public servant

[oicu812]

do you think police carry firearms to protect you, or themselves? which group do you think the firearms protect most often?

 

[Huskyoverlord]

do you think police carry firearms to protect you, or themselves? which group do you think the firearms protect most often?

The feral pigs running loose all over this country.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I'm pretty old, and while I have witnessed police officers using deadly force several times, I can't recall a single incident in which deadly force was used for the purpose of protecting a civilian. I'm sure it must have happened sometime... somewhere?

Most of the police shootings that have happened in my area have been shootings of unarmed criminal suspects.

 

[Proud Progressive]

The feral pigs running loose all over this country.

You seem to have to have problem with reading comprehension .

Try reading the questions again.

This time more slowly.

Don't get discouraged.

It'll come to you eventually Sport.

 

[oicu812]

if, as we all know, police carry firearms to protect themselves against criminals, doesn't it follow that civilians be afforded the same protection? since most crime is committed against civilians and not police..

 

[Huskyoverlord]

You seem to have to have problem with reading comprehension .

Try reading the questions again.

This time more slowly.

Don't get discouraged.

It'll come to you eventually Sport.

the police are the feral pigs I was refering too

 

[BleedingHeadKen]

do you think police carry firearms to protect you, or themselves? which group do you think the firearms protect most often?

The police carry firearms to protect the will of the political class. They will harm you, often eagerly, if you violate a dictate of legislation or administrative fiat. They may also protect you from real harm, but that is not their primary role nor are they required to do so.

 

[oicu812]

thats true, at the academy they will tell you, there are police, and everybody else....most cities have removed the "to protect and serve" logos on their patrol cars...now their primary job is revenue collection...

 

[fairsheet]

do you think police carry firearms to protect you, or themselves? which group do you think the firearms protect most often?

"Police hate".....good luck with that angle.

 

[888888]

I have no problem with civilians carrying guns for their own protection. But what i would like to see is everyone who wants to do this should be made to pay a yearly amount to an insurance issued by the USA that will pay a set amount to people who are killed innocently by those who have chosen to carry and in the process people lose their liefs because of it, but not anyone who choses to carry. They can get their own life insurance.

 

[888888]

thats true, at the academy they will tell you, there are police, and everybody else....most cities have removed the "to protect and serve" logos on their patrol cars...now their primary job is revenue collection...

really, got some facts to back this up? enforcing the law has always been part of the job, and that is from Jay walking to bank robbery to running down criminals who have committed crimes from minor theft to murder. Sure there are picks who have guns and badges, but on the whole they are decent people trying to do their jobs, who sometimes over step their duty.

 

[fairsheet]

This "philosophical" question as to whether our civil police are armed so's to defend us or themselves, is equivalent to our asking whether we arm our soldiers for our sake or theirs.

 

[NightSwimmer]

This "philosophical" question as to whether our civil police are armed so's to defend us or themselves, is equivalent to our asking whether we arm our soldiers for our sake or theirs.

Yep. Same question... Same answer.

 

[trapdoor]

I have no problem with civilians carrying guns for their own protection. But what i would like to see is everyone who wants to do this should be made to pay a yearly amount to an insurance issued by the USA that will pay a set amount to people who are killed innocently by those who have chosen to carry and in the process people lose their liefs because of it, but not anyone who choses to carry. They can get their own life insurance.

Can you show that there is a statistically significant number of people injured in this manner? If not, then you're merely trying to restrict the right to self defence.

 

[degsme]

Can you show that there is a statistically significant number of people injured in this manner? If not, then you're merely trying to restrict the right to self defence.

Actually the data on statistical signficance is quite high. And the unreported rate of Felony Brandishment (or whatever the local jurisdication's equivilent is) is also quite high as evidence on the FBI's "DUG" statistics in "preventing" rape.

 

[trapdoor]

Actually the data on statistical signficance is quite high. And the unreported rate of Felony Brandishment (or whatever the local jurisdication's equivilent is) is also quite high as evidence on the FBI's "DUG" statistics in "preventing" rape.

Please, Degs. "Felony brandishment" isn't what is under discussion here. 888888 specifically spoke of gun owners paying for extra insurance to "pay a yearly amount to an insurance issued by the USA that will pay a set amount to people who are killed innocently by those who have chosen to carry and in the process people lose their liefs (sic) because of it."

