They Say Crime Is On The Decrease....

[monkeyfinger]

I watched an interview with the Dali Lama once. This American documentarian and devout Buddhist asked the holy man if he thought killing someone is acceptable. The Lama answered, "Life is the most precious thing. Your life is no less precious than another. So if someone is trying to take your life or cause you serious bodily harm, you not only have the right to protect your life by taking his, but you have an obligation to do so." The interviewer was so shocked at the answer that he paused, eyes wide, and in a stuttering voice asked the question again. The Lama, being a very wise man restated the same point of view.

Let's put statistics aside for a moment. Because numbers are often B.S. from both sides of the issue manipulated and at times outright fabricated to prove a point. The reality is that if I were in a situation where someone was intending to do immediate bodily harm to me or a member of my family, I hope I will have something that will stop the person from performing that act. I realize that introducing a gun could actually increase my chances of being seriously injured or killed, or the same happening to whoever is nearby. But remember, I am already defending against an immediate threat. There is no time to decide, only react. In this situation, doing nothing means I will die. Doing something may also mean I die, but may help me live. I don't believe in pulling out a gun to scare someone off. If it happens to scare someone off and they stop the attack good, but that is not the reason for pulling a gun out. I pull a gun out to stop that person from continuing his or her action. The only way I will know that person will stop from advancing is to completely incapacitate him or her. There is no shooting in the leg. There are no warning shots. I have a couple of seconds to stop that person. That's it. It is two or three shots to the chest area. If I am lucky they will stop. If not, I shoot more. This is not the movies. People don't just stop when they are shot. Someone who is in a rage or so violent that they want to kill me, my wife, or my son, don't give a damn about a bullet hole. All I can hope for it that their blood pressure drops fast enough to force them to stop. I don't intend to kill them. I am not a killer by any stretch of the word. I am not even a violent person. But if they die because of my attempt to stop them, I can live with that. But I am sure it will haunt me for the rest of my life. (I am sure any decent cop who faced the same would feel the same way.)

 

[Munjibunga]

It's not my fault you are unable to understand my statement. TEN million graduate degrees were issued for Bsc and up degrees in the period I mentioned, making them eligible for the petition you linked.

These are not confined to climate scientists, same as the petitioners were not.

Do your own research if you don't want to read the links I and others provide. You may also choose to read and understand the links you provide before ridiculing others, as it is not them who will appear to be the silly ones.

I'm glad you are bowing out because your habit of ridiculing others and your sarcasm turns every discussion into a futile and unpleasant experience. Funny though that you choose to do so after injecting another subject into the mix, and then bowing out when your primary source is shown to be an industry funded, unscientific, and ethically questionable propaganda piece that has become the backbone of the denier movement, endlessly trotted out again and again in spite of being debunked beyond argument.

I'm not dropping out, but I am with two fingers.

 

[One Drop]

The earth doesn't care one iota whether humans will survive. There have been several mass extinctions in which over 75 percent of all species went extinct. Humans evolved after the most recent one. No problem. A hundred and fifty years from now, every single person now on earth will be dead. In fact, 150,000 of us died today.

That's exactly my point. What kind of world do we want to leave to our kids.

Just because there are mass extinctions doesn't mean we have to be personally responsible as humans for causing them either. I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Munji? Are you saying we should just not give a damn?

 

[One Drop]

I watched an interview with the Dali Lama once. This American documentarian and devout Buddhist asked the holy man if he thought killing someone is acceptable. The Lama answered, "Life is the most precious thing. Your life is no less precious than another. So if someone is trying to take your life or cause you serious bodily harm, you not only have the right to protect your life by taking his, but you have an obligation to do so." The interviewer was so shocked at the answer that he paused, eyes wide, and in a stuttering voice asked the question again. The Lama, being a very wise man restated the same point of view.

