actress shot dead in NY

[virtueixi]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Ime
That's very sad, but you gotta admit she practically asked to be shot.

It doesn't matter the situation. If you are confronted with 4 armed robbers, you don't taunt them! Sheesh!

I feel badly for her fiancee.

seems like they didn't even know they had guns.

This is America. If you don't assume that EVERYONE has a gun you've probably made a serious error in judgement. One that could cost you your life (and did in her case).

An armed society is a polite society, for just that reason.

You could also tell by what the perps looked like......

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Ime
That's very sad, but you gotta admit she practically asked to be shot.

It doesn't matter the situation. If you are confronted with 4 armed robbers, you don't taunt them! Sheesh!

I feel badly for her fiancee.

seems like they didn't even know they had guns.

That's not the case. Apparently one of the perps pistol-whipped the actress' boyfriend before they even tried to take anything, and she made sure he was OK before challenging the robbers (an act I still maintain was completely stupid).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: JDub02
<shocked> how in the world did those criminals get a gun? guns are illegal in NYC. I can't believe those criminals would actually break the law! </shocked>

does anyone else see how dumb gun laws are? criminals won't do that kind of stuff if they think that people are carrying.

Your logic sounds good at face value, but it's not borne out by the data. In general, the states that have implemented "shall-issue" concealed-carry permits have seen no statistically-significant change in their violent crime rates.

You have to understand the young men who commit these crimes are not all that concerned about consequences (hence the fact that the death penalty also has no measurable deterrent effect).

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: JDub02
<shocked> how in the world did those criminals get a gun? guns are illegal in NYC. I can't believe those criminals would actually break the law! </shocked>

does anyone else see how dumb gun laws are? criminals won't do that kind of stuff if they think that people are carrying.

Your logic sounds good at face value, but it's not borne out by the data. In general, the states that have implemented "shall-issue" concealed-carry permits have seen no statistically-significant change in their violent crime rates.

You have to understand the young men who commit these crimes are not all that concerned about consequences (hence the fact that the death penalty also has no measurable deterrent effect).

Where'd you get that? Actually states that issue concealed permits have almost always seen a reduction in violent crime rates. Research it yourself (and don't use anti-gun sources). I don't feel like linking the few thousand studies that prove it.

Conversely, places that ban or have greatly restrict firearm use have seen HUGE spikes in crime since doing so (best examples are UK and Australia, but it's true all over). Mind you, this is only in cases where they were once legal, and then become otherwise. Places which have ALWAYS restricted firearms/right-to-defend can't be judged by this test.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Where'd you get that? Actually states that issue concealed permits have almost always seen a reduction in violent crime rates. Research it yourself (and don't use anti-gun sources). I don't feel like linking the few thousand studies that prove it.

Conversely, places that ban or have greatly restrict firearm use have seen HUGE spikes in crime since doing so (best examples are UK and Australia, but it's true all over). Mind you, this is only in cases where they were once legal, and then become otherwise. Places which have ALWAYS restricted firearms/right-to-defend can't be judged by this test.

Not so. I think you're getting your data from pro-gun folk. I myself am a gun owner, and not in favor of additional anti-gun regulations, but don't delude yourself.

There is not a lot of statistical data available that doesn't favor one side or the other, so frankly it's hard to get reliable information, but IMO the FBI is about as reliable a crime-statistics clearinghouse as anyone. According to the FBI, violent crime as a whole has decreased nationwide in recent years (likely largely because of the decreased number of young men as a percentage of the population), but it has actually decreased faster in states that either don't allow concealed carry, or have restrictive carry laws.

I am ambivalent on concealed carry, but it's simply foolish to presume it creates greater public safety. Again, if these young men don't fear the death penalty, they surely won't fear the possibility of a shootout with a carrying "victim". I own a pistol but elect not to carry because the likelihood of successfully offering or using it in self-defense is remote, and it carries tremendous liability. I'd rather give up my wallet than shoot someone.

 

[Zebo]

I'd rather give up my wallet than shoot someone.

no doubt about that.. I only carry while on long road trips, hunting or fishing.. too risky in dense populated areas (witnesses LOL), with mundane confrontations that could turn ugly if firearms are present. JMO. Even if justified legal woes can bankrupt you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Zebo

I'd rather give up my wallet than shoot someone.

no doubt about that.. I only carry while on long road trips, hunting or fishing.. too risky in dense populated areas (witnesses LOL), with mundane confrontations that could turn ugly if firearms are present. JMO.

That's my feeling as well. The only time I've been interested in carrying was on backpacking trips in Washington, with groups including females. In that environment, it seemed to me the only way someone would approach would be to get into some serious mischief, and I would indeed shoot someone trying to rape/abduct/kill a friend. To me robbery is a different story (and I have been robbed at knifepoint in the past).

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Zebo

I'd rather give up my wallet than shoot someone.

no doubt about that.. I only carry while on long road trips, hunting or fishing.. too risky in dense populated areas (witnesses LOL), with mundane confrontations that could turn ugly if firearms are present. JMO.

That's my feeling as well. The only time I've been interested in carrying was on backpacking trips in Washington, with groups including females. In that environment, it seemed to me the only way someone would approach would be to get into some serious mischief, and I would indeed shoot someone trying to rape/abduct/kill a friend. To me robbery is a different story (and I have been robbed at knifepoint in the past).

