I Do Not Like Stalkers Bunch of desperate leeches

[Watermonkey 0]

[1]I've used a knife and a gun before. [2]The knife usually kitchen stuff and opening packages with plastic packaging that just won't open! The gun was a sniper rifle. And my dad also owned a gun.
[3]Are you implying that it doesn't take time to properly handle a gun?
[4]And also a place that is unnecessary for a gunwhich is exactly the place where the person would be justified in self-defence.
[5]I'd run too if i saw someone pull out gun intending to use it!
[6]So do tasers, and knives.
[7]You may doubt it, but people are people.
[8:1]True, but the offender would think twice after being stabbed or jolted. [8:2]Mhmm.
[9]There is still one factor: the offender must pose as a threat before any action can be taken. By then, it may be too late no matter what defense weapon you have.
[10]Maybe.

1) Surprising
2) You must've been in the military or were you sniping for deer to put meat on the table? Why did dear old Dad own a gun? Self defense?
3) I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it would take weeks or months to learn to handle a knife in a fashion or manner consistent with using it as a tool for self-defense for a smaller person (F) to defend herself against a larger person (M) successfully. To learn how to safely handle a firearm, one needs about an hour in the class room and an hour or so at the range.
4) very very wrong. All you need is cause for alarm. If perp is coming at you with the clear intent to do you harm and you fear for you life, you pull out that "smokewagon" and burn him down. That's the law, you are fearing for your life, and if you're a female, you'll not even be questioned by all but the most hateful of women-haters because you don't have any chance again such aggression.
5) that kinda proves my point right there!
6) Tasers are not nearly as reliable as guns as they require batteries and electronics to work, also, if you're talking about the kind that shoots the leads attached to wires, that's the only shot you'll get, when if you miss? What happens if there are more then one perps? Happens all the time. I'll take the good old reliable firearm with 15 rounds (plus one in the chamber) thank you very much. I'd be happy, ecstatic even, to go into a gun fight where I knew the other person is only armed with a taser!
7) That's exactly why I like to be armed around them. People are people and they're the most unpredictable, violent, unsavory animals on the planet!
8) That's if he was stabbed or jolted. I'd rather he didn't think at all after attacking me or my lady! I'd rather she were armed with the means to stop his terrible thoughts!
9) Already covered. If she's fearing for her safety, then she has the legal right and obligation to defend herself with any and all necessary means including lethal force.
10) Maybe? OK, you're right, perps are also gang members, bad LEO's (rare, but they're out there too), your garden-variety serial killers and so on. Any way you shake it, they're looking for the weak, defenseless sheep in the herd and they'll take them by force and do things to them if they (the prey) aren't packing heat.

Walk lightly and carry a .44 Magnum!
Edited May 26, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

[1]Author implies physical contact by the offender must be made to warrant use of deadly force. Implication is false, and thus renders rest of statement irrelevant. Use of deadly force is warranted at such time individual feels another poses threat to her person - whether or not physical contact has been made.
[2]Yes, and the same could be said for a water pistol or blow dart. I doubt the offender would be impressed, though. I know I'm certainly not.

[3]48 out of 50 states allow some form of legal concealed carry. Seems argumentative at best, considering the original argument concerned non-concealed carry.

[4:1]Author is free to carry a short Katana or taser that extends a "certain" distance. [4:2]Women who actually want to maintain a healthy distance from the offender while maintaining control over the situation are better advised to carry a pistol.

[5]Author bemoans so-called lack of statistics in one statement while belittling their importance in the next. This creates rather shaky ground for a rational debate. I have provided sound, logical, FACTS based on scientific study to support my argument, and have yet to hear the same from anti-gun supporters. Where are the statistics that prove women can fend off attackers better with taesers or knives than they can with guns? If you're going to refute the statistical evidence, you'd better have more than lip service to back it up.

(Your form of debate is such i've never seen before: i praise you for uniqueness.)

[1]I'm sorry, but this somewhat tells me that the system is corrupt. What if i were to get shot 'cause i wanted to ask her a question (e.g. ask for directions to a place, for i am new to the area)? I would not be capable of believing that i could get shot and have no way of defending myself, for they claim self-defense.