Let's put statistics aside for a moment. Because numbers are often B.S. from both sides of the issue manipulated and at times outright fabricated to prove a point. The reality is that if I were in a situation where someone was intending to do immediate bodily harm to me or a member of my family, I hope I will have something that will stop the person from performing that act. I realize that introducing a gun could actually increase my chances of being seriously injured or killed, or the same happening to whoever is nearby. But remember, I am already defending against an immediate threat. There is no time to decide, only react. In this situation, doing nothing means I will die. Doing something may also mean I die, but may help me live. I don't believe in pulling out a gun to scare someone off. If it happens to scare someone off and they stop the attack good, but that is not the reason for pulling a gun out. I pull a gun out to stop that person from continuing his or her action. The only way I will know that person will stop from advancing is to completely incapacitate him or her. There is no shooting in the leg. There are no warning shots. I have a couple of seconds to stop that person. That's it. It is two or three shots to the chest area. If I am lucky they will stop. If not, I shoot more. This is not the movies. People don't just stop when they are shot. Someone who is in a rage or so violent that they want to kill me, my wife, or my son, don't give a damn about a bullet hole. All I can hope for it that their blood pressure drops fast enough to force them to stop. I don't intend to kill them. I am not a killer by any stretch of the word. I am not even a violent person. But if they die because of my attempt to stop them, I can live with that. But I am sure it will haunt me for the rest of my life. (I am sure any decent cop who faced the same would feel the same way.)

I understand his point, but to use a man who preaches love and understanding over violence as a justification for arming everyone with guns makes me step back and wonder if we've truly lost our minds.

As does the idea that arming everyone is somehow a good thing for any reason.

The idea that has become common that people are fixed, either food or bad, criminals or not also sickens me, as does the bandying around if terms like low income losers and the like.

What a depressing species we can be, so sad when we are the only one that is capable of living differently.

 

[Munjibunga]

That's exactly my point. What kind of world do we want to leave to our kids.

Just because there are mass extinctions doesn't mean we have to be personally responsible as humans for causing them either. I'm not sure what you are getting at here, Munji? Are you saying we should just not give a damn?

I'm just saying that eventually the earth will suffer another mass extinction regardless of our activity. Some are saying that we're in the midst of one now. Our attempts to stop it may be futile (I suspect they are). Even if humans did cause the next extinction, it would be just as natural (and ultimately as inconsequential) as any of the previous ones. That may be the human (intelligent species) legacy. It also may be why we're having such a hell of a time finding evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life - it may be that no species is intelligent enough to work its way through the maze of high technology before it destroys itself with it. A few Kim Jong Uns and sundry Ayatollahs can easily throw a wrench in the works.

Much of my career was spent managing groups doing environmental cleanup, so it's not that I don't care. But I'm not going to be the one to come up with the brilliant ideas on how to stop it, fix it, or deal with it. You go ahead and do that, OK? I'm trying to play as much bass as possible before San Diego (where I stay when I'm not at Groom) is under water. Based on calculations made by people wiser than me, my house will still be 100 feet above sea level if the polar caps melt.

 

[One Drop]

I'm just saying that eventually the earth will suffer another mass extinction regardless of our activity. Some are saying that we're in the midst of one now. Our attempts to stop it may be futile (I suspect they are). Even if humans did cause the next extinction, it would be just as natural (and ultimately as inconsequential) as any of the previous ones. That may be the human (intelligent species) legacy. It also may be why we're having such a hell of a time finding evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life - it may be that no species is intelligent enough to work its way through the maze of high technology before it destroys itself with it. A few Kim Jong Uns and sundry Ayatollahs can easily throw a wrench in the works.

Much of my career was spent managing groups doing environmental cleanup, so it's not that I don't care. But I'm not going to be the one to come up with the brilliant ideas on how to stop it, fix it, or deal with it. You go ahead and do that, OK? I'm trying to play as much bass as possible before San Diego (where I stay when I'm not at Groom) is under water. Based on calculations made by people wiser than me, my house will still be 100 feet above sea level if the polar caps melt.

I'm not a crusader nor particularly informed, it's just that I live in a beautiful country that has an enormous respect for its flora and fauna and the quality of its air. We committed to reducing carbon emissions and people happily recycle, don't litter, and there is s growing industry surrounding finding energy efficiencies and less polluting means of creating energy. We can have it both ways, and quality of life does not have to be measured in terms of strict economic growth and wealth creation.

