OT: from NEWSMAX -Detroit Police Chief: Armed Citizens Deter Crime
dallas702
Wandering
- - 'Detroit Police Chief James Craig has an idea for fighting crime — arm more citizens.
"When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they'll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this police department,†said the chief at a press conference this week, The Detroit News reports.
The chief said he believes the financially crippled city's residents are feeling safer and violent crime dropped seven percent in 2013. But Craig said that he's changed his mind over the years over whether citizens should be armed.
He said that when he was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years, California law made it difficult to get a concealed weapon permit. However, when he became police chief in Portland, Me., in 2009 he changed his mind.
"I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation," Craig said. "I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.â€
Craig said on a radio show in mid-December that there are a number of people in Detroit with concealed pistol licenses (CPL), and he thinks it's a deterrent to crime.
"Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction," said Craig. "I learned that real quick in the state of Maine.â€
Craig's stance is unusual for a police chief, but Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police Director Robert Stevenson said that there are many police officers who have no problem when law-abiding citizens have guns, but they usually try to stay out of those discussions.
Craig's opinion, though, does not stretch to assault weapons, which he has said should be banned. He's also called for tight restrictions for online ammunition sales, to regulate high-capacity magazines, and for background checks for gun sales.
There were 15 justifiable homicides in Detroit in 2013, down from 25 in 2012, the Detroit News reports. In most of those cases, citizens were defending themselves by killing criminals.'
This is the first good news I have heard out of Detroit in decades. (The good clubs are in the suburbs!) I do not agree with the chief's position on "assault" weapons, ammo sales or "high capacity magazines".
What do you think?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
19 comments
Latest
Proponents of everyone being strapped should consider the fact that prison guards (the people most vulnerable to criminals) are never strapped when they're in a situation where the inmates could get the drop on them.
About 70 times every day a civilian good guy with a gun prevents a bad guy from hurting others, and seldom does the good guy have to pull a trigger. The national news seldom report these incidents, in part because they are usually not very interesting (think; "mugger runs away when intended victim draws handgun"). In part, the story of "good guy with gun stops crime" doesn't fit the script that news organizations use.
Up until about 100 years ago people were pretty much self reliant and police had very specialized functions, usually including property security, urban patrol and 'after the fact' investigation. It has only been with the tremendous growth in the size and cost of government (city, state and federal) that police have promoted themselves as "protectors." But the truth is, they cannot be everywhere and nut jobs, thieves and violent people can be anywhere.
I am not opposed to peace officers. My father was a deputy sheriff, one grandad was a town constable and the other was FBI (before the FBI was armed), and two ancestors were Texas Rangers. I have worked with local, state and federal law enforcement in a prior career and still stay in touch with some of them. I know some very good cops. But they cannot be everywhere and they cannot protect everyone all the time.
For instance, of the many school shootings in the past few years, the only time the crazy bad guy had to confront someone with a gun - the mentally ill little coward shot himself immediately! These sick people go to schools BECAUSE they KNOW there are no good guys with guns there. Same with movie theaters, or the Southside of Chicago.
Where "everybody knows" that some of the people are carrying guns, potential thieves, muggers and murderers don't misbehave. If you wanted to pull and armed robbery, would rob a gun show, a police station or a Starbucks with a "NO guns" sign outside? If I never (again) encounter a threatening situation that will be great. But because I am prepared, people around me are safer even if they don't know it.
Between the bug he has up his butt about the word gay (not necessarily implying anything there...), his insistence that "lesbian" only be applied to residents of an island with fewer than 100,000 people (alas NOT all hot lesbians), and his pointless posts 'bout guns (I get it dude...you likes your guns and fancy yourself a potential crime fightin' hero).
There are a lot of factors that have an impact on crime rates. Guns are only one of them and actual academic studies (not conducted by nut jobs with an axe to grind) have been highly equivocal. Some say yes guns help, some find no impact. Personally, I have no issue with law abiding non-idiots having guns and would be happiest to see gun laws reflect that (though Mr. Dallas has to give up his guns...only non-idiots can have firearms).
Riddle me this Mr. Dallas...if crime rates go down in all cases with the easy availability of guns then what the fuck is up with NOLA?
Of course, I would have little to worry 'bout. With the speed force I'd outrun any bullets and dispatch the criminal with the infinite mass punch. Easy peasy! Wally West ain't got nothin' on me mothahfuckah!!!
Try: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri…
for direct information on defensive use of weapons by civilians the Cato Institute study can be found at:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files…
www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes…
You know, one based upon actual science. The long and the short of conclusion is that it is difficult to say. So many factors other than guns have an impact upon crime that -- unless the streets really were filled with roving bands of "gun-totin' heros"TM like Mr. Dallas fancies himself to be -- it would be shocking to find that guns play an important role.
