Armed citizen shoots gunman and saves lives

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Why is there a decline in gun murders?
No one knows why the rate of gun homicide has dropped over the past 20 years. There is some consensus that it may simply be a matter of demographics. The Pew Research Centre notes that the large post-war baby boom created a lot of people aged 15 to 20, a high-crime age bracket, in the 1960s and 1970s, which contributed to a rise in crime.

Some of the more controversial reasons suggested by researchers relate to abortion and lead exposure. One theory that has been floated is that the 1973 legalization of abortion resulted in a decrease in the number of unwanted children, a cohort that might be considered at higher risk of turning criminal.

Another is that a reduction in the use of lead in gasoline during the 1970s reduced exposure to a substance that can cause brain damage and possibly violent behaviour. The National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit that aims to give independent advice related to science, questioned whether either idea played a major role in the drop in gun crime.

How does the U.S. compare to the rest of the world?
According to 2009 data collected by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. sees 3.3 homicides by firearm for every 100,000 citizens. By comparison, Canada's rate is 0.5 homicides and the U.K. is 0.1. Most European countries sit somewhere in the same range.

China and Russia are not in the UNODC roundup, and there are many countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean and parts of Africa that have much higher rates than the U.S. Mexico, for example, has three times the U.S. rate for gun homicides according to UNODC data. In Colombia and Venezuela, the rates per 100,000 are 27 and 38.9 respectively. In South Africa, it is 17.03 gun homicide deaths per 100,000 people.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.1858107
So what exactly keeps Americans from killing each other--as much as Mexicans--with firearms?
Is it "freedom" (undefined), or fear, or...?
With 97 firearms per 100 people, I doubt it is a lack of projectile probabilities. Mexico is tied with Aussies at 15 per 100.
It probably is fear. That seems to be the only thing that motivates the US to do anything.
After all, isn't that why you want to have firearms on you at all times? You're afraid of being caught in a firefight, correct?
Or is there some other psychological dysfunction that makes you crave the aroma of Charcoal, Saltpeter and Sulfur?
Click to expand...
mexico MIGHT have 15 guns per 100 people like australia, if you only look at legal arms.

considering how many illegal arms mexico has on the streets, and the fact that these arms are in the hands of notorious murderous crime syndicates, well the issue becomes much less clear.

australia, in it's recent gun siezures, has eliminated a large number of arms, so now diggers are stabbing people to death with barbecue forks and bashing each other over the head with didgeridoos.

mexico is connected by a lawless jungle fronteir to the lawless jungles of south america, where gun running and drug cartels are more powerful than the governments.

the US is also connected to mexico by an unsecured border, allowing all manner of south of the border crime to come north at will, which is a large part of the US crime problem.

european nations are smaller than american states, and some are smaller than counties, so their law enforcement is more concentrated, their populations are much more homogenous, so outsiders stand out better, and any society's OUTSIDERS are the primary source of crime.

the US cannot be compared to any other nation on earth, we are unique in our design, and our problems are similarly unique.

even canada is entirely different from the US.

their population is ~90% european, and the US buffers canada from the latin american criminal element.

funny how, with all this talk of how violent the US is from cannucks, they cant ever point to any increase in crime on THEIR southern border coming from lawless america.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Defend your family against what?
Click to expand...
ohh canada.

you so cray cray.

here in america we have hoime invasion robbers, drive by shooters, crazed meth heads, street gangs, etc etc etc.

i keep a pistol a rifle and a shotgun loaded and ready at all times, in various places around my house.

YOU may only have to worry about hungry bears tipping over your trash cans in the dead of night, or wayward mooses nibbling your hedges, but here in the US we have all manner of scumbags from all over the earth coming in without any border controls at all, which only intensifies the indigenous criminal element, so americans got to be ready to shoot a perp.

hell even my mom keeps the .357 i gave her close to hand.
 
Da Mann

Da Mann

Well-Known Member
The people that broke into his house deserve to die. No one has a right in another's Castle unless invited. But he will hang. The people were no longer a threat because they were running away. That is how they will look at it and he will be phucked. To bad a old man like that will spend his last years either in prison or in court. So you limp wristed little bitches come on.



:bigjoint:
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Why is there a decline in gun murders?
No one knows why the rate of gun homicide has dropped over the past 20 years. There is some consensus that it may simply be a matter of demographics. The Pew Research Centre notes that the large post-war baby boom created a lot of people aged 15 to 20, a high-crime age bracket, in the 1960s and 1970s, which contributed to a rise in crime.