 

[Munjibunga]

I'm not a crusader nor particularly informed, it's just that I live in a beautiful country that has an enormous respect for its flora and fauna and the quality of its air. We committed to reducing carbon emissions and people happily recycle, don't litter, and there is s growing industry surrounding finding energy efficiencies and less polluting means of creating energy. We can have it both ways, and quality of life does not have to be measured in terms of strict economic growth and wealth creation.

I don't disagree. I grew up in the sticks - I could walk out my back door and be out in the hills in five minutes. We didn't have the beautiful scenery of the Switzerland, but we had sage and scrub loaded with wildlife. The old neighborhood is mostly houses and auto repair shops now. But I just got back from a trip through Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and South Dakota and saw spectacular scenery for hundreds of miles comparable to what I saw in Bavaria and the Black Forest last year. I have a teenage daughter who I'd like to have access to those types of places (she did go on those trips, too). She says she wants to be an environmental engineer. Cool. So my spawn is interested in being involved in just what you're talking about.

 

[monkeyfinger]

I understand his point, but to use a man who preaches love and understanding over violence as a justification for arming everyone with guns makes me step back and wonder if we've truly lost our minds.

As does the idea that arming everyone is somehow a good thing for any reason.

The idea that has become common that people are fixed, either food or bad, criminals or not also sickens me, as does the bandying around if terms like low income losers and the like.

What a depressing species we can be, so sad when we are the only one that is capable of living differently.

You are making ridiculous statements that have no relation to the comments I made. No where in my statement did I imply that the Lama wanted to arm everyone. He simply stated that you have an obligation to protect your life even if it means taking the life of another. I did not say anything about arming everyone. I say that those who choose to carry a firearm should be able. If your country allowed carry of a firearm, would you? I am guessing not. And that is your choice. I bet that if you asked most of your friends and acquaintances, they would not either.

I don't hold to the idea that people are 'fixed, either good or bad' and I own guns. In fact my politics is close to Bernie Sanders. (He is a proponent of the second amendment and a liberal, BTW.) I believe in social and economic equality and for all. I want universal health care and support gay marriage. I am also an atheist. In short I don't fit the stereo type of a poorly educated, bible-thumping bigot that the anti-gunners present as a the American gun zealot. Guess what? There are a lot more people like me than there are of that guy.

In general, I find your statements steeped in the same anti-gun nonsense I read all the time. Somehow, you think that once guns become available, everyone is going to rush into the town square and enter into a giant shoot-out until one man is left standing. This is a ridiculous conclusion that implies a deep distrust of your fellow man. Those who desire guns to dominate and control others already have them. Some for good, like the police and army, and some for evil, like criminals and terrorists (and sometimes the police and army.) Everyone else just wants to live life, raise a family, have a beer with a friend, go to school, work, church, synagogue, mosque, etc. They just want to travel peaceably. And for some of us, that means carrying a firearm.

 

[One Drop]

You are making ridiculous statements that have no relation to the comments I made. No where in my statement did I imply that the Lama wanted to arm everyone. He simply stated that you have an obligation to protect your life even if it means taking the life of another. I did not say anything about arming everyone. I say that those who choose to carry a firearm should be able. If your country allowed carry of a firearm, would you? I am guessing not. And that is your choice. I bet that if you asked most of your friends and acquaintances, they would not either.

I don't hold to the idea that people are 'fixed, either good or bad' and I own guns. In fact my politics is close to Bernie Sanders. (He is a proponent of the second amendment and a liberal, BTW.) I believe in social and economic equality and for all. I want universal health care and support gay marriage. I am also an atheist. In short I don't fit the stereo type of a poorly educated, bible-thumping bigot that the anti-gunners present as a the American gun zealot. Guess what? There are a lot more people like me than there are of that guy.

In general, I find your statements steeped in the same anti-gun nonsense I read all the time. Somehow, you think that once guns become available, everyone is going to rush into the town square and enter into a giant shoot-out until one man is left standing. This is a ridiculous conclusion that implies a deep distrust of your fellow man. Those who desire guns to dominate and control others already have them. Some for good, like the police and army, and some for evil, like criminals and terrorists (and sometimes the police and army.) Everyone else just wants to live life, raise a family, have a beer with a friend, go to school, work, church, synagogue, mosque, etc. They just want to travel peaceably. And for some of us, that means carrying a firearm.

