Free Shotguns for any Houstonians living in Oak Forest

1) racist? What does being WASP have anything to do with anything?
2) you are completely underestimating the extent of the robberies. Yes, there is petty theft from yards/garages but there is also a substantial amount of legitimate break-ins. http://mycity.houstontx.gov/recentcrime/index.html.\
3) as mentioned before, they aren't throwing shotguns out of the backs of trucks. Anyone can just as easily, if not more so, go buy a shotgun at walmart.

 

When are they expanding to the Third Ward? I want my free shotgun!

 

I've noticed a correlation between this group of people and how they respond to petty theft. I'm racist as hell. Wanna fight about it?

Garden Oaks, yes. Oak Forest, no.

I'm aware of this. I've known about this program for a few months now, I've looked into it extensively.

 

Don't try to cloak promoting gun ownership with being responsible. Owning a gun does not make you more responsible. If you're going to be a gun owner, you damn well better be responsible though.

Alerting the police (professionals) is the responsible thing to do in *any* crime situation, right after getting you and your loved ones out of harm's way.

I'm fine with responsible gun ownership, but this doesn't seem to achieve that end. All it seems to be doing is taking a bad situation (high crime) and using it to make some political statement.

If this guy were trying to do some of the more basic, proven effective, methods of crime prevention for these people, I might take his efforts more seriously.

If you want to talk about "last resorts", owning a gun should be a last resort when it comes to personal security and protection. I think this guy is skipping steps A-Y and going straight to Z because of his love of guns and desire to prove a point.

It may end up working, but I doubt it. And even if it does, it doesn't change the fact that there are better methods than this available to prevent crime.

 

Waiting on the police is reactive, not proactive... The OP is an example of being proactive and not relying on police to protect us. Everybody has a right to defend themselves. They also have a right to be held accountable for their actions, should they do something stupid, dangerous, and/or harmful in doing so.

Yeah, probably a good bit lower than the odds of the police actually catching the person responsible. I think you're misunderstanding me, though. If we were to do a study on gun-related accidents and compare that to all of the people who are harmed by the police's reckless, military style demeanor, I think we'd both be in agreement that the police are more dangerous than the mass of people who own guns.

 

Which is why I've cited numerous examples of other safer, more effective, and more practical proactive things people should be doing, including the sponsor of this program.

Putting up a sign saying "I have a gun, stay the f*** out" is proactive. Getting into a firefight in your kitchen with a burgular isn't, it's just as reactive as calling the police. The crime is already taking place, therefore, fail.

Right, but that doesn't mean we should be encouraging or enabling such things.

Police brutality is a problem, but I don't think it applies in any way shape or form to this discussion. Unless you're concerned about the welfare of the burglars, I suppose.

 

There you go manipulating my argument to push your agenda. How hypocritical! I'm not saying people should get into firefights in their kitchen. What I'm saying is that people have a right to use force in that instance, and having a gun is equivalent to having the necessary force to stop crime. Calling the police during an ongoing crime isn't really an alternative. As somebody whose been a victim of a home invasion, I can tell you that most of the time, calling the police results in having a business card handed to you with a case number and nothing else. The people get away with it. Having force at your disposal not only acts as a deterrent but assures that the criminal is not getting away with it. They'll either stay put until the police arrive, or they'll be shot running away.

People do stupid things regardless. They don't need to be encouraged or enabled, but the fact that they're held accountable for whatever stupidity they cause should be an incentive for reasonable people to practice good safety habits. If everybody took your point of view on this, we'd be looking to ban alcohol, fast-food and cars because, by your logic, we're enabling/encouraging dangerous behavior.

But it does. You argument seems to be that we need more police because guns are dangerous when they aren't used by "trained professionals". I'm arguing that the police are even more dangerous than the non-trained professionals. Of course, that has a lot to do with the current state of affairs as it pertains to the War on Drugs and our reliance recruiting more police and giving the police more power rather than taking responsibility for our own security and supporting a person's right to defend themselves.

 

This is a good point and one downside of this program is it might lead to more guns being stolen from owners who aren't there and haven't secured their weapons properly.

 

She is doing better physically and socially since moving in. Considering she hasn't mentioned how she hates it, we think she really likes it.

 

Right, but we're talking about preventing crime. A gun in the home does not do that. All it does is give you the ability to get into that kitchen firefight I mentioned. Not a good preventative measure.

Speaking of manipulating arguments, how's that slippery slope ride treating you? Fun? There's a risk/reward factor to all things, using guns to prevent crime is not one of the better bets in the craps game of life.

Like I said, this stance makes it hard to take you seriously. The war on drugs is irrelevant to the conversation, and more and better trained police are never a bad thing. Unless you think reduced crime rates are bad, I suppose. Also note that a good police force and people taking responsibility for their own security are not mutually incompatible, nor is owning a gun a prerequisite for "taking responsibility" for yourself.

 

I used to live in Oak Forest about 20 years ago. I remember we had to tell our next door neighbor to quit using the N word around our 5 year old every 5 minutes.

He was always friendly to me and my wife, but when she wasn't around he used the word Spic about every 10 minutes. My wife is Mexican American.

It is the type of neighborhood that probably has a lot of folks who like to stroke their guns and imagine themselves as the next George Zimmerman.

To be fair the neighborhood is changing a lot as the Heights got expensive and it is fairly close in.

 

I think your view of criminals is what's naive. They want to get the money/goods with as little trouble as possible. They don't want to have to get into a shoot out where it will just draw more attention and effort by law enforcement.

Neighborhood watches have been shown to reduce crime in studies.
http://www.ncpc.org/resources/files/pdf/neighborhood-safety/does-neighborhood-watch-reduce-crime.pdf

Signs showing alarm systems also reduces crime from those homes.

 

I will add in anecdotal evidence to more than counter yours. I know at least 5 families that are current residents in Oak Forest. None of them are racist like the ones you knew 20 years ago. None of them are two faced like the ones you knew 20 years ago. I don't think that any of the families I know stroke their guns or imagine themselves as the next George Zimmerman.

 

Why is it relevant? This man is eager to put firearms in the hands of the residents. If he's so damned eager to do it, then why isn't he living there so he can personally experience the results of his actions? I think the guy is relishing the publicity, particularly in light of the recent unpleasantness in Florida. He's diggin' the spotlight. His ego is on parade. So if he cares so much, why doesn't he live in the neighborhood?

 

Coplen is part of an organization and this is one of the things they do. He is apparently doing graduate work with respect to firearms and deterrence of crime. Here is an "about" statement:

"The Armed Citizen Project is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to training and arming residents in mid-high crime areas with defensive shotguns, for free! In training and arming law-abiding residents, we are saturating neighborhoods with defensive weapons, and measuring the effect that a heavily armed society has on crime rates."

Considering one of his organization's goal is to do this throughout cities and neighborhoods, it would be difficult for him to live everywhere.

 

So no one apparently knows where he lives. OK.
Bobrek, you know I respect you, but can you honestly read the part of your quote that I bolded and describe that to me as a rational statement?

 

Sad to hear about the crime. Oak Forest and Garden Oaks were my boyhood home neighborhoods up until age 9 or so.

I would like to see him put those warning signs in every yard though. Keep 'em guessing!