• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ARM YOURSELVES-the Voice of the Pike County (Ohio) sheriff

What is a proportionate response to violence? I am curious.

Well that very much depends on the circumstances doesn't it. Far too often lethal response is the first and only response in the US.
 
Well that very much depends on the circumstances doesn't it. Far too often lethal response is the first and only response in the US.

That is not a answer. You used the words.....(proportional) & (lethal)

I asked you what a proportionate response is.

A proportional response can mean many different thing to different people.
 
Just relaying back to you what you stated. Your inference was very clear indeed !

Not having to live in such armed fear of each other is a freedom you will never know

More nonsense, I don't live in fear, and I don't spend time worrying about what my neighbors own
 
Just relaying back to you what you stated. Your inference was very clear indeed !

Not having to live in such armed fear of each other is a freedom you will never know

Why is it gun control advocates can rationalise anything away and do not have a clue what projection and transference is?

Please explain how fear and cowardice makes somebody decide to take responsibility for their own defence and bravery is seeking the protection of others.
 
That is not a answer. You used the words.....(proportional) & (lethal)

I asked you what a proportionate response is.

A proportional response can mean many different thing to different people.

It means if you are attacked with a pencil you have to find one of your own. A broom would be overkill.

Silly people want to give criminals a chance because they have your interests and heath at heart.
 
I'm not the one needing a firearm to feel adequate and heroic

You feel adequate and heroic by hiding behind governments skirts? Wow!!!

Taking responsibility for ones own safety far too often means resorting to a lethal response rather than a proportionate one. According to your own FBI only 1 in every 32 of your gun deaths is a defensive shooting anyway so your society is paying an incredibly heavy price in blood for your lethal comforters

I'm not quite sure what your point is here when between 1.2 and 2.5 million people defend against crime and criminal attack per year seems to show something completely different to your claims. A successful defence is not measured in dead bodies. I assume you are well aware of that and have ignored it in order to present rubbish and lies.

I have no idea what proportionate defence is. Is it when six nice gentlemen ask for your money with no visible weapons you must reciprocate like some sort of sporting event?

It is logical that disarming the victims of crime has very heavy blood price as has been seen by giving nuts a safe place to shoot children. How come gun control advocates are willing to accept this price in the blood of innocent children and want an even higher price?
 
Well that very much depends on the circumstances doesn't it. Far too often lethal response is the first and only response in the US.

It puts a price on crime instead of encouraging it as you do in the UK and pay the price for it in citizens trauma, safety and pocket.
 
Because professionals have a way of doing things, which is why they are referred to as professionals.

:roll:

Professional what has a way of doing things that is relevant here?
 
It is common cause the only person responsible for your safety is yourself. It is utterly ridiculous to think anyone else has this responsibility and those that claim it is others responsibility are mischievous agitators and stooges who care nothing for human life.

They are not stooges they are sheep. You have those of us that take charge and responsibility for our lives and you have those that need government to do it for them.
 
That is not a answer. You used the words.....(proportional) & (lethal)

I asked you what a proportionate response is.

A proportional response can mean many different thing to different people.

Well lets put it this way. We don't shoot shop lifters and bag snatchers here nor would we choose to
 
More nonsense, I don't live in fear, and I don't spend time worrying about what my neighbors own

Well if I was your neighbour I'd certainly worry about what you own given given some of your more rabid views expressed here
 
Well that very much depends on the circumstances doesn't it. Far too often lethal response is the first and only response in the US.

And what makes you an expert here in the US on whether the average gun owner responds with deadly force most of the time. It is quite obvious you know even less than our FBI. The FBI only knows reported gun use which is when someone is actually shot. That is probably only 1% of the times a gun has been used to detour the bad guy or send them running for their life.

Note:
Bad guys rarely report citizens who stop or detour them from criminal behavior. Neither do most gun owners who have detoured some criminal by informing the criminal they are armed and willing to use their gun to defend themselves, their family, and their home.

I have used my guns many times to detour criminals and have never shot anyone. I have displayed the gun and even fired them sending would be criminals running for their lives. The hoodlums are very courageous when there are several of them and one of you. That is until they here the sound of a 12 gauge loading a shell and see you step out holding it. Even then I have had them dare me to shoot them. What they don't know is the first round is just noise. A 3" magnum with the lead removed. One blast in the quiet of the night sends them running.

An hour or so later when the police finally get around to finding out what happened we tell them we think it was the local trouble makers shooting off fireworks.

There has been no trouble in our neighborhood now for a long time. I am not the only gun owner in my neighborhood that have sent trouble elsewhere. It is been over 10 years without any trouble in our neighborhood. No one has been shot and the trouble makers have moved on. Best yet no FBI reports needed. Our neighborhood watch sends them elsewhere permanently.
 
So you say you are somehow safer ?

I thought that was pretty clear. I'm really not sure how you get that disarming the victims of crime will make them safer but I am wiling to listen.

What a terrible shock it must be to you to have to avoid all those studies that show cross country comparisons are a crock of gun control sewerage. What a problem it must be to have the embarrassment of somebody giving your Switzerland and Japan to explain along with your claims and how your pesky figures just don't cut it when it comes to blaming guns.

So far you have batted a big fat zero
 
And what makes you an expert here in the US on whether the average gun owner responds with deadly force most of the time. It is quite obvious you know even less than our FBI.

I lived in Huntsville Alabama for nearly two years so I know enough to comment on your gun madness

The FBI only knows reported gun use which is when someone is actually shot. That is probably only 1% of the times a gun has been used to detour the bad guy or send them running for their life.