There is a reason the FBI doesn't keep statistics for this. No way to reliably assess crimes prevented. I bet Mr. Dallas is callin' 'em up e'ry day tellin' 'em that he prevented crimes 'cos he was all gunned up!
I mean really, just read the guys posts. Dude clearly thinks the fact that his packin' heat suppresses crime in his immediate area. I enjoy the superheros but know they're fiction. Mr. Dallas thinks he IS a superhero.
Maybe he should move to NOLA and fight crime there!!!
In reality, have no issue with Dallas wanting to retain his right to protect himself with a gun, assuming he is a law abiding citizen and doesn't do anything stupid with his gun(s). (For the record I don't consider *actually* preventing a crime, whether directed at oneself or another, to be stupid)
What I object to is the almost satirical positions the dude takes. Crime is a complex issue. If you look to Western Europe many countries have low murder rates and strong gun control. But Switzerland has tons o' guns and a low murder rate. That said, Norway has some of the strictest gun laws and essentially the same murder rate (slightly lower than Switzerland). There is a lot of hunting in Norway, but unless of read wrong Norwegians ain't walking the streets strapped (don't have to anyway withe the low crime anyway).
Do the same comparison in the states and you'll see similar patterns. NOLA is a frickin' war zone. Most cities I don't worry about wandering randomly into a sketchy area since I pay attention to the overall layout. Not so much with NOLA. But NOLA has lax gun laws.
Point being that guns ain't the variable that determines crime and this idea of "criminals won't do crime 'cos they think random dudes are packing" just doesn't hold water outside of fantasyland.
That said, I've seen no evidence that guns are bad socially (obviously they are on an individual level if you caught the bullet). So I'm fine with individual CHOOSING to carry or not as long as they don't do crime or stupid shit that hurts people.
But selling guns as a panacea for crime...that's bullshit and any reasonable analysis by actual social scientists that know what they're doing (and don't have an axe to grind) says it is.
Another Factor is honestly look at religion and religious beliefs or values. Because some of these area's in Europe have strong religious beliefs and strict conduct. Then look at some of the places in the USA....total difference. Now again I am not saying one religion is better than another or anything like that. Just saying morals and strong belief structure play a roll as well.
But like Zip is saying crime is based on many factors.
But like Dallas is saying and has a great point. Why do you think pshycos go to schools, public buildings, etc. ONe to make a scene and two they know that they don't have people who will resist with fire arms!!! Like he mentioned.....do criminals knowingly do a home invasion on a 25 year old MMA fighter or do they chose the elderly man who lives alone? They go where they will be able to intimidate and have no resistance.
I agree with your comment about criminals potentially targeting folks that seem weaker, and I'm all for folks taking whatever legal measures they want to defend themselves. But I'm highly skeptical that mass school shootings reflect the choice of a soft target. Somebody that does a mass shooting does it for emotional reasons. Killing children is, unfortunately, something that probably resonates with somebody that goes off the rails.
I'd be shocked if any of the recent school shooters did the calculus of "what's the likelihood of me being killed at a school vs a mall vs an NRA rally (I'd actually be curious what would happen with a miss shooting at an NRA rally...I suspect casualties would be higher due to panic and "friendly fire"...hopefully we won't find out).
If the pro guns in schools crowd proposed something reasonable, like giving faculty the right to do so as long as they kept regular on some sort of training, demonstrated proficiency, etc. perhaps it would be worth discussing. But just saying "have at it if you wanna come packing...". That'll be fun and games 'til panicky Mr. Appleby brings his Dirty Harry gun and starts blastin' away when a car backfires...
As far as crime going down if more people were legally armed? Some crime would absolutely go down. If muggers and armed robbers knew that 75% of the people around them were carrying a gun it would probably significantly decrease those crimes. It would also lead to more deaths and more shootouts when those crimes were attempted, I'm not sure that's a good thing.
The real issue though is just because people might stop committing those types of crime doesn't mean they won't commit any at all. If armed robberies and muggings decreased then auto theft and home burglaries would increase. Crime of this nature is driven by poverty and the things that go with it.
More importantly though if 75% of adults were armed you'd see a lot more bar fights, Walmart arguments and minor traffic accidents turn deadly.
As far as Western Europe and Scandinavia go, those are fairly homogeneous nanny states where poverty isn't nearly the issue it is in this country.
It can, and should, be a fairly significant process to carry a weapon particularly concealed. I used to carry concealed myself back when I traveled by car for work and often was in some fairly sketchy areas. The people with the willingness to jump through the hoops to carry aren't the people I'm worried about.