And that is a statistically insignificant number.

As for the "unreported rate" of felony brandishment -- how can we know that rate is increasing, decreasing or even statistically significant if it is unreported? And for that matter, how do we know the statistics on the successful use of firearms for self defense when there are no shots fired, and hence no report filed? "Unreported" is the key word here -- we don't know the numbers so your critique of such numbers is shear speculation.

 

[degsme]

Please, Degs. "Felony brandishment" isn't what is under discussion here. 888888 specifically spoke of gun owners paying for extra insurance to "pay a yearly amount to an insurance issued by the USA that will pay a set amount to people who are killed innocently by those who have chosen to carry and in the process people lose their liefs (sic) because of it."

And that is a statistically insignificant number.

No its not. Its the second leading single cause of death after motorvehicle accidents http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final Resource Book Updated 2009 Section 1.pdf

More than ALL Drug Overdoses combined http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30
More than post abortion suicides
More than accidents in the workplace http://www.cdc.gov/injury/overview/data.html

As for the "unreported rate" of felony brandishment -- how can we know that rate is increasing, decreasing or even statistically significant if it is unreported?

Because we can look at the FBI data that compares actual reported rapes for similar populations with and without concealed Carry. and the CC region shows the same rates of actual reported rape for similar demographics, but DUG in the concealed carry jurisdiction shows MORE THAN the total number of rapes as "prevented by defensive use of guns".

Now since there isn't a significant difference in the actual commission of the rapes, what it tells you is that pretty much ALL of the so called "defensive use of gun" to "prevent rape" actually turns out to be "felony brandishment"... but of course it doesn't get reported becuase... well because the smartest thing to do when someone starts waving a gun around is to get the hell out of there...

 

[trapdoor]

No its not. Its the second leading single cause of death after motorvehicle accidents http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final Resource Book Updated 2009 Section 1.pdf

No, it is not. Shootings in general are the second leading cause of death for a specific AGE GROUP (15 to 24). And even then, your statistic doesn't people injured illegitimately in the course of otherwise legal self defense. It lists causes of death for the age group (from CDC) and shows that there were a little less than 16,000 deaths of all types in that age group resulting from "unintentional injury." A very slim slice of that bar on the graph, amounting to a few hundred deaths, are unintentional injuries resulting from firearms. This is far from the thousands of deaths from automotive accidents, and even below the rougly 3,000 such deaths your chart shows that result from homicide and legal intervention (they shouldn't be lumped together). Of course, your CDC chart is also seven years out of date, and doesn't reflect the overall falling number of shootings in the United States over that 7/10 of a decade.

[

More than ALL Drug Overdoses combined http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

No, as once again you're comparing ALL shootings to the shootings 88888 introduced to the discussion -- which would be untintentional shootings happening as a result of intentional self defense.

More than post abortion suicides

More than accidents in the workplace http://www.cdc.gov/injury/overview/data.html

Same thing as above.

Because we can look at the FBI data that compares actual reported rapes for similar populations with and without concealed Carry.

And that will NOT tell you how many unreported brandishings there were. It would provide no such statistic. It would only show that however many there were, they had no significant impact on the rape rate, a figure immaterial to the woman who has scared off a rapist with her weapon. She doesn't care if her action reduced crime or not, and it may not have as the rapist may merely have run off to prey on a less well-prepared victim. No, that comparison will not provide any cover for the idea that such "felony brandishings" are or are not taking place.

Now since there isn't a significant difference in the actual commission of the rapes, what it tells you is that pretty much ALL of the so called "defensive use of gun" to "prevent rape" actually turns out to be "felony brandishment"... but of course it doesn't get reported becuase... well because the smartest thing to do when someone starts waving a gun around is to get the hell out of there...[/

No, Degs. If you're a rapist and someone points a gun at you, the smart thing to do is run away and rape someone who doesn't have a gun.

 

[degsme]

Because we can look at the FBI data that compares actual reported rapes for similar populations with and without concealed Carry.

