Scenario/Role play

[jks9199]

well... Since I live about 800km due North of you (~480mi, and a bit North of the border) the repercussions for me would be quite different.

If I told the police I was going to my neighbour's house with a firearm I would definitely be arrested, and they may send a cruiser by to check out the domestic dispute.

Anyway, that all plays a part too. Since I know that there is lots of hunting around here and firearms are readily available, that plays a big factor in making the decision in the first place. Know your environment.

Interesting statistics quoted there too. Are they real, and can I quote them? Is there also a number of unsuccessful defences, or numbers on unarmed defences? I have been casually looking for more stats on attacks and whatnot.

st

I'm curious about the numbers, too. I've never seen an explanation for the numbers that some pro-gun rights organizations claim that makes sense to me. I'm a cop, and to reach those numbers, it sure seems like I should be taking a lot more assault/robbery/other violent offense reports where the intended victim scared off the assailant with a gun than I am. Of course, it could be that they don't report the attempted crime, but than I've gotta thank them for leaving the criminal running free without so much as telling the police...

I'm not a fan of private citizens intervening with guns, simply because it's all to easy for that gun to end up in the hands of the criminal -- and because it radically escalates the danger to the citizen. Police officers shoot other plain-clothes officers from their own agency because of miscommunication and misidentification; how much greater is the chance that a civilian will be the victim of such a mistake? I do carry off-duty, but the main reason is to defend myself and my family -- not so that I can intervene in a situation.

If a person absolutely feels that they MUST intervene in order to prevent death or serious bodily harm to another, and that they can do so reasonably safely (defined as with acceptable risk to themselves and anyone around them), then they absolutely must be prepared to obey the police when they arrive. There is absolutely nothing more frightening to me than to be told something like "caller reports her husband left the house with a gun. husband is wearing..." as I respond to any sort of call, whether it's an alarm or a report of an attempted homicide in progress. I don't know if that guy is going to mistake me for a bad guy; I don't know if he has any real idea of where he's shooting or what I may be doing to respond to his call... And that applies even if the guy's a cop. The way my agency does things may not be the same as the way his does them.

One last point... If you feel you absolutely must intervene instead of following the course of wisdom and calling it in and letting the cops handle it -- do so decisively. There's no room for half measures. You're not paid to simply restrain and arrest someone. And when it comes to serious or deadly bodily harm -- neither are cops; we shoot to stop the threat. That's a polite circumlocution to avoid saying that there are no warning shots, there's no shooting to wound, and that if we're shooting -- someone's probably going to get killed.

 

[Drac]

I'm not a fan of private citizens intervening with guns, simply because it's all to easy for that gun to end up in the hands of the criminal

Yes, it happens alot

Police officers shoot other plain-clothes officers from their own agency because of miscommunication and misidentification; how much greater is the chance that a civilian will be the victim of such a mistake?

More often that the media knows about..

we shoot to stop the threat. That's a polite circumlocution to avoid saying that there are no warning shots, there's no shooting to wound, and that if we're shooting -- someone's probably going to get killed.

PLEASE folks don't buy into the crap that the movies have foisted off on the public for years.A perfect example is Danny Glover's line in "Lethal Weapon'' about shooting someone in the arm or leg..

 

[Explorer]

I'm curious about the numbers, too. I've never seen an explanation for the numbers that some pro-gun rights organizations claim that makes sense to me.

There are a few places to check for numbers. There was an excellent study done that is now in book form "More Guns, Less Crime". It's a county by county sutdy of the US and, despite the hysterical cries of the far left, has been thoroughly peer reviewed. I highly reccommend it. My brother, who did statistics at Columbia, reviewed the methodology and said it was as good as he'd seen.

There was a study published in CRIMINOLOGY back in 2004 by Tark and Kleck from the criminology dept at Florida State. It costs about 8 bucks to have them fax it to you ... it's a great read.

If one was really serious ... contact (promise me you'll keep reading) the NRA ... they will be more than happy to cite the studies and researchers. They'll help you find the raw data behind their claims. Despite what many say about the group, they are quite keen on making sure they keep things on the up and up.

As a matter of fact I"ve found in my personal research that gun proponents seem to be a bit more forthcoming in thier claims than the anti-gun folks I've dealt with. It could be my own bias showing but here's one quick example: just before More Guns Less Crime was published the author called a lady with an anti-gun group and asked her to review his study ... she wouldn't give him the time of day. After the book came out, she gave her 'review' to network TV news saying the methodology was flawed, the numbers were fabricated and so on. THEN she called the author and asked for a review copy. He'd seen the interview and asked why she needed a review copy as she had presented herself on national television as someone who had read the work. She then hung up on him.