[2]Then why should we even bother mentioning it?

[3]I apologize for being ignorant of all the weapon-bearing laws in all 50 states. I've only read the ones for a couple of states (Florida and Michigan), and that was a long time ago. The laws could have changed for anyone one of them, however.

[4:1]Sorry, i meant replace it for the defender. I'll try to be more explicit next time. [4:2]May i ask what situation? They're at a safe distance, what could happen? Secondly, how do they even know that it's an offender? If they did know, that person would probably be violating their restraining order, for they've been caught before.

[5]You fail to even link to these "FACTS" which you claim support your argument. I could very well, just like you, clalim that my statements are scientifically proven which support my argument. I for one did not state anything illogical, just like you, to render my argument false at any time. If you're even going to claim statistical evidence, provide some reference. You seem to be, like me, using nothing but logic to support your claims.

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

1) Surprising2) You must've been in the military or were you sniping for deer to put meat on the table? Why did dear old Dad own a gun? Self defense?
3) I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it would take weeks or months to learn to handle a knife in a fashion or manner consistent with using it as a tool for self-defense for a smaller person (F) to defend herself against a larger person (M) successfully. To learn how to safely handle a firearm, one needs about an hour in the class room and an hour or so at the range.
4) very very wrong. All you need is cause for alarm. If perp is coming at you with the clear intent to do you harm and you fear for you life, you pull out that "smokewagon" and burn him down. That's the law, you are fearing for your life, and if you're a female, you'll not even be questioned by all but the most hateful of women-haters because you don't have any chance again such aggression.
5) that kinda proves my point right there!
6) Tasers are not nearly as reliable as guns as they require batteries and electronics to work, also, if you're talking about the kind that shoots the leads attached to wires, that's the only shot you'll get, when if you miss? What happens if there are more then one perps? Happens all the time. I'll take the good old reliable firearm with 15 rounds (plus one in the chamber) thank you very much. I'd be happy, ecstatic even, to go into a gun fight where I knew the other person is only armed with a taser!
7) That's exactly why I like to be armed around them. People are people and they're the most unpredictable, violent, unsavory animals on the planet!
8) That's if he was stabbed or jolted. I'd rather he didn't think at all after attacking me or my lady! I'd rather she were armed with the means to stop his terrible thoughts!
9) Already covered. If she's fearing for her safety, then she has the legal right and obligation to defend herself with any and all necessary means including lethal force.
10) Maybe? OK, you're right, perps are also gang members, bad LEO's (rare, but they're out there too), your garden-variety serial killers and so on. Any way you shake it, they're looking for the weak, defenseless sheep in the herd and they'll take them by force and do things to them if they (the prey) aren't packing heat.

Walk lightly and carry a .44 Magnum!

[1]Oh? Wait till i respond to number two!
[2]Surprising part: it was at church. Ever heard of the Royal Rangers? It's like Boyscouts in the name of Christ. We were supervised of course, and all we did was shoot soda cans. And i don't know why my dad owned a gun: i never asked, nor did i live with him (at the time). Plus, keeping it under the kitchen sink is kinda hard to provide convenience for self defense.
[3]Glad i asked. But what about quick learners? Also, how could something smaller, more lightweight and easier to carry around—which does not require any reloading and much, if not any, care-taking (when compared to a gun) take longer to learn how to use, even more so when there are switchblades and similar knives that at the push of a button are ready for action?
[4]Reminds me of something i heard on the news a long time ago about a man who got assaulted, robbed and then got sued by the person that assulted him, and the attacker won the case! I'm sorry that i cannot provide reference for this news article, it is very old and it was local news. To even find the right keywords for it would take forever. However, if you want me to try and dig it out or at least a similar one, then i will try. I apologize in advance for failure to find it, if at all i do not find it.
[5]Indeed; however, i was implying that you failed to claim but implied the reason on why she even dared. You back her up through the law, however. Do you even know how many people around my neighborhood i could claim pose a threat to me just by their looks?
[6]What if you've placed the safety on your gun on? Indeed, what if there were more than one? You shoot one, feel safe, then because of your security, you drop your guard. Uh oh... What if you've been practicing using your gun too much that your forgot to reload? Indeed, a backup self-defense weapon would be good for both the gun and the taser.