You are the one jumping to conclusions. I was making general comments about some of the attitudes in this thread, and found it bizarre to hear the answer to an extreme hypothetical situation given by a proponent of peace appear in a discussion about gun ownership.

I made no assumptions about your politics.

The thing about the guns is that if they are not strictly controlled, access becomes very easy by criminals, the mentally unstable, and, well, anyone who wants one.

Most anti gun proponents in the U.S., I would wager, are okay with gun ownership but just want a better control of ownership and traceability of sales, and the requirements of training and that owners can prove that are if sound enough mind to own and operate them, at least equal to that of car ownership.

The NRA has elevated an otherwise fairly uncontentious proposition such as this to the level of treason, and has made arming every man woman and child their goal, fighting all attempts at a workable enforceable solution that balances freedom with common sense and the Constitution.

 

[monkeyfinger]

I am not a fan of the NRA. I think automated background checks make sense. (So did the NRA at one point.) I am for closing the gun show loophole.

 

[One Drop]

I am not a fan of the NRA. I think automated background checks make sense. (So did the NRA at one point.) I am for closing the gun show loophole.

At some point the NRA went from representing responsible gun ownership to being an outright lobbying arm of the industry. In the process that have become extremely powerful politically and it is a real shame. Some of their recent positions and remarks by their leadership border on the psychotic, IMO.

 

[monkeyfinger]

Yes, I find they spend a great deal of time demonizing politicians when it is not warranted. FUD -- the tools of lobbyists.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Fact, really? Not so sure.

Threat is just as big in Europe street cops don't walk around like an invading army.

I don't believe the threat is as great in Europe. You don't allow private ownership of guns in Europe anywhere never what is allowed in the U.S. Here is a link to the statistics: Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Police in the U.S. don't typically walk around like an invading army. You're watching too much television. When you see incidents significant enough to make it to European news outlets, it is serious enough they have to bring in the SWAT team. The do look like an invading army. And usually rightly so given the nature of the situation.

 

[monkeyfinger]

In the age of media, it is increasingly difficult to separate perception from reality.

 

[metron]

Seems pretty inconclusive whether or not crime in general is decreasing. Such a broad question seems sort of useless to me though because is that a sum of all crime in all places? Seems like a very difficult thing to accurately calculate for not much value to each of us individually. Obviously localized stats are something that could be useful. Can't say that I've personally read into what's happening in West Denver or the city though.

On a point that was made earlier about people defending their homes with firearms, I agree that the vast majority of those that are armed are ill-prepared to actually engage such a situation. As a firearm owner, I have thought it over enough that I think their best place in my home is locked in a large heavy safe in the basement. Not going to risk potential accident with a loaded bedside weapon for the unlikely situation that someone will break in and I could actually stop them. I mean... if I've had 3 beers, forget it. My girl could be punching me in the face and I won't budge. I use them for recreational purposes only. If someone really wants to get serious about home defense, an effective perimeter and security system is way more effective. Can't go to the store and buy that for $600 though. I'm also not delusional enough to think if there were ever an "popular uprising" against a "tyrannical police/military force" that my handguns would be effective for more than 2-3 seconds against the kind of stuff they employ.

 

[One Drop]

I don't believe the threat is as great in Europe. You don't allow private ownership of guns in Europe anywhere never what is allowed in the U.S. Here is a link to the statistics: Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Police in the U.S. don't typically walk around like an invading army. You're watching too much television. When you see incidents significant enough to make it to European news outlets, it is serious enough they have to bring in the SWAT team. The do look like an invading army. And usually rightly so given the nature of the situation.

Sorry, but I've lived and traveled in the U.S. Since I was a boy and the relationship between the police and citizens has always been adversarial.

As a Canadian I was often surprised by the heavy handed policing, from being regularly pulled over by state troopers and given the little speech about how I was expected to move on through the county and how it was understood I would not be making any trouble, to the many times I saw takedowns of people in the street, regular stop and search in NYC, etc etc.

I'm not even going into the racial aspect in many areas.

Stuff that seems normal and necessary in the U.S. is incredibly rare elsewhere in Western democracies, and I know because I've lived in many of them.

I'd think twice about approaching a cop anywhere in the states for any reason.

Too many cops busting down doors, too much arresting people on trumped up suspicion, too many corrupt cops and bad eggs, too little training on how to de-escalate and treat mentally ill people, and an increasing mindset amongst forces of order that the public is the enemy.

Add to this the multiple agencies operating on American soil and the spying on your citizenry (I know personally of many artists that were visited and put under surveillance in NYC post 9-11)
and it gets very hard to justify their MO.

IMO there is virtually no situation where cops should behave like an invading army. In such circumstances why not declare martial law and get the army in? Because it would be unacceptable, as is such action on the part of police forces.

Not sure why so many citizens defend their own rights being eroded so comprehensively. Maybe the constant state of fear of terrorism and the threat of crime from the issue not being addressed is allowing this. I hope I'm wrong but I think people are sleepwalking into a much less free future and owning guns will not help you defend yourselves.

 

[One Drop]

Seems pretty inconclusive whether or not crime in general is decreasing. Such a broad question seems sort of useless to me though because is that a sum of all crime in all places? Seems like a very difficult thing to accurately calculate for not much value to each of us individually. Obviously localized stats are something that could be useful. Can't say that I've personally read into what's happening in West Denver or the city though.

On a point that was made earlier about people defending their homes with firearms, I agree that the vast majority of those that are armed are ill-prepared to actually engage such a situation. As a firearm owner, I have thought it over enough that I think their best place in my home is locked in a large heavy safe in the basement. Not going to risk potential accident with a loaded bedside weapon for the unlikely situation that someone will break in and I could actually stop them. I mean... if I've had 3 beers, forget it. My girl could be punching me in the face and I won't budge. I use them for recreational purposes only. If someone really wants to get serious about home defense, an effective perimeter and security system is way more effective. Can't go to the store and buy that for $600 though. I'm also not delusional enough to think if there were ever an "popular uprising" against a "tyrannical police/military force" that my handguns would be effective for more than 2-3 seconds against the kind of stuff they employ.

Really good points and ones that most people don't want to hear, because it's hard to accept that there is really little one can do once one's home is being invaded or when being attacked or mugged on a street, the occasional video showing otherwise notwithstanding.

 

[monkeyfinger]

I would agree that I am not trained in home defense with firearms. However, if someone has entered my home and demonstrates intent to cause immanent sever physical harm or death, I would still prefer to have a firearm in my hands. Maybe they will take it away from me and use it to kill me and my family. But I am assuming that even without my firearm in their hands, they intend to kill me and my family. I am certainly expecting them to leave after a firm but polite order.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

Sorry, but I've lived and traveled in the U.S. Since I was a boy and the relationship between the police and citizens has always been adversarial.

As a Canadian I was often surprised by the heavy handed policing, from being regularly pulled over by state troopers and given the little speech about how I was expected to move on through the county and how it was understood I would not be making any trouble, to the many times I saw takedowns of people in the street, regular stop and search in NYC, etc etc.

I'm not even going into the racial aspect in many areas.

Stuff that seems normal and necessary in the U.S. is incredibly rare elsewhere in Western democracies, and I know because I've lived in many of them.

I'd think twice about approaching a cop anywhere in the states for any reason.

Too many cops busting down doors, too much arresting people on trumped up suspicion, too many corrupt cops and bad eggs, too little training on how to de-escalate and treat mentally ill people, and an increasing mindset amongst forces of order that the public is the enemy.

Add to this the multiple agencies operating on American soil and the spying on your citizenry (I know personally of many artists that were visited and put under surveillance in NYC post 9-11)
and it gets very hard to justify their MO.

IMO there is virtually no situation where cops should behave like an invading army. In such circumstances why not declare martial law and get the army in? Because it would be unacceptable, as is such action on the part of police forces.

Not sure why so many citizens defend their own rights being eroded so comprehensively. Maybe the constant state of fear of terrorism and the threat of crime from the issue not being addressed is allowing this. I hope I'm wrong but I think people are sleepwalking into a much less free future and owning guns will not help you defend yourselves.

You are getting into politics. I wont go there.

 

[loveandbass]

i would like to know the percentage of guns purchased for home protection that have actually been used for home protection. I would venture to guess its less than .001 %