• 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!

Fighting back is the most effective way to reduce violent crime

Rich2018 said:
Fighting back when the victim of gun crime, is the surest way to get killed.
Click to expand...
At least some people have the balls to fight back. Even some deterrent is better than none. If no one ever fought back against criminals what do you think would happen Rich?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
At least some people have the balls to fight back. Even some deterrent is better than none. If no one ever fought back against criminals what do you think would happen Rich?
Click to expand...
People who don't think you should fight back have never been in a position where they have to. This is truly a opinion of a very decadent privileged person they aren't even aware of having to defend yourself such a foreign concept to them.

When push comes to shove I don't think such a person would just stand there and let someone kill them.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
At least some people have the balls to fight back. Even some deterrent is better than none. If no one ever fought back against criminals what do you think would happen Rich?
Click to expand...

...and you find them in cemeteries

Maidenrules29 said:
Im sure there are plenty of Republicans with health insurance Rich.
Click to expand...

Exactly !!!!
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Have to be a citizen or legal resident alien. People who are on vista's need not apply.
Click to expand...
Not true in Alaska. Anyone who is legally allowed to carry a firearm, and is at least 21 years old (which is unconstitutional now), can carry a firearm either concealed or openly. You do not need to be either a citizen or a legal resident, and you do not need to apply for a permit or license.
 
Rich2018 said:
...and you find them in cemeteries
Click to expand...


“Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal iconindicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.”

Fast Facts: Firearm Violence and Injury Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
 
Moon said:
“Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.
Click to expand...

Though, what constitutes "use" is open to debate.

Moon said:
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal iconindicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.”

Fast Facts: Firearm Violence and Injury Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...

As are the number of claimed incidents of "defensive gun use" that could not have resulted in an equally satisfactory result, without a gun.
 
Rich2018 said:
Though, what constitutes "use" is open to debate.



As are the number of claimed incidents of "defensive gun use" that could not have resulted in an equally satisfactory result, without a gun.
Click to expand...
Regardless of how you define use, each incident means one less crime committed, and no one ended up in a cemetery, contrary to your statement.
 
eohrnberger said:
The next that thing needs to happen is to remove / lighten the typical $200K in legal fees and other legal hassles for people defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property in the case where a shooting results.

There should be little to no penalties or punishment for defending yourself, your loved ones, or your property.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it all depends on the elected prosecutor. Today we have some prosecutors actively campaigning on the crimes they will refuse to enforce.

thehill.com

What’s behind rising violent crime? Progressive prosecutors’ non-enforcement of the law

When prosecutors set the tone by acting against quality-of-life crimes, more serious criminals know that laws will be enforced.
thehill.com thehill.com

If you are fortunate to get a reasonable prosecutor, then no one is ever charged with a crime in the first place if there is clear evidence of self-defense. Only the leftist "progressive" prosecutors want to make self-defense a crime, which is when it will cost $200K in legal fees.
 
Glitch said:
Unfortunately, it all depends on the elected prosecutor. Today we have some prosecutors actively campaigning on the crimes they will refuse to enforce.

thehill.com

What’s behind rising violent crime? Progressive prosecutors’ non-enforcement of the law

When prosecutors set the tone by acting against quality-of-life crimes, more serious criminals know that laws will be enforced.
thehill.com thehill.com

If you are fortunate to get a reasonable prosecutor, then no one is ever charged with a crime in the first place if there is clear evidence of self-defense. Only the leftist "progressive" prosecutors want to make self-defense a crime, which is when it will cost $200K in legal fees.
Click to expand...
Yet another ill considered and ill-though out progressive social theory and its results when it runs into reality (though the progressives will never admit it).
 
Moon said:
Regardless of how you define use, each incident means one less crime committed, and no one ended up in a cemetery, contrary to your statement.
Click to expand...

So defensive uses of guns = no fatalities then ?

May as well use less than lethal devices then.

And how was my previous post "contrary" to no fatalities ?
 
TurtleDude said:
Poll after poll of house invaders or burglars who have been incarcerated, proves these parasites fear armed homeowners more than anything else. And these predators are not stupid. They don't want to die. As I have noted several times in the past, a study was done where a researcher filmed people in a crowded shopping mall. The film was then shown to hardened street criminals in a state penitentiary and the convicts were asked who they would mug of those in the film. The answers varied-generally women or older folks were selected-especially those not paying attention (this might have been before cell phones were readily available). HOWEVER, there was one guy that every single mope said he would avoid. And at first glance it was surprising-the shopper was a man in his 50s or 60s Not a big man-maybe average height-no more than 150 pounds. But the convicts said the guy gave them "the willies". Watching the film, you could see this guy was completely alert. When he walked past a corner he positioned himself-almost instinctively, so that he wouldn't be surprised. He looked confident and prepared and one convict noted-"that dude would "F you up" and another said the guy looked like a stone cold killer. They were right-the guy was a highly decorated special operations veteran whose former military speciality was taking out sentries. Criminals sense that sort of danger
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to that study? I am interested in it.
 
Rich2018 said:
So defensive uses of guns = no fatalities then ?

May as well use less than lethal devices then.

And how was my previous post "contrary" to no fatalities ?
Click to expand...
Once more…

“Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.”

If you’ve defended yourself and others from a crime, then you’re not dead. Otherwise you’d be a murder statistic. You stated that people trying to fight back end up in cemeteries, but the CDC disagrees with you.
 
donhughesmusic said:
Do you have a link to that study? I am interested in it.
Click to expand...
It is so easy to find stuff on the internet these days. It amazes me that so many need it done for them. If you are interested...........search it.
 
Daddyo said:
It is so easy to find stuff on the internet these days. It amazes me that so many need it done for them. If you are interested...........search it.
Click to expand...
I did, I cannot find any such study.
 
donhughesmusic said:
I did, I cannot find any such study.
Click to expand...
You can find the study here:

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun - Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Volume 86, Number 1, 1995

More specifically, toward TurtleDude's comment about incarcerated criminals fearing armed homeowners, from the above study:

74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Armed citizens prevent more than 2.5 million crimes every year, and are responsible for killing more criminals than the police.
 
Glitch said:
You can find the study here:

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun - Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Volume 86, Number 1, 1995

More specifically, toward TurtleDude's comment about incarcerated criminals fearing armed homeowners, from the above study:

74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Armed citizens prevent more than 2.5 million crimes every year, and are responsible for killing more criminals than the police.
Click to expand...
aociswundumho said:
This one found most criminals will avoid an armed victim:



Here's another interesting one:

Click to expand...
Thank you guys, I'm extremely interested in how specifically the man was carrying himself in that mall scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom