.pdf
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But true. No, it's not true. It's an absurdity. They can do many, many other things besides burglarize homes. And, as gun ownership rates rise, they do.
Your claim is that criminals respond to guns by going straight. Well, they may turn to other forms of crime. But it's both obvious and supported by the evidence that crime rates are lowered by expanding handgun ownership, for instance by concealed-carry laws. It's just simple economics - when the cost of a behavior increases, people engage in less of it. When a behavior becomes more dangerous, people do it less. And when citizens begin to protect themselves against crime, criminals respond by committing less crime, because crime becomes a more costly activity. It's just plain sense. If guns didn't prevent crime, police and security officers wouldn't carry them. (I mean, why introduce a gun into the situation if it's not going to help?) If you couldn't use a gun effectively to defend yourself or an area, soldiers wouldn't use guns to defend things. Guns stop crime. Making crime more dangerous for criminals means less crime. Otherwise how could crime ever be reduced or prevented?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
RAZD did the research in a previous thread.
Message 217 I have been ignoring this topic because it goes on ad nauseum and it is Hyro's pet little subject and it is kind of getting old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
RAZD is a crazy person who believes his assertion is the same as proof. In this case it appears he's incorrectly reported the statistics.
Look, it stands to reason. If you increase the risks and cost of an activity, people engage in less of it. That's simple economics. And the statistics bear it out; when states adopt concealed-carry laws they reduce their rates of violent crime.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
The changes in training were not toward "greater proficiency" in shooting. They were toward prevention of accidental discharges, which is a good thing in itself and is also directed toward prevention of bad reactions due to poor judgement. Contrary to what you seem to be saying, police officers are not trained to open fire at the sound of a gunshot. But now you appear to be arguing against the training that, previously, you said was so important. Which is what I've been saying all along - police aren't trained in such a way as to give them superior judgement, they're trained to give them superior proficiency when it comes time to use their firearms. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Reduction of crime rates isn't even the issue here. What I'm saying is that when homeowners have guns, even if the overall crime rate is reduced, the ones who stay in the game will be tougher, more ruthless and better armed. When a behavior becomes more dangerous, fewer people may do it but the ones who continue to do it are more hard-core. You may be reducing the "crime rate" - however you measure that - but you're raising the level of intensity. But it's both obvious and supported by the evidence that crime rates are lowered by expanding handgun ownership, for instance by concealed-carry laws. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
They were toward prevention of accidental discharges, which is a good thing in itself and is also directed toward prevention of bad reactions due to poor judgement. Preventing accidental discharge of the firearm is a function of proficiency. It's a part of the skill of using a firearm. Shooting isn't the only function of proficiency.
Contrary to what you seem to be saying, police officers are not trained to open fire at the sound of a gunshot. I am not saying that and never have. Officers are trained to fire on those firing on them, and the four officers in that situation sadly had ample (if improbably deceptive) evidence that they were under fire. An uncooperative suspect drawing from under his jacket. A gunshot. An officer stumbling as if hit. Except for a vanishing set of unlikely coincidences this would have added up to irrefutable evidence that they had just been fired at. If you really want to look to a police shooting the circumstances didn't justify, look up that kid in the Twin Cities who was gunned down outside his own bachelor party when a cop picked a fight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What I'm saying is that when homeowners have guns, even if the overall crime rate is reduced, the ones who stay in the game will be tougher, more ruthless and better armed. So what? They can only kill you once. And again there's no reason to suspect this escalation will occur, since criminals have all the opportunity in the world not to commit crimes. There's nothing forcing them to up-gun just to stay in the game. (And why would they escalate with bigger guns and not better armor?)
You may be reducing the "crime rate" - however you measure that - but you're raising the level of intensity. Well, in these cases crime rates were measured by the incidence per capita of property crimes, murders, assaults, and so on. I'm not sure what "intensity" could possibly mean or how it could be measured - what, are they gonna take your stuff extra-hard? - and frankly it sounds like you just made that up on the spot. "Intensity", whatever that's supposed to mean, has never been a part of this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
Exactly. And judgement is one of the other functions - judgement when to fire and when not to fire. That is the proficiency that civilians lack.
Shooting isn't the only function of proficiency. crashfrog writes:
And the obvious piece of evidence that was missing? Any sign of a gunshot from the direction of the victim. One or more of the officers panicked and everybody else opened up like a bunch of rookies. Take away the training they had and you have your average homeowner. Officers are trained to fire on those firing on them, and the four officers in that situation sadly had ample (if improbably deceptive) evidence that they were under fire. An uncooperative suspect drawing from under his jacket. A gunshot. An officer stumbling as if hit. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3806 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
It's far more likely that criminals will simply not burglarize homes or burglarize homes they consider unlikely to be armed. And, according to much research, that's exactly what they tend to do - private gun ownership does have a positive effect on crime (at the expense of a far greater incidence of accidental gun injuries.) If armed deterrence, as a fundamental principle, is responsible for a lower U.S. burglary rate then that rate should have been lower for the U.S. versus say the U.K. at the very least from 1946 [when self-defense was not considered an acceptable reason in the U.K. to have a gun] and on. Since the statistics show that for a period of time, even when the U.K. had much stricter gun laws than the U.S., the burglary rate for the U.S. was HIGHER (by double the amount), how would you explain this?
Crime and Justice in the United Statesand in England and Wales, 1981-96 There is actually something else that is more likely to have an effect on burglaries. In fact, it is whether the house in question has deterrents, such as bars on windows or crime-watch stickers or visible house alarm warnings, that is a more likely to deter a burglar.
UK homeoffice or
UK Homeoffice If you are going to make the argument that having guns make burglaries less likely, then how do you explain the 59% decline in domestic burglaries from 1995 to 2006/2007? Isn’t there something else going on perhaps? The following is from this reference: Burglary of Single-Family Houses, Guide No. 18 (2002), Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Deborah Lamm Weisel In the United States, most residential burglariesabout 60 percent of reported offensesoccur in the daytime, when houses are unoccupied.(11) Occupancy. Most burglars do not target occupied houses, taking great care to avoid them. Some studies suggest burglars routinely ring doorbells to confirm residents' absence. How long residents are away from home is a strong predictor of the risk of burglary...(26) Burglarized houses often have unlocked or open windows or doors.(40) Studies show that alarms, combined with other security devices, reduce burglaries. Burglars are less likely to gain entry when a house has two or more security devices (including window locks, dead bolts, security lights, and alarms).(42) Studies of offenders show that burglars may avoid houses with good locks, burglar bars or other security devices. Burglars often know their victims,(74) who may include casual acquaintances, neighborhood residents, people for whom they have provided a service (such as moving or gardening), or friends or relatives of close friends. Thus, offenders have some knowledge of their victims, such as of their daily routine.(75) (11)Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000).(26)Residential Burglary: the limits of prevention, by Stuart Winchester and Hilary Jackson,HOME OFFICE RESEARCH STUDY NO. 74, First published 1982 (40)Waller and Okihiro (1978); Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd (42)Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99 by Tracey Budd (75)(Burglars on the Job: Street Life and Residential Break-ins)?,Wright and Decker (1994). Hopefully this is not too long, but it is relevant to the discussion
Our findings suggest that the use of violence against offenders could reduce crime, but the extent of such reduction remains opaque. Increasing crime's harm, and the knowledge of it, may have limited effects on offenders who believe they are immune to harmful consequences; these people may have "stickier" perceptions that require considerable contradiction before they change. Moreover, if these offenders believe that most crime victims will use violence, they may be more likely to use preemptive violence, thereby increasing victim costs. Crime victims may incur other costs if they rely on violence or its threat to deter offenders. Game theory research indicates that relying on individuals to prevent and respond to crime can discourage police activity, thereby creating greater opportunities for offending (Cressman, Morrison, and Wen 1998). Mead's (1918) discussion of punitive justice points to further, macro-level consequences of punishments based on an "attitude of hostility" that may underlie individual violent responses to crime. These effects include support for the narrow beliefs that crime is caused exclusively by individual characteristics and a corresponding decrease in concerns for the social conditions that contribute to it. Sanctions communicate a society's views on crime and punishment, but they also convey assumptions about individual rights and citizenship (Duff 1996). Treating people as citizens requires that punishment create prudential incentives to obey the law, but it must supplement and not replace rational, moral persuasion. As Bentham reminds us (in the gender-specific language of the time), "it has been too frequently forgotten, that the delinquent is a member of the community, as well as any other individual. . . His welfare is proportionately the welfare of the community-his suffering the suffering of the community" (quoted in Zimring and Hawkins 1973:42). Thus, although perceptions about danger may inform the decision to offend, a sanction system that resorts to fear of pain is not a panacea for crime. Danger and the Decision to Offend, Bill McCarthy, John Hagan, Social Forces. Chapel Hill: Mar 2005. Vol. 83, Iss. 3; pg. 1065, 32 pgs After Australia adopted a gun buyback program, overall homicide rate declined. Not only that but household victimization has also declined.
An estimated 259,800 households were victims of at least one break-in during the 2005 reference period, down from 354,500 in 2002. From this site If we followed your logic should not household crime increase?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
I'm old enough to remember the first time I heard the term "home invasion". I think an argument could be made that the m.o. was invented because so many homeowners had guns that the criminals decided there was no point in even starting with stealth.
And again there's no reason to suspect this escalation will occur, since criminals have all the opportunity in the world not to commit crimes. crashfrog writes:
It means they're going to shoot you if you resist. I'm not sure what "intensity" could possibly mean or how it could be measured - what, are they gonna take your stuff extra-hard? I have mentioned that we never seem to have violent home invasions around here. Why do you suppose that is? Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024