dead scumbags

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

There has always been varying degrees of violence in society, and there have always been crooks. Scale up the violence, and you will just scale up the violence that the crooks use.

 

The people robbing homes will just buy bigger guns and bullet proof armor. And if they see someone watching, they will not hesitate to shoot him/her. Ever heard of the term "escalation"?

 

Crims would not be around to reoffend if the system worked properly. They would be destroyed after the first court appearance.

 

Your escalation hypothesis can only be wrong where the state vigorously defends the citizen and upholds the law.

 

It is not working properly because of all the whining liberals challenging the law at every opportunity, and also because of all the grasping lawyers/solicitors.

 

There should be no hold up where proof of guilt is reasonably certain, for example DNA evidence. Also, there should be no free legal aid, where guilt is reasonably certain, ie where police inform the court they will use DNA evidence. Thirdly, where the above is in place, there should be no right to appeal. The sentence should be carried out within the week of being passed.

 

Escalation is what the state should be doing in its war on crime. With the funds and manpower available to the state, the state can only win.

[hugo]

I kind of have to agree with Stedric on this one. If confronting burglars with violence becomes more of a norm or threat. The criminals will just take out anyone who might be a threat to them. Whether that means taking out the neighbors before or after a burglary. Just how many started to take out phone lines to prevent calls to 911 or alarms to alert the alarm companies. In the end the criminal will do whatever it takes. The innocent civilian who may happen to accidentally witness a crime and get killed for it, even if they had no intention of intervening in the act or not, will be the true victim.

 

The escalation is a fluid and mobile thing and unfortunately, usually the good guys are playing catchup.

 

The legal penalty for murder is much higher than for burglary. Also the threat of an armed homeowner reduces breaking and entering and therefore the odds of a confrontation. I have seen no statistical evidence supporting your claim.

[hugo]

A little info:

 

II. International Comparisons

 

It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology textbook explains, "Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success." [FN8] Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. [FN9] But this happy fact of life, so taken for granted in the United States, is not universal.

 

 

 

The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home. [FN10]

 

 

 

In Toronto, forty-four percent of burglaries were against occupied homes, and twenty-one percent involved a confrontation with the victim. [FN11] Most Canadian residential burglaries occur at night, while American burglars are known to prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of an armed confrontation. [FN12]

 

 

 

In cities such as Vancouver, home invasion burglaries aimed at elderly people have become endemic, and murders of the elderly during those burglaries all too frequent. [FN14]

 

A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN16] The Wall Street Journal reported:

 

 

In Britain, seventy-seven percent of the population was afraid of burglary in 1994, compared to sixty percent in 1987. [FN18] The London Sunday Times, pointing to Britain's soaring burglary rate, calls Britain "a nation of thieves." [FN19] In the Netherlands, forty-eight percent of residential burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN20] In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence. [FN21]

 

 

Why should American criminals display such a curious reluctance to perpetrate burglaries, particularly against occupied residences? The answer cannot be that the American criminal justice system is so much tougher than the systems in other nations. During the 1980s, the probability of arrest and the severity of sentences for ordinary crimes in Canada and Great Britain were at least as great as in the United States. [FN23] Could the answer be that American criminals are afraid of getting shot? The introductory American criminology textbook states, "Opportunities for burglary occur only when a dwelling is unguarded." [FN24] Why is an axiomatic statement about American burglars so manifestly not true for burglars in other countries.

 

III. Risks to American Burglars

 

 

A. Risks to Burglars from Victims

 

One out of thirty-one burglars has been shot during a burglary. [FN25] On the whole, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. [FN26] If we assume that the risk of prison provides some deterrence to burglary, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the equally large risk of being shot provides an equally large deterrent. In other words, private individuals with firearms in their homes double the deterrent effect that would exist if government-imposed punishment were the only deterrent.