I would certainly fear for my life if i were near you and you had a gun.
[7]Can't argue there.
[8]I'm sure many would rather have it that way too.
[9]Fearing for her safety could mean being handled aggressively by a stranger. You have to go into further definition when mentioning, "fearing for her safety."
[10]Even if they weren't packing heat, if they were in public, where screaming for help would immediately have people rushing to the rescue, the stalker would very well think twice.

[OpaQue 15]

a thought or a point can be expressed in following ways here :-1. As a Statement. Publically acceptable.2. As an opinion. (which states that the arguement is completely personal)3. OR remarking other member's point.When remarking, try to keep your sentence as a statement. Do not assume things about others which might be offensive.// Lets stick back to the topic. Any comments are welcome by PM.

[Dagoth Nereviar 0]

lol, I found it kinda ironic I was listening to "Prowler" by Iron Maiden when I saw this topic

Walk around with HUGE guys He'll stop then. Or carry a knife, but actually show him it Sorry, it's a serious conversation.

What you could do is either:
* Tell the police
* Walk with a group
* Get their by bike? Or another mode of transport

I feel like carrying a baseball bat and whack them or something but again I cannot go on whacking everybody now can

I think you should go around hitting everyone, coz everyone's hitting on you :)

[velma 6]

HA ha NIce reply dragoth, Out of topic but I too listen a lot of Maiden and rock. But yeah I wish I could whack the crap out of everybody but it is not possible as I would be called a crazy person lol. But stalkers creep me out because they are very weird looking and they act as though they belong to you and it pisses me off like crazy.

[Spyda 0]

See if you were ugly this wouldn't happen. So stop wearing makeup, nice cloths, and start looking like a bum. Quit taking showers and boom no more stalkers. You'll smell so bad that everybody from here to London will be avoiding you! Okay maybe that isnt such a good idea lol.What you should do is carry pepper spray or something and anytime you think somebody may be creeping on you, take the spray out and use it if he tries to do anything suspicious, or stalker-like!

[Misanthrope 0]

one of my girl friends used to carry this butcher knife kind of a thing and everytime she would wield it you would see guys fleeing

Wow! What an incredible story. I?d really like to hear more about this amazing person whose feats of bravery defy all logic. I do hope the topic starter will share with the rest of us further details of this person's exploits. Better yet, why not encourage her to join Trap? Then we could add her to the ranks of Ellen Templar, another female instructor who occasionally graces these pages with indispensable knowledge gleaned from her vast experience in the fitness arts. Hope I?m not venturing too far off topic here, but as we are discussing self defense, I think it would be fascinating to learn more about this incredible woman. For starters, which discipline of martial arts does she teach? And where can one buy one of those magic butcher knives?

 

I'm sorry, but this somewhat tells me that the system is corrupt. What if i were to get shot 'cause i wanted to ask her a question (e.g. ask for directions to a place, for i am new to the area)? I would not be capable of believing that i could get shot and have no way of defending myself, for they claim self-defense.

If anyone out there can show me a current system of government that is NOT corrupt, I?ve got a bridge in London to sell to their na?ve soul. Sadly, corruption and government go hand in hand, as we live in the society of man, not angels. Regardless, the average woman does not have the luxury of debating government ethics when faced with life or death decisions. She can only make due with the circumstances and constitutional rights afforded her. And if an offender should happen to get stabbed as opposed to shot, taesered, or maced ? it would not change the premise of the debate ? unless of course, one simply wants to argue for the sake of argument.

The laws could have changed for anyone one of them, however.

Thankfully, changes to these laws meet with fierce resistance from citizen watch-dog organizations, and don?t simply change at the drop of a hat.

They're at a safe distance, what could happen? Secondly, how do they even know that it's an offender? If they did know, that person would probably be violating their restraining order, for they've been caught before.

