Not what I referred to at all. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...arned-not-to-be-vigilante-police-court-hears/ in other words--- "STAND THE F**K DOWN, you're not a cop." You seem to be at the stage where you are verging onto personal allegations of ignorance. I've actually followed the case quite a bit, so I'm sorry if I shan't play along.
Evidence for what? That people die in armed robberies? Do you seriously need statistics posted to believe that people *do* die in armed robbery situations, and that it is not always related to a CCW'er? Dude, you're not worth the time I'd waste digging it up. Per the stats I reported, CCW in Texas is correlated with significantly reduced crime rates across the board. Look at this again: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm Look at the per 1000,000 figures to get an idea of how significant the decreases have been. I'd also like for you to peruse this for awhile. It may dispel your fantasy that CHL holders are loose cannons whose presence puts you in danger: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm I am sick and freaking tired of ignorant anti-gun people trying to tell me I shouldn't have a right to defend myself. I am not a danger to you, the a*hole who is robbing the convenience store is. You want the cops there, fine. What the hell is a cop but a good guy with a gun? I am also a good guy with a gun, as are the large majority of CCWers. The cop isn't there, I am. But you'd rather just hope that the rogber is going to act rationally? Your funeral. It won't be mine if I can help it. If you have an afternoon I'd recommend educating yourself and perusing this: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Note this: A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] Defensive use of force happens every day in this country. It is a good thing. We do things your way and we end up with Chicago. No thanks.
The dispatcher on the 911 call was asking him to tell them what the guy was doing. He did that. He then began pursuing then Martin ran and the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to fall. He said OK and claims he stopped following. (you stop hearing him running on the tape) So, maybe he did stand down when he was told.
Of course Neighborhood Watch volunteers are told not to engage anyone. And as I have said several times, I wouldn't have gotten out of the vehicle. But I do understand why he did so - to keep eyes on the subject in order to give the location to law enforcement. I don't think you actually have followed the case, judging from what you have posted here. It seems that you have an anti-gun agenda and are not at all interested in Americans having the right to defend themselves. Your argument that we should simply trust an armed robber to follow a rational decision-making process patently absurd. You clearly do not understand the underlying concepts of self defense being discussed. What are your qualifications here, again?
economics/psychology background, participated in multiple game theory experiments (including analysis of a robber's desicion matrix), background in big data analysis, appriciation of Steven Pinker and Freakonomics, and empirical research on the topic. I also rock SWAGGING shirts, if that helps
um---I highly suggest you read the Levitt paper I posted. As it is, your first argument is non-sensisical and is not getting at the point I was getting at. Crime was reduced around the board nation-wide (Levitt has some controversial arguments for that I do have to say, but hey, at least he looks at that trend nation-wide) so right off the bat, your first argument has no legs to stand on, especially if you look at the type of crime CCW is supposed to prevent, and what has happened in isolation. If, however, you want me to educate myself through a 1982 survey of felons through 11 states rather than an aggregated measure of robbery rate in correlation with CCW, then well, wait a second, what are your qualifications to tell me I need to educate myself on how stats work?
So, I'm guessing that since you're pimping Freakonomics, you share the theory that legalized abortion is the cause of decreasing crime rates, and not CCW laws? Since you fancy yourself a scholar, why don't you have a look at this: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf
i think the evidence is stronger for abortion than it is for CCW laws, though both live on a relatively weak level. As one could easily formulate about that particular study and many others---(from the United States National Research Council) Ayers and Donohue of course found increased amounts of aggrivated assaults. Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue, Stanford Law School, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," Stanford Law Review, 2003.[22] This study found a temporary increase in aggravated assaults. But that's one study. I don't particularily think you can strongly go one way or another with the avalible data. In any case, your argument is absurdly strong and ill-formulated for the data you're sourcing from, and you're not doing the data the right way if you're going to present violent crime stats in Texas in isolation from nation-wide trends as some kind of indicator that CCW works.