And that will NOT tell you how many unreported brandishings there were. It would provide no such statistic. It would only show that however many there were, they had no significant impact on the rape rate, a figure immaterial to the woman who has scared off a rapist with her weapon

Um Trap - this requires us to believe things for which no supportive data exists:
Either
1) such DuGs were involved in a rape situation but did not reduce the rate of rape, yet despite the rape, the gun was not taken to be reused or resold

2) that in population B the rate of Attempted Rape is MORE THAN 200% of what it is in population A despite the PRESENCE of concealled Carry

And there simply is no data for this. Your notion of "run off and rape someone else" doesn't hold either since that would lead to more violent rapes (since rape frustrated results in increased anger). And there simply is no such data

So while the comparison doesn't DIRECTLY tell us the rate of felony brandishments, it gives us a baseline LIKELIHOOD of such behaviour.

No, Degs. If you're a rapist and someone points a gun at you, the smart thing to do is run away and rape someone who doesn't have a gun

Right and if you aren't a rapist your best idea is to stick around when some random wacko is accusing you of rape and pointing a gun at you.... RIGHTT....

Sorry, no. You run the fack away the way I did in the two circumstances I have had the displeasure of being on the receiving end of - and the two circumstances I was told about (proudly by the brandishers).

And if you are a rapist - since rape is primarily a crime of dominance and anger - being "driven off" means your level of anger and violence GOES UP. And yet the data shows no such occurance.

These weren't DUGs... these were mostly felony brandishments,

 

[trapdoor]

Um Trap - this requires us to believe things for which no supportive data exists:
Either
1) such DuGs were involved in a rape situation but did not reduce the rate of rape, yet despite the rape, the gun was not taken to be reused or resold

Somehow, you're confusing self defense in a rape situation with self-defense generally. Even so, the statistics you're citing utterly failes to make your case. Party A wants to rape Party B. Party B "felony brandishes" a firearm. Party A flees, and assaults Party C. The number of rapes has not been diminished as one still takes place. The firearm isn't stolen and used elsewhere because the assailant has flown the coop. As all of this goes unreported, there is no record of it, and hence no statistic that involves the use of the weapon, at all.

2) that in population B the rate of Attempted Rape is MORE THAN 200% of what it is in population A despite the PRESENCE of concealled Carry

And again, this isn't what the statistics you're attempting to cite show. You are making up a statistic out of thin air, attempting to extrapolate the idea that where there is ready concealed carry, there is a reduction in rape numbers. I don't know where that idea came from, but I know that the number of unreported uses of firearms for self defense generates few statistics.

And there simply is no data for this. Your notion of "run off and rape someone else" doesn't hold either since that would lead to more violent rapes (since rape frustrated results in increased anger). And there simply is no such data

Oh, BS -- you can't provide a statistic that proves that one way or another. As there would be no statistic generated by the first assault, we would have no knowledge of how it affected the baseline statistic for known assaults -- the baseline would be generated incorporating the first assault. But you're right, there's no such data (because such "felony brandishments" don't generate any data).

So while the comparison doesn't DIRECTLY tell us the rate of felony brandishments, it gives us a baseline LIKELIHOOD of such behaviour.

No, it doesn't do that -- because we have no way of determining a baseline.

Right and if you aren't a rapist your best idea is to stick around when some random wacko is accusing you of rape and pointing a gun at you.... RIGHTT....

Yeah -- that's a common problem... .RIGHT.

And if you are a rapist - since rape is primarily a crime of dominance and anger - being "driven off" means your level of anger and violence GOES UP. And yet the data shows no such occurance.

You were still planning a rape, if you were a rapist, Degs. The data would be unaffected if you still committed one. Rapists are effectively bullies. Just like bullies they thrive on dominance and violence, and just like bullies, once one is after you there is effectively only one way to eliminate the threat -- by making certain the bully knows there's an effective counter threat. This will not make the rapist a non-rapist, nor the bully a non-bully. It means they bother someone else other than you.

THese weren't DUGs... these were mostly felony brandishments,[/

As you described them, in one of the instances you faced, that wasn't true. The person had a reason to feel threatened. It's interesting to me, however, that I grew up in a much more firearms saturated environment than you did, and yet I've NEVER had someone point a gun at me. Apparently it isn't the presence of the guns that is the problem.


And yet many times when no shots are fired, an effective piece of self defense has taken place.

And I note that you have dropped your claim about "the most common form of death except for automobile accidents." You've also dropped from the discussion how uncommon deaths are, when they're the deaths 88888 introduced to the conversation -- a person fires in self defense and injures an innocent bystander. Kindly acknowledge the debunking of your statements in that area.