This statement trivializes the real life scenarios that unfortunately happen every day, and anyone truly curious about specific situations need only google appropriate keywords. One of the most disturbing is breaking and entering, though situations are certainly not limited here. It should go without saying that a woman shouldn?t wait for a man to inflict bodily harm to her person without taking proactive action. And she sure as heck won't have time to check on his criminal history.

You fail to even link to these "FACTS" which you claim support your argument. You seem to be, like me, using nothing but logic to support your claims.

My guess is my original post was not read thoroughly. Had it been, one would have observed how statistical, factual evidence from reputable sources were indeed linked to support these facts, as well as a weblink to said source. Please note these are not my conclusions, but the findings of scientific data. I would prefer anyone refuting these facts present facts of their own. Until that happens, there is nothing to debate. Edited May 28, 2007 by Misanthrope (see edit history)

[NNH1254 0]

See if you were ugly this wouldn't happen. So stop wearing makeup, nice cloths, and start looking like a bum. Quit taking showers and boom no more stalkers. You'll smell so bad that everybody from here to London will be avoiding you! Okay maybe that isnt such a good idea lol.

No, but it might be effective. LOL.

What you should do is carry pepper spray or something and anytime you think somebody may be creeping on you, take the spray out and use it if he tries to do anything suspicious, or stalker-like!

Is it legal to carry pepper spray? I thought it wasn't but maybe it is legal and something else is illegal and I'm just getting mixed up. It should be, but I think some places make it illegal.

[Saint_Michael 3]

I just remembered that I was going to post on this topic that has become a full blown debate on protection. I say this now and only repeat it once unless you know how to effectively use a weapon that odds are the attacker/stalker will use it against you and that is the main issue on this since post #6 about using weapons to defend your self. Also I like to mention that fact regardless if a person does have a gun it will take longer for that person to decide to pull it out and point than it is for a person to run up behind you and grab your arms to immobilize you, so again most people who are trying to prevent themselves from being a victim 99% end up becoming a victim. From Misa's post about women being more safe with guns again that is all about luck and the stalker being smart about the situation most of the time women are not so lucky if they do have a gun and half the time it gets used on them because of the adrenaline rush that is going on during that whole situation.That is why unarmed combat and self defense is better because most of the time those freaks don't know unless they start stalking you from those classes your taking . On top of that it would be smart to have more then one person to be around you especially in dangerous area's and so "the guy" won't think twice about it and yes it is embarrassing to ask someone to walk with you if your just going to the store but it's safer and smarter. Mac funny enough some people are immune to that and of course for that to be effective again you need to be in close range and be able to be mobile, but like I mention if you lose the ability to use your arms it's don't make much point anyways.I believe someone mention taking a photo of the stalker, I would say that would be borderline problematic because it would only escalate the situation and make the stalker more aware that you know they are following you. Again though if your slick about it and do get that photo you have to remember that you need several photos in order to bring a case against the guy for the local police to do something about it. Since one photo doesn't say much. SO instead of bringing violence into the situation like many in the above post are thinking go with in small groups and also try this as well go a different route and change it daily so your stalker can't find a way to get a good position to jump you, if you constantly change the way you go home the stalker will have to think about it more and in a perfect world just give up.I would use weapons as a last resort because of what I mention above that they can be used against you if you do not know how to use them especially in a tense situation as that and trying to control all that adrenaline that is rushing into your body. Misa your forgetting though that these stats are based on situations were victim got the upper hand and most of the time they don't so fact are useless in cases of stalking since each situation is different no matter what scientific data says. But someone did make a point about not making yourself a victim and that is true, but again you don't know when you will be a victim because most of the time it happens just like that or someone decided they were bored and do some planning and go shoot someone.Since velma is aware that someone is following her she has the upper hand of getting him busted and changing the situation into her favor and not give the guy a chance to harm you in anyway.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Saint_Michael (see edit history)

[nol 0]