Some of the more controversial reasons suggested by researchers relate to abortion and lead exposure. One theory that has been floated is that the 1973 legalization of abortion resulted in a decrease in the number of unwanted children, a cohort that might be considered at higher risk of turning criminal.

Another is that a reduction in the use of lead in gasoline during the 1970s reduced exposure to a substance that can cause brain damage and possibly violent behaviour. The National Academy of Sciences, a non-profit that aims to give independent advice related to science, questioned whether either idea played a major role in the drop in gun crime.

How does the U.S. compare to the rest of the world?
According to 2009 data collected by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. sees 3.3 homicides by firearm for every 100,000 citizens. By comparison, Canada's rate is 0.5 homicides and the U.K. is 0.1. Most European countries sit somewhere in the same range.

China and Russia are not in the UNODC roundup, and there are many countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean and parts of Africa that have much higher rates than the U.S. Mexico, for example, has three times the U.S. rate for gun homicides according to UNODC data. In Colombia and Venezuela, the rates per 100,000 are 27 and 38.9 respectively. In South Africa, it is 17.03 gun homicide deaths per 100,000 people.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.1858107
So what exactly keeps Americans from killing each other--as much as Mexicans--with firearms?
Is it "freedom" (undefined), or fear, or...?
With 97 firearms per 100 people, I doubt it is a lack of projectile probabilities. Mexico is tied with Aussies at 15 per 100.
It probably is fear. That seems to be the only thing that motivates the US to do anything.
After all, isn't that why you want to have firearms on you at all times? You're afraid of being caught in a firefight, correct?
Or is there some other psychological dysfunction that makes you crave the aroma of Charcoal, Saltpeter and Sulfur?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, having a clear right to be armed means that some citizens, but not all, will be armed. This puts the average violent criminal in a pickle: how does he know who to target? The simple answer is, he doesn't know who he is safe to assault so he scales back his criminal activity to other crimes that don't put him in a confrontation with potentially armed citizens. The few that do continue their violent ways sometimes meet with a blast of justice (see, for example, Trayvon Martin). Result: fewer violent crimes. It is analogous to the concept of "herd immunity" for immunizations. Even though I don't carry a gun, I am protected by those who do.

The other point about demographics is also valid. As men age they become less violent. Yes, I excluded women because women mostly don't factor into the violent crime equation.
 
earnest_voice

earnest_voice

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
mexico MIGHT have 15 guns per 100 people like australia, if you only look at legal arms.

considering how many illegal arms mexico has on the streets, and the fact that these arms are in the hands of notorious murderous crime syndicates, well the issue becomes much less clear.

australia, in it's recent gun siezures, has eliminated a large number of arms, so now diggers are stabbing people to death with barbecue forks and bashing each other over the head with didgeridoos.

mexico is connected by a lawless jungle fronteir to the lawless jungles of south america, where gun running and drug cartels are more powerful than the governments.

the US is also connected to mexico by an unsecured border, allowing all manner of south of the border crime to come north at will, which is a large part of the US crime problem.

european nations are smaller than american states, and some are smaller than counties, so their law enforcement is more concentrated, their populations are much more homogenous, so outsiders stand out better, and any society's OUTSIDERS are the primary source of crime.

the US cannot be compared to any other nation on earth, we are unique in our design, and our problems are similarly unique.

even canada is entirely different from the US.

their population is ~90% european, and the US buffers canada from the latin american criminal element.

funny how, with all this talk of how violent the US is from cannucks, they cant ever point to any increase in crime on THEIR southern border coming from lawless america.
Click to expand...
74% of your population is of European descent. Are you claiming the other 26% of the populace is responsible for the crime?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
earnest_voice said:
74% of your population is of European descent. Are you claiming the other 26% of the populace is responsible for the crime?
Click to expand...
actually yes.

most of the crime is caused by minorities.

nationally, negroes, ~13% of the population, commit ~29% of the crimes, while chicanos and hispanics are rolled into "white" to make the numbers look less shocking
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

when chicanos are examined as a separate group, they really shine as criminal actors.