I'd seriously doubt that

An hour or so later when the police finally get around to finding out what happened we tell them we think it was the local trouble makers shooting off fireworks.

The fact that your police kill many thousands of times more people than ours do says enough. You 'gunners' like the violence to exist and wouldn't choose to have it any other way. The cost in blood that imposes on the rest of your society is a matter of supreme indifference for you as long as your guns are safe what else matters ? :(
 
Last edited:
I lived in Huntsville Alabama for nearly two years so I know enough to comment on your gun madness



I'd seriously doubt that



The fact that your police kill many thousands of times more people than ours do says enough. You 'gunners' like the violence to exist and wouldn't choose to have it any other way. The cost in blood that imposes on the rest of your society is a matter of supreme indifference for you as long as your guns are safe what else matters ? :(

many thousands times more people than british cops do

I'd like to see a credible citation for that. How many Irish did the British soldiers kill in the last 50 years?
 
I lived in Huntsville Alabama for nearly two years so I know enough to comment on your gun madness

I hardly see how British cowardice qualifies an answer to that.
I'd seriously doubt that

Whatever goes on in your selection process it is not logic.

The fact that your police kill many thousands of times more people than ours do says enough. You 'gunners' like the violence to exist and wouldn't choose to have it any other way. The cost in blood that imposes on the rest of your society is a matter of supreme indifference for you as long as your guns are safe what else matters ? :(

Let me post some interesting facts

Myth: Britain has strict gun control and thus a low crime rate
Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.

Fact: Ironically, firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. 17

Fact: Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). 18

Fact: 67% of British residents surveyed believed that “As a result of gun and knife crime [rising], the area I live in is not as safe as it was five years ago.” 19

GUNS IN OTHER COUNTRIES - U.K. Violent Crime Rates 1982 through 2010 covering gun control acts in 1998 and 1997 - revised - 2Fact: U.K. street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes were up 14%. 20

Fact: This trend continued in the U.K in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

Fact: “… [There is] nothing in the statistics for England and Wales to suggest that either the stricter controls on handguns prior to 1997 or the ban imposed since have controlled access to such firearms by criminals.” 22

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. 23 To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism. 24

Fact: An ongoing parliamentary inquiry in Britain into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation – double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago – and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of 25 possesses or has access to a firearm. 25

Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries. 26

Fact: Handguns were used in 3,685 British offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. 27 It is interesting to note:

Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.”
Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.

Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership. 28

Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) and has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. To date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland. 31

Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries
 
:coffeepap Shouldn't the title read.....

IF YOU ARE FEARFUL ARM YOURSELVES-the Voice of the Pike County (Ohio) sheriff

:eek:

I see and you do not fear being accosted by armed people which is why you support firearm ownership.

You would rather be killed by a criminal committing a crime than take a chance with armed citizens.

It takes a brave person to defend their lives not a coward who wants to disarm everyone because he fears them. Can you see that as a huge fail with projection of fear.

:2bow:

"I can tell you if you are fearful, arm yourself"

:eek:

It takes a brave person to defend their lives not a coward who wants to disarm everyone because he fears them. Can you see that as a huge fail with projection of fear.

You could have just said NO, the "IF YOU ARE FEARFUL" part really bothers you.

:mrgreen:
 
You could have just said NO, the "IF YOU ARE FEARFUL" part really bothers you.

:mrgreen:

Why would something like that bother me? What bothers me is fools making claims they cannot back up with the sole intention of trying to ridicule what they fear.

I accept there are many people who are to foolish to bother to check the validity of what gun control tells them, but does that give them the right to ram gun controls rhetoric down peoples throats as if their lives depended on it.
 
I was referring to the fact that the killing of this family in Ohio appears to be related to maintaining a drug grow on at least one of the premises. likely all 8 were not involved in drug activity, but one of them at least was, the others knew, and they apparently were tangling with some pretty dangerous people.

and so it makes little sense for the Sheriff to tell people "oh arm yourselves because of this one event" no the best defense is keeping you and your loved ones safe by not involving yourself in illicit activity. these weren't your normal burglars here. Firearms are a last resort defense option, your brain is the most powerful weapon for keeping yourself and your loved ones safe :peace

I tend to agree with your sentiments here. I have no sympathy or empathy for those who commit crimes suffering consequences at the hands of other criminals. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

That said, I think it's pretty telling that this Chief of Police would be publicly admitting that drug crime in his jurisdiction is out of control and he and his force are incapable of keeping his citizens reasonably safe. If he's voted in, he should be replaced in the next election. If he's appointed, he should be replaced by whatever body appointed him. His suggestion is irresponsible coming from law enforcement.
 
I tend to agree with your sentiments here. I have no sympathy or empathy for those who commit crimes suffering consequences at the hands of other criminals. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

That said, I think it's pretty telling that this Chief of Police would be publicly admitting that drug crime in his jurisdiction is out of control and he and his force are incapable of keeping his citizens reasonably safe. If he's voted in, he should be replaced in the next election. If he's appointed, he should be replaced by whatever body appointed him. His suggestion is irresponsible coming from law enforcement.

Well I'm not going to get on the sheriff for not BSing the populace.

Clearly the level of problem is way over this guys head and he probably doesn't have the men or resources to go to war with trained hit men.

He's not going to be unelected. It is not irresponsible to advocate gun ownership as it is a civil right in this country. All I'm saying is, if you're running a drug op for a cartel, the best home safety advice is not "get a gun" it is "get out of town under assumed identities[/I]
 
So I guess you are conceding the 1000s times more bit was a lie

Only if you can't count but then again you guys are pretty poor with numbers especially the ones you dont want to see :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom