Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: fbi reports crime stats an armed public is a safer public

  1. #1
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    fbi reports crime stats an armed public is a safer public


  2. #2
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    home invasion shooting

    here's a good example from last night

    http://detnews.com/article/20100705/...kills-intruder

  3. #3
    Regular Member erb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    63
    Good article! I like to send that stuff to people who don't know.

    I'm happy the intruder was killed! But I'm not sure why the homeowner didn't shoot first... I dunno about you people, but anyone in my house is a clear threat. I'm not gonna wait to get shot at before I decide to neutralize the threat. Agreed

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    i like the handy charts that compare gun sales increases to murder/violent crime decrease


  5. #5
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by erb View Post
    Good article! I like to send that stuff to people who don't know.

    I'm happy the intruder was killed! But I'm not sure why the homeowner didn't shoot first... I dunno about you people, but anyone in my house is a clear threat. I'm not gonna wait to get shot at before I decide to neutralize the threat. Agreed
    No... not agreed. There are many scenarios where just because a person is in my home they do not automatically present a threat. One would be a neighbor with Alzheimers confused as to where he/she is... even if they smashed a window thinking it was their own window they were smashing to get into what they think is their own home.

    And there are other scenarios where shooting first before identifying who, what, and why....... would end up being a very bad thing to do.

    I know... that "identifying who, what, and why," takes time and there isn't always time.... but it is us, the defender, who must... absolutely must... be damn sure there is something to defend from before doing the defending.

    Smashing a window and coming inside is breaking and entering... but breaking and entering doesn't constitute an imminent threat of death of great bodily harm...

    And some old fart who broke in and is looking through the cupboards because someone moved the coffee pot that used to be on the countertop 40 years ago... doesn't constitute an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm either. It's just a confused old fart who doesn't deserve to be shot because he got the wrong house.

    And before deadly force can be used, even in the home, there must be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm... I left out the sexual penetration because in my scenario anyone old enough to have Alzheimers wouldn't be much of a threat for that.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 07-05-2010 at 07:49 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    228
    i thought that john lott had already established this.

  7. #7
    Regular Member erb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    63
    Good point. But I think in Detroit, breaking and entering does constitute and imminent threat!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by erb View Post
    Good point. But I think in Detroit, breaking and entering does constitute and imminent threat!
    i think that goes for the suburbs, as well, these days.

  9. #9
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    FBI stats

    thought you guys would find it interesting. i actually went looking for crime stats that would show INCREASED crime to show why OC was necessary but found this instead. this works even better. stats don't lie.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by kryptonian View Post
    thought you guys would find it interesting. i actually went looking for crime stats that would show INCREASED crime to show why OC was necessary but found this instead. this works even better. stats don't lie.
    Correct, but people who cite them frequently do misconstrue them.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    And before deadly force can be used, even in the home, there must be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm...
    Sorry Bikenut but Michigan law disagrees with you.

    780.951

    780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
    Sec. 1.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

    (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
    (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).
    The law allows us to assume that some one who is breaking in or has already broken into our home or place of business is there to do us great bodily harm, death, or rape. There are exceptions to this that can be read at the link.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Sorry Bikenut but Michigan law disagrees with you.

    780.951Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
    Sec. 1.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

    (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.
    (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).



    The law allows us to assume that some one who is breaking in or has already broken into our home or place of business is there to do us great bodily harm, death, or rape. There are exceptions to this that can be read at the link.

    Bronson
    Thank you Bronson..... I stand corrected as to what the law allows the home owner/resident to presume.

    However, because of the word "rebuttable" meaning the prosecution can present mitigating factors that prove the intruder wasn't a threat, I do not believe that "lawful presumption" permits a home owner/resident to just start shooting based upon the one factor of an intruder having intruded.

    I personally will continue to assess first and then decide if any intruder is actually a threat before using deadly force. Because I'm fairly sure what a jury would decide for a verdict if the intruder really was an old fart with Alzheimers.....

    Now I'm well aware that the odds are any intruder won't be an old fart with Alzheimers but would be a bad guy.... yet assessing for an actual threat would be wise before opening fire just because someone is in the house who doesn't belong there.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 07-06-2010 at 03:56 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •