my definition of "progress" would be if something about the isue is universally accepted. That will never happen no matter which side of the issue it supports. I see why you are confused. I was answering two questions. The first was about it is not like these articles will persuade anyone. The second was saying we are not making progress with this.
I think robberies would decrease, murder and other fatalities would increase. I prefer the robberies to the fatalities. Do you think violent crime/robberies would increase or decrease if no one had a firearm?
Increase most likely. It would then be wll know that a woman or a smaller man has no possible way to stop a larger stronger offender and "weapons" are only involved in thats weapons not firearms.
So police and martial arts are going to be banned too? I agree guns are good for self-defense but they have their own problems too. Also if you think less gun control is the answer then want criminals get more powerful guns, body armor and etc.. For that matter crime patterns will change to as criminals will more likely look to shoot first instead of intimidated.
Police rarely directly protect someone. they sweep up the mess and deter crime with punishment. Marshall arts is great but using your body to close to 100% efficiency will not help much if the person weighs twice as much and is a criminal who has been in fights all of his life. I assume you are into marshall arts, do you really think the time and dedication to learn to fight very well is found in 80% of the people out there? These are the same people who wait till the day of the hurricane to fill up their tank and buy water BTW.
I'd disagree. Do you think that incremental increase in violent crime is currently being deterred by the criminal's fear that an intended victim is armed? I think most criminals assume (and are usually correct) that their victims are not armed.
So I guess they are lying when they say "To Protect and Serve" I understand very much that police can't be everywhere but the counter argument that complete gun control will lead to a lot more crime I don't think carries much water when the police are still out there. Many societies have very strict gun control and many of them have lower crime than we do. Well I own a Marshall amp but I'm not sure how good that will be in self defense. A well trained smaller person can take down a much larger person using nothing more than their own body. For that matter who says that most robbers are people who fight all the time or are trained to fight? As far as training I agree a lot of people are lazy but who says that 80% of the people out there will bother to take the time to get well trained in the use of firearms, proper maintanence and storage?
They also have a much lower non-gun related crime rate. Also I never made the argument that it will lead to " a lot more crime" unless you are talking about possesion of a firearm crime. That will increase exponentially. I sold my DSL50 for a Mesa, Mesa is superior for versatility but still miss the Marshall The argument falls when you consider most violent offenders are young and previously violent people. That means they are less likely to be obese and more likely to be experienced in fighting. Plus they have the luxury to pick the fight. They are not gonna go after a guy bigger than them.
I don't know how we resolve this impasse. I googled around for surveys about a criminal's target selection but didn't come up with a lot. I did find an old (2000) number that said 200,000 Texans have concealed carry licenses. That's 1% of the population that might pull a gun on you when you try to rob them. I suppose it is one more factor to consider when picking your targets. On the flip-side, if no one had guns, the population of people who could rob others would be reduced to those who are bigger than their victims. Right now, a 5'7" hispanic can pull a gun on a 6'9" athlete and size wouldn't matter one jot.
It never ceases to amaze me how insensitive we have become. People are calling the CHL a moron, but completely disregard the robber. So is the robber the victim? Only in America. But I do see the liberal side; The robber isn't the moron, after all, as he can go rob places and expect no opposition. Only a selfish person would criticize someone for risking their life to stand up to violent crime. And don't give the ignorant rhetoric of endangering others ... the only party of endangering anyone is the one who is the procuring cause.
Good for him. One less scumbag on this planet. That is, if everything turns out like they say it did (I didn't read the article yet).
Although I myself don't have a definite position on the gun issue, I would say this story gives more support to the anti-gun lobby. The robber didn't commit a death-sentence-worthy crime and is dead, the customer is in serious condition and could have died, and other bystanders were needlessly endangered. I don't see a crime successfully averted. I see blood needlessly spilled.