If you're gonna promote gun usage, why not rather promote knife usage instead? I mean, isn't a knife more easier to handle and take out than a gun? I mean, consider how long it would take to pull out a gun out of your purse, if at all you're caring one at the time to begin withassuming that you don't have it on your side like cops do and out in the open. Also, the fear of uknown during an attack, and any hesitation, may cause the gun-owner to fail to react properly to an attack (even if they did take classes to try to promote stability, for a real attack is nothing compared to an imitation; although, the same can be said for a knife). Then there's always the factor that the attacker may gain the upperhand (take control of the weapon), and the defender can no longer defend themselves and therefore forced to allow the attacker to do as they please; yes, the same can be said for a knife; however, you have a higher chance of being able to run away from the attacker without worry of them shooting you; not to say that you'll leave unharmed if the attacker gets a hold of the knife.
Overall, i recommend taser over knife over gun.

Guns are better, they hurt worse, and knifes are sort of slop shot. Guns are great if you know how to aim fast. Knifes you have to get up closer to use unless your gonna throw them, even then you have the risk of missing. But its really creepy to know theres stalkers, molesters, and etc in our world. Its their choice, but without them all we would have to deal with is murderers, the economy, and george bush. Otherwise our wold could be just fine if we tried.
Edited May 28, 2007 by nol (see edit history)

[Watermonkey 0]

I say this now and only repeat it once unless you know how to effectively use a weapon that odds are the attacker/stalker will use it against you and that is the main issue on this since post #6 about using weapons to defend your self. Also I like to mention that fact regardless if a person does have a gun it will take longer for that person to decide to pull it out and point than it is for a person to run up behind you and grab your arms to immobilize you, so again most people who are trying to prevent themselves from being a victim 99% end up becoming a victim. From Misa's post about women being more safe with guns again that is all about luck and the stalker being smart about the situation most of the time women are not so lucky if they do have a gun and half the time it gets used on them because of the adrenaline rush that is going on during that whole situation.

Work on your grammar Mike or you'll never pass that English requirement. A word of advice: Don't pull statistics out of your anal orifice and pretend you know what you're talking about. That bit above about 99% becoming victims is absolute garbage, crap, and false. Look up the proper statistic, I recommend Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" for a source of statistics like that one, also read the web site, http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ for further information and knowledge on the subject. And remember, Misa has been classically educated in private, Catholic institutions since grade school. You're trying to debate someone with an advanced degree from a Jesuit University - one of the best in the country. She won't let lies ruin a perfectly good point and I'm stepping in to try and buffer her wrath. When you have the truth on your side, you'll find her arguments reasonable and sound. Ask her if she has any personal experience in using the tactics she's advocating... You might learn something from her as well. Turn off the TV and read a book! Edited May 28, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[Saint_Michael 3]

My 99% maybe wrong but that is factual that a person carrying a weapon has a higher risk of becoming a victim of that very weapon they conceal regardless what stats say otherwise. "More Guns, Less Crime" that is such a false statement that even cops and gang members will laugh at that one together. That has never been proven that more guns bring down crime and whoever says is pulling stuff out of their own orifice because reality says otherwise. You don't need a advance degree in reality to understand that more guns cause more problems and that is common knowledge. Also don't forget those stats are based on real victims who most likely lost their own life because they thought carrying a gun would protect them and instead they became a number from some math nerd getting paid $100,000 to write it down.When it comes down to it, if you second guess yourself when aiming that gun at someone don't expect the same treatment, you would know that better watermonkey since you been in the military, they drilled that into our minds in boot camp. That applies to the streets as well especially in states like California, New York, Florida, Massachusetts were gun crimes happen hte most frequently. It applies even more when people have itchy trigger fingers and are either living in poverty and are desperate or those who are in gangs. Stats are concrete, however, they leave one factor out and thats the "random factor" all crimes are not the same and yet provide two results life and death with death being the more common one because the criminal does not want to be caught and so they make sure the victim can't remember who it was that attack them.All people who own guns know how to take life but not protect life and that's the reality we live in and there is no excuse in the world that says a gun will protect someone because they don't. A person might get lucky once waving a gun around and the criminal will run off but next time that criminal could come back and this time with their own gun and either way a person will get shot and possibly die. That how wars get started as well either gang wars or World Wars because someone pulled the trigger on a guy over something stupid or trivial like walking down the street.Become a victim first before using stats to make your claim about carrying a gun and you will see the difference really quick that guns are a tool for murder and not protection. I rather see guns became illegal to use and destroyed, then crime will be reduce a lot more because then a person won't be stupid enough to rob a bank with knife or try and kidnap a person. Of course we don't live in a perfect world because everyday you hear reports of children getting gun down on the side walk just because he or she was in the way of that person's target.Not all criminals are drunk, high or stupid some people do know what they are doing when they point a gun at someone they attend to kill, those are just common statistical excuses and profiling. Prime example are school shootings, ever since Columbine and Virginia Tech, those three people knew exactly what they were doing when they pulled the trigger on those kids. Again stats are useless against reality and never give the whole picture of whats really going on. I bet the gun nuts wouldn't tell those parents who lost their children. "that their child would be alive today if they carried a gun to protect themselves." Because if someone ever told that to me if I lost someone rest assured their family would feel the same pain that I would.I will reiterate this again become a victim first and you will see the lies that NRA and gun owners spew out in their little club meetings about guns protecting people because they don't. Regardless if you carry a gun to protect yourself from others, don't blame the person who shot you with your own gun because you were dumb enough to bring it out, when you could have found a better method of controlling the situation that didn't cost you your life.

[Watermonkey 0]

My 99% maybe wrong but that is factual that a person carrying a weapon has a higher risk of becoming a victim of that very weapon they conceal regardless what stats say otherwise.

Mike, as far as I can tell, the entire cornerstone of your argument rests on the statement above. I will now proceed to counter this statement with the hard reality, aka: "facts", and you'll continue to spout your brainwashed belief that guns somehow cause crime because you're too lazy to learn the truth. Hopefully someone reading this will actually look into it a little further then listening to NPR and Sarah Brady. First, the "statistic" you're looking for is "...that a firearm in the home is '43 times more likely' to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder." -From a small-scale study of firearms related deaths in King Co. WA (Seattle is in King Co.) for the period of 1978-83. The authors of the study clearly state,

Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified?A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."

Read the article I'm looking at here. Now, read that quote again. The authors themselves state in no uncertain terms that their study can not be used for a "complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits". Now, since we've determined by the authors' own admission that this "statistic" isn't valid, let's look at actual statistics... (I know, you're so smart you don't need to pay attention to statistics that don't support your argument, but some of us actually know that statistics are produced by scientists who have actual 4 or 6 year college degrees and actually do this sort of thing for a living. Heck, many of the papers written on the conclusions of said statistics are by PhD s!)

 

The second article I'm looking at which quotes 16 different documents including the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) can be found here. In it the author completely dispels the myth that a woman would be in more danger by carrying a concealed gun then without. By that I mean that actual real events of the lives of real people who've thwarted a criminal's attempt to victimize them were used to generate relevant, valid, statistics which in turn were used to draw the conclusion that in real life the weapon is taken from the defender about 1% of the time. Now to quote the crux of my argument put in a way I've not done:

Firearms offer many advantages that other means of protection cannot. They are a great equalizer of force, enabling a 90-pound grandmother to successfully fend off a 200-pound muscle-bound youth. They do not require brute strength nor close physical proximity, and they often act as a powerful deterrent upon sight. If you actually faced the scenario described above, which would you rather do: use your body as a weapon against Mr. Thug; or pull out a .45 caliber handgun?at which point Mr. Thug would probably take off running? Even if he didn?t, it would only take a couple of flicks of your thumb and index finger?about the same amount of effort required to flip through the pages of a small paperback?to propel a bullet into Mr. Thug?s body.

 

Gun control advocates point out that there are disadvantages to using a firearm as well. One often stated is that the weapon can be taken away from the victim and used by the bad guy against her. However, this happens very rarely?in about one per cent of such encounters. (7) Another is that an individual who relies on firearms may have a false sense of security, and may freeze up if an attacker does approach her.