"hispanics" are ~17% of the population but rack up an impressive 40% of criminal convictions, even beating out the negro in their perfidy.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/02/18/a-rising-share-hispanics-and-federal-crime/

california is a fine example of the racial breakdown of crime:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/Census/CENSUSd1306.pdf

california's "hispanic" population is around 32% and our prison population is ~41% "hispanic" (excluding those totally believable "whites" from bakersfeild who only speak spanish with a guatamalan or michoacan accent.)

california's "white" population is 77% while the white prison population is ~23%

california's black population is around 6% ( lower than the national average) but our black prison population is 29%.

so yeah. honkeys aint the ones committing the majority of crimes.
 
earnest_voice

earnest_voice

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
actually yes.

most of the crime is caused by minorities.

nationally, negroes, ~13% of the population, commit ~29% of the crimes, while chicanos and hispanics are rolled into "white" to make the numbers look less shocking
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

when chicanos are examined as a separate group, they really shine as criminal actors.

"hispanics" are ~17% of the population but rack up an impressive 40% of criminal convictions, even beating out the negro in their perfidy.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/02/18/a-rising-share-hispanics-and-federal-crime/

california is a fine example of the racial breakdown of crime:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/Census/CENSUSd1306.pdf

california's "hispanic" population is around 32% and our prison population is ~41% "hispanic" (excluding those totally believable "whites" from bakersfeild who only speak spanish with a guatamalan or michoacan accent.)

california's "white" population is 77% while the white prison population is ~23%

california's black population is around 6% ( lower than the national average) but our black prison population is 29%.

so yeah. honkeys aint the ones committing the majority of crimes.
Click to expand...
Offense Convictions in Federal Courts
  • Among all Hispanics sentenced in federal courts in 2007, 48% were sentenced for immigration offenses, 37% for drug offenses and 15% for other offenses.
  • Of Hispanic offenders with U.S. citizenship, more than half (56%) were sentenced for drug offenses, 14% for immigration offenses and 30% for all other offenses.
  • Of Latino offenders who did not hold U.S. citizenship, more than six-in-ten (61%) were sentenced for immigration offenses, 30% for drug offenses and 9% for all other offenses.
  • Much of the increase in the number of Hispanics sentenced in federal courts has come from a rise in the number of offenders sentenced for immigration offenses between 1991 and 2007.
  • Three-fourths of Hispanic immigration offenders were sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization. Nearly two-in-ten (19%) were sentenced for smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien.
  • More than eight-in-ten (81%) non-citizen Hispanic immigration offenders in 2007 were sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization. In contrast, fully 91% of Latino immigration offenders who were U.S. citizens were sentenced for smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien.
Prison Sentences
  • In 2007, Hispanics sentenced in federal courts were more likely than non-Hispanic offenders to receive a prison sentence—96% versus 82%.
  • Hispanics sentenced in federal courts in 2007 received shorter prison sentences than blacks or whites—46 months versus 91 months for blacks and 62 months for whites.
  • Hispanics who did not hold U.S. citizenship were more likely to receive a prison sentence in 2007 than those who were citizens—98% versus 90%.
  • The average prison sentence for Hispanics fell from 58 months in 1991 to 46 months in 2007.
  • Non-U.S. citizen Latinos received shorter prison sentences (40 months) in 2007 than Hispanics with U.S. citizenship (61 months).
Fine example of the racial breakdown of your mind
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
earnest_voice said:
Offense Convictions in Federal Courts
  • Among all Hispanics sentenced in federal courts in 2007, 48% were sentenced for immigration offenses, 37% for drug offenses and 15% for other offenses.
  • Of Hispanic offenders with U.S. citizenship, more than half (56%) were sentenced for drug offenses, 14% for immigration offenses and 30% for all other offenses.
  • Of Latino offenders who did not hold U.S. citizenship, more than six-in-ten (61%) were sentenced for immigration offenses, 30% for drug offenses and 9% for all other offenses.
  • Much of the increase in the number of Hispanics sentenced in federal courts has come from a rise in the number of offenders sentenced for immigration offenses between 1991 and 2007.
  • Three-fourths of Hispanic immigration offenders were sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization. Nearly two-in-ten (19%) were sentenced for smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien.
  • More than eight-in-ten (81%) non-citizen Hispanic immigration offenders in 2007 were sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization. In contrast, fully 91% of Latino immigration offenders who were U.S. citizens were sentenced for smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien.
Prison Sentences
  • In 2007, Hispanics sentenced in federal courts were more likely than non-Hispanic offenders to receive a prison sentence—96% versus 82%.
  • Hispanics sentenced in federal courts in 2007 received shorter prison sentences than blacks or whites—46 months versus 91 months for blacks and 62 months for whites.
  • Hispanics who did not hold U.S. citizenship were more likely to receive a prison sentence in 2007 than those who were citizens—98% versus 90%.
  • The average prison sentence for Hispanics fell from 58 months in 1991 to 46 months in 2007.
  • Non-U.S. citizen Latinos received shorter prison sentences (40 months) in 2007 than Hispanics with U.S. citizenship (61 months).
Fine example of the racial breakdown of your mind
Click to expand...
Did you have an actual point? Maybe you could clarify a bit?
 