Why don't you go read Lott, then? Read the study I posted while you're at it. A relevant excerpt: Ayres and Donohue have consistently argued in several papers that robbery is the key result upon which the deterrence by right-to-carry laws is based. In contrast, Lott has argued many times that there is no a priori reason to believe that the benefits of right-to-carry laws are larger for robbery than for other violent crimes. Putting that debate aside, the robbery results presented by Ayres and Donohue present a very clear, consistent story. The state-level analysis shows that robbery rates continued rising, though at a slower rate, for the first two years after the law was passed. After that, however, robbery rates in right-to-carry states fell relative to non-right-to-carry states for the next nine years, and then remained fairly constant through year seventeen. The two sets of county-level estimates are even more dramatic. Robbery rates in right-tocarry states were rising until the laws were passed and then fell continually after that point. The pattern is very similar to that shown earlier by Lott in examining county-level data from 1977 to 1996. The changes are also very large. By the time the law has been in effect for six years, the county and state-level data imply a drop in robbery rates of eight and twelve percent respectively. It is difficult to see how anyone could look at these year-by-year results and accept their claims that the "robbery effect" is sensitive to the "time frame" examined or to the coding of when state laws were adopted. While Ayres and Donohue acknowledge the problems in using simple before-and-after averages in evaluating the impact of the law, they do not consistently apply that insight when discussing the evidence. We can both play the stats game. If you have a background in stats then you know that they are easily manipulated to serve whatever purpose you want. BTW, my I have a BS in Psych with a heavy emphasis on stats as well, so whatevs to your "expertise"; I draw my main conclusions more heavily from real-world experience anyway.
don't get aggro on me bro, you're the one who is pulling this qualification s**t. LOL Yeah, I'll head out back and create a study on this though. Want to join me? instead of you know quoting sources of expertise WE CAN JUST BECOME EXPERTS to win the internet debates
We can debate stats all day and we will get nowhere, because both sides have stats they can use. I'd still like to hear your reasoning why I should not have a right to defend myself in such a situation, whether it be a mugging, armed robbery, attempted murder, whatever. I'd also like for you to elaborate on why you think I should trust the thought process of a criminal to be rational.
I would rather see you carry a weapon for a few months, and then report back to me what you thought about it. You'd probably learn quite a bit that you will otherwise absolutely not learn. You are focused on the stats. Why? You yourself admit that they are fairly inconclusive and that they can be used to argue either way. When I talk about your lack of expertise, I am talking about your lack of experience with carrying, firearms, how engagements actually go, what is running through your head, etc. Until you have done it you really, literally, do not know what you are talking about.
I mean, having read through parts of the Lott paper, there is some compelling evidence there, but I tend to think of this issue as one that has not had a pun intended, smoking gun yet. My reasoning is that these situations are few and far in between---and the added risk of carrying a gun has been very much demonstrated in several studies with regards to how having guns around lead to more accidents and etc. My only argument for why CCW would make sense is if it decreased crime significantly, but the evidence on that is very mixed, to say the least. I don't think you should be defenseless in a robbery, I'm saying the added risk of always or almost always carrying a gun is not worth the added benefit of the 1 in 1000000 chance you will be in a robbery, and you'll hit the guy straight in the head so he won't murder you and 4 other people.
As I said, the defensive use of firearms is actually far more common than most people think. It literally happens every day all over this country, it is simply not reported very often - either to the police or in the media. Estimates of defensive gun use are all over the map, but they range from a low of 100,000 times per year (National Crime Victimization Survey), to over 2,000,000 times per year (Kleck and Gertz), with more reasonable estimates putting it between 250,000 and 370,000 times per year (Smith). Either way you cut it, those are VERY large numbers of DGU incidents. It is far more common than many think. And my interest in this is personal. I am not a detached observer. It is my personal safety and the safety of my family, as well as those around me, that concerns me. I am not going to have an accident with my firearm. Most firearm owners and CCWers take firearms safety seriously, much more seriously than those who aren't familiar with the issues think. The numbers for DGU greatly exceed the numbers of injuries/deaths reported by accidental discharge. I truly hope I can go the rest of my life without killing anyone. I don't plan to. But if I happen to be in a situation where I need to use lethal force in order to survive, I *really want* to have that option available. You may well only get one chance to get that right.
I will tell you about a personal experience I had, and the only time so far I have had to draw my CCW. I was at home in my garage working on my bicycle. I had the garage door open and my back towards the street. I was crouching while working on the bike. I had my weapon on me, as I always do. I suddenly got a sense that something was behind me. I turned my head and saw two very large pit bulls charging at me; they were about 20 feet away and coming fast. I jumped up and spun around, drawing my weapon and aiming at the first dog. As I did this I was backing up and yelling at the dogs with my sergeant's voice. They both stopped dead in their tracks and stared at me for a minute, and then they ran across the street and tried to kill a small dog that the owner had locked up in their open garage. One of the pit bulls I recognized, and I knew it belonged to the Katrina a*hole down the street who let it run wild around the neighborhood. The other one I had never seen before. I was about a second away from shooting that thing. I could tell that the combination of my voice and the fact that I was pointing something menacing at it had the intended effect. Would it have worked if I only had my voice to go on? Maybe, maybe not. But I sure as ***** was glad that I was armed that day.
Great article. Clearly a very different set of facts. Her intent was clearly more malicious than GZ's in the TM case. How insane is it she would have done less time had she killed the guy and been convicted for Manslaughter? Florida really needs to reassess many components of its criminal justice system.