You dismiss, out of hand, a book written by a college professor, J.R. Lott, Jr., entitled More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws because you thought the title was a statement of fiction instead of fact. Instead of actually reading the book, which I have not done either, though now that I think of it, I think I'll check it out of my local library next time I get to town, you think it's intellectually honest to just dismiss something like that out of hand? I don't know who you think you're fooling, but it ain't me, mister! Another quote for your reading pleasure from the review of the above-mentioned book:

In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: "Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."

One thing Mr. Lott looks at in the book (second edition -year 2000) is that in states where concealed carry is allowed violent crimes are lower then in adjoining states where concealed carry is not allowed. Further, the evidence states that when states allow concealed carry, their violent crime rates drop in subsequent years. The simple fact is that criminals are like any other line of work: They prefer to work in a safe environment with a minimum risk of injury or death. Why is that so hard to understand, Mike?

 

There's another quote from a reviewer of the Lott book that I just have to include in here because it's so well stated, and absolutely TRUE:

1. Blacks benefit more from gun ownership than whites. On average, black Americans live in worse neighborhoods with higher crime rates than white Americans. When laws permitting citizens to carry concealed firearms are introduced, crime rates fall more dramatically in those neighborhoods, and black Americans benefit disproportionately.

 

Yep, that's right. Gun control is racist.

 

2. Women benefit more from gun ownership than men. Women's ownership of concealed weapon permits decreases the women's murder rate more than men's ownership decreases the men's rate. Women toting guns also significantly reduce the rape rate.

 

Amen, sister. Gun control is sexist, too.

 

3. Private gun ownership is cheap law enforcement. I don't mean vigilantism -- I mean deterrence. Private gun ownership lowers more crime per dollar spent than almost any other crime reduction measure...and the gun owners bear virtually all of the cost.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[Saint_Michael 3]

Watermonkey throw all the statistics you want but your latest post just showed how correct I am about the "random factor", because now your saying all these stats that the smart people are saying are all guesses based on a few events. Your only fooling yourself if you believe crimes are getting lowered because of concealed weapons, it doesn't take much for a desperate person who is trying to survive to get a gun or who own a gu and start pulling the trigger, again I point you to all the school shootings. Of course you still believe criminals to be dumb when they decide to go on a robbery or killing spree some do plan these knowing that if they do get caught they will go down in a hail of bullets. Then you fail to realize that a criminal doesn't even know a person is carrying a weapon and so your basing your facts on a perfect situation that doesn't exsist.

Also this wonderful word "vigilantism" just makes my statement even more truer because then people think if they shoot a bad guy that they are doing the world the favor, but in reality they are committing the same crime and that is murdering someone. Even if you claim self defense when your getting attack it is still considered murder no matter how you slice it and thus a loop hole has been created in the justice system. That can be said about people committing suicide if a person A obtains person B's gun and then shoots themself; a very good lawyer could say that Person B was responsible for person A's death, again though it would have to be an ideal situation for that to happen.

I laugh at this particular quote

Gun control advocates point out that there are disadvantages to using a firearm as well. One often stated is that the weapon can be taken away from the victim and used by the bad guy against her. However, this happens very rarelyin about one per cent of such encounters. (7) Another is that an individual who relies on firearms may have a false sense of security, and may freeze up if an attacker does approach her.

$2 says that is based on stats that people know how to use a gun and odds are most people don't know to how to properly use a gun in situation were they are being attacked. Of course that last sentence even reinforces the fact that once a person becomes scared, they will forget what to do and thus give the attacker the advantage and begin to victimize that person. But like I said become a victim first and you will realize that those stats that are so dear to you are just guess work and theories based on ideal situations that don't exsist in the real world.

[Watermonkey 0]

That's my point, Mike. I'll never be a victim because I carry concealed. And I practice very often with my firearms. Why do you keep telling me to become a victim? You trying to get me killed or something? The rest isn't worth commenting on. Your reading comprehension isn't up to par. Sorry, but that's the end of the discussion between you and I.