W

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
earnest_voice said:
Fine example of the racial breakdown of your mind
Click to expand...
The FBI uniform crime report says otherwise.

The UCR says that blacks are responsible for more homicides than all other ethnic groups combined, and the overwhelming majority of their victims are fellow blacks. Go figure. Matter of fact, blacks have lead the way when it comes to homicide for decades now. Great people, with a great culture of ignorance, hate, and murder.

The disparity is so bad that some P.C. motherfuckers in the federal government FORCED the FBI to change the way they track the ethnicity of their target data in a vain attempt to make black crime appear less prevalent than the other races.

Here's how they report crime by race:

Whites....

Blacks...

Asian or
Pacific
Islander


American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native


No Hispanics or Latino category, despite the fact that they make up the majority of the population in some parts of the country. So all those motherfuckers that sneak into the country from south of the border and do fucked up shit are counted as if they were Joe Whitebread from West Virginia.

How convenient.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
earnest_voice said:
Offense Convictions in Federal Courts
  • Among all Hispanics sentenced in federal courts in 2007, 48% were sentenced for immigration offenses, 37% for drug offenses and 15% for other offenses.
  • Of Hispanic offenders with U.S. citizenship, more than half (56%) were sentenced for drug offenses, 14% for immigration offenses and 30% for all other offenses.
  • Of Latino offenders who did not hold U.S. citizenship, more than six-in-ten (61%) were sentenced for immigration offenses, 30% for drug offenses and 9% for all other offenses.
  • Much of the increase in the number of Hispanics sentenced in federal courts has come from a rise in the number of offenders sentenced for immigration offenses between 1991 and 2007.
  • Three-fourths of Hispanic immigration offenders were sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization. Nearly two-in-ten (19%) were sentenced for smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien.
  • More than eight-in-ten (81%) non-citizen Hispanic immigration offenders in 2007 were sentenced for entering the U.S. unlawfully or residing in the country without authorization. In contrast, fully 91% of Latino immigration offenders who were U.S. citizens were sentenced for smuggling, transporting or harboring an unlawful alien.
Prison Sentences
  • In 2007, Hispanics sentenced in federal courts were more likely than non-Hispanic offenders to receive a prison sentence—96% versus 82%.
  • Hispanics sentenced in federal courts in 2007 received shorter prison sentences than blacks or whites—46 months versus 91 months for blacks and 62 months for whites.
  • Hispanics who did not hold U.S. citizenship were more likely to receive a prison sentence in 2007 than those who were citizens—98% versus 90%.
  • The average prison sentence for Hispanics fell from 58 months in 1991 to 46 months in 2007.
  • Non-U.S. citizen Latinos received shorter prison sentences (40 months) in 2007 than Hispanics with U.S. citizenship (61 months).
Fine example of the racial breakdown of your mind
Click to expand...
read those words again.

MOST of the federal prosecutions were NOT for immigration offenses, but immigration offenses were the largest single category of federal prosecutions

96% of chicanos got prison terms, while 82% of all others got time in slam.

negroes got longer terms in slam, as did honkeys, while chicanos got light sentences (lulz, deportation cuts the averages by a lot...)

these federal conviction stats are MEANINGLESS when you stare at the minutae until your brain bleeds trying to find a reason to cry out "That's Racist!!"

california's prison stats are much more informative and paint a much clearer picture of the racial breakdown of crime without the massive stat skewing immigration mess fucking up the numbers.

in every category o fserious crimes against persons and property, blacks and chicanos commit offenses far beyond their representation in the population by huge multiples.

this is a simple fact, and it is not caused by "poverty" (more whites below the poverty line than any other group) or racist prosecutions (look at the crimes of stupidity, like drunk driving, where each race is roughly represented by their population, how curious) or by "SES".

those are all excuses for the rampant crime committed by minorities, who believe they will be forgiven by the kind white liberal establishment based on their touching stories of personal hardship.

if you want to see more rimes and more minorities in prison, you just keep making excuses for their actions and enabling their behaviour.

it's been working like a charm for the past 40 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top