Yup you're on your own out there... although the odds of running into a thug are almost zero, they can have thier way all day with your party w/o some protection. Inside citys and towns, the perp just wants to get his wallet/bankbag/purse and escape the "light" ASAP so best move is simply capitulate and write that area off your hang out list...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Where'd you get that? Actually states that issue concealed permits have almost always seen a reduction in violent crime rates. Research it yourself (and don't use anti-gun sources). I don't feel like linking the few thousand studies that prove it.

Conversely, places that ban or have greatly restrict firearm use have seen HUGE spikes in crime since doing so (best examples are UK and Australia, but it's true all over). Mind you, this is only in cases where they were once legal, and then become otherwise. Places which have ALWAYS restricted firearms/right-to-defend can't be judged by this test.

Not so. I think you're getting your data from pro-gun folk. I myself am a gun owner, and not in favor of additional anti-gun regulations, but don't delude yourself.

There is not a lot of statistical data available that doesn't favor one side or the other, so frankly it's hard to get reliable information, but IMO the FBI is about as reliable a crime-statistics clearinghouse as anyone. According to the FBI, violent crime as a whole has decreased nationwide in recent years (likely largely because of the decreased number of young men as a percentage of the population), but it has actually decreased faster in states that either don't allow concealed carry, or have restrictive carry laws.

I am ambivalent on concealed carry, but it's simply foolish to presume it creates greater public safety. Again, if these young men don't fear the death penalty, they surely won't fear the possibility of a shootout with a carrying "victim". I own a pistol but elect not to carry because the likelihood of successfully offering or using it in self-defense is remote, and it carries tremendous liability. I'd rather give up my wallet than shoot someone.

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-6.html
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/moreguns.htm
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1313436/posts
http://forum.growkind.com/archive/topic/8/1088.html


Now, I'm not saying those are all unbiased sites or statistics, but it shows that there's AT LEAST as much possible evidence for concealed carry as against, and practically NO one says that banning guns has reduced crime in UK, Canada, or Australia. Even if the general statistics are a total wash across the board, if just 1 person manages to use a gun defensively and live, then it's a beneficial program.

You can't look at all the reports and evidence and believe that anything can actually get guns away from criminals, it's never happened and it never will. The ONLY thing a gun law has EVER done is take guns away from honest people.

You can't say that a death by a handgun during a crime negates a lawful use of handgun in defense statistic, because the crime would still have occured - just with another weapon of choice most likely, but without the handgun in the defensive situation there's a much higher chance of the victim being injured (this is obvious because criminals are generally younger (and therefore stronger/faster/etc)). My point here is that the handgun equalizes the field between criminal and victim. The crime statistics might not be directly lowered by the private ownership of firearms, but the survivability of the victim in such crimes increases dramatically.

I know you weren't really saying otherwise, I just think it's important to provide alternative views on things so people can form a complete picture rather than jump on the emotional media bandwagon.

Just wanted to add one of the most commonly overlooked statistics: If someone is shot or killed, it's usually reported. If a crime succeeds, its' usually reported. HOWEVER; when a crime is interrupted, it is SELDOM reported...especially if it was interrupted by someone brandishing a firearm who is fearful of being prosecuted for defending themselves. That means that all the statistics for criminal gun use need to be balanced (somehow) by how many defensive gun uses there were that weren't in crime report stats. Impossible, but without it, the numbers are flat out wrong. That could very easily account for the general reduction in reported crime that has lowered statistics not in direct relation to ccw laws.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Just wanted to add one of the most commonly overlooked statistics: If someone is shot or killed, it's usually reported. If a crime succeeds, its' usually reported. HOWEVER; when a crime is interrupted, it is SELDOM reported...especially if it was interrupted by someone brandishing a firearm who is fearful of being prosecuted for defending themselves. That means that all the statistics for criminal gun use need to be balanced (somehow) by how many defensive gun uses there were that weren't in crime report stats. Impossible, but without it, the numbers are flat out wrong. That could very easily account for the general reduction in reported crime that has lowered statistics not in direct relation to ccw laws.

I don't think we're really in disagreement, but I will observe your last point is completely specious. Again, the crime rates have lowered at a faster pace in states WITHOUT liberal concealed-carry laws than in states that make CC easy. Unfortunately there is a lack of clear data on this area, since most of the studies are either conducted by diehard gun-control advocates or equally strident Second Amendment proponents. It makes me wonder whether the statistics proferred about Australia and GB are accurate, though I honestly have no idea.

For my part, I'm ambivalent about CC, but tend to agree it should be broadly legal. That said, I see a lot of downside to it. Actually, when I used to frequent the Glock Talk BBS, a frequent poster there was killed, when he pulled his lawful concealed pistol to stop a liquor-store robbery. As a practical matter, the bad guys are, broadly speaking, more willing to actually pull the trigger than the good guys, so these kinds of shootings happen from time to time. As I said before, these are men who don't value human life, and hence the fear of being shot by a would-be victim doesn't create a meaningful deterrent IMO.

 

[blindtothagame]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: MacBaine

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Heifetz
I can't believe you guys are criticizing her for having some balls. Granted, it was probably the wrong thing to do in this case, but the criminals are the ones who shot her for a purse. I cannot fathom the mind of a person who shots another person for something worth so little.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If I kick a lion in the face, who are you going to call an idiot?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Damned straight!

I agree 100%.
I rather me alive with NO balls than to have balls and be dead.
Either way its a sad story.