 

 

 

How frequently are firearms actually used in burglary situations? The only comprehensive study of the subject was undertaken by five researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"). [FN27] Although some CDC studies on firearms have been criticized for obvious technical errors and bias, [FN28] this particular study simply reported the facts as the researchers found them. In 1994, random-digit-dialing phone calls were made throughout the United States, resulting in 5,238 interviews. [FN29] The interviewees were asked about use of a firearm in a burglary situation during the last twelve months.

350

 

 

 

Thirty-four percent of the interviewees admitted to owning a firearm. This figure is low compared to dozens of other national studies of household firearms ownership. [FN30] Perhaps the telephone interviewers encountered an especially high number of people who were unwilling to disclose their ownership of a gun (and would therefore be unwilling to disclose, later in the interview, their use of that gun). [FN31] Thus, the burglary researchers are more likely to have underestimated anti-burglar firearms use than to have over-estimated it.

 

 

 

The researchers found that six percent of the sample population had used a firearm in a burglary situation in the last twelve months. [FN32] Extrapolating the polling sample to the national population, the researchers estimated that in the last twelve months, there were approximately 1,896,842 incidents in which a householder retrieved a firearm but did not see an intruder. [FN33] There were an estimated 503,481 incidents in which the armed householder did see the burglar, [FN34] and 497,646 incidents in which the burglar was scared away by the firearm. [FN35] In other words, half a million times every year, burglars were likely forced to flee a home because they encountered an armed victim.

 

 

 

A much more limited study about home invasion burglaries has achieved more notoriety than the national study discussed above. An article by Arthur Kellermann examined police reports of burglaries in Atlanta. [FN36] Out of 198 burglaries, Kellermann found only three cases in which the homeowner used a gun against the burglar, according to the police report. From this finding, Kellermann concluded that defensive gun use against burglars was rare. [FN37]

 

 

 

Unfortunately, Kellermann's study could not have been better designed to produce a gross undercount. Kellermann relied on burglary report forms compiled by the Atlanta police. Those report forms, however, do not include any field for the police officer to report defensive gun use by the victim. Furthermore, Atlanta police officers are not trained to solicit information about defensive gun use from the victims. [FN38] Thus, the only time that a defensive gun use ("DGU") would be recorded on the offense report would be when an officer spontaneously decided to record it on the free-form section of the burglary offense report. In other words, 351 Kellermann used a data set (burglary offense reports) that was not designed to record DGUs, and on the basis of this data set he concluded that DGUs were rare.

 

 

 

Besides the obvious inadequacy of the burglary offense reports, the Kellermann study was further flawed by its failure to account for the large number of cases in which a burglary victim scares away a burglar but does not report the incident. Less than half of all burglaries are reported to the police. [FN39] From the average homeowner's viewpoint, there would be little to gain in making such a report. While society as a whole might gain something from the report, the homeowner personally would not; the burglar, while still at large, would presumably focus on other homes not known to contain an armed occupant. By making the report, the citizen might perceive that he would take some risk of being charged with an offense (especially if he fired at the burglar) or of having his firearm confiscated. This perception might be particularly strong in Atlanta, where the Mayor and his police chiefs are well known as advocates of strict gun control. [FN40] Even when reporting a burglary, a citizen might choose not to disclose his use of a firearm.

 

 

 

The 1994 national CDC survey, discussed above, avoided all of these problems. [FN41] By making phone calls to a national random sample, the CDC study had a better chance of receiving information from burglary victims who chose not to call the police. Because the burglary victims were talking to a pollster, rather than to a police officer from a notoriously anti-gun administration, the victims would be more likely to acknowledge defensive gun use. And because the CDC pollsters (unlike the Atlanta police) were actually asking all burglary victims about DGUs in burglaries, [FN42] the pollsters were much more likely to find out about DGUs. Accordingly, the CDC study's figure, approximately a half-million annual confrontations between armed citizens and home invasion burglars, is plausible (although perhaps low), while Kellermann's assertion that such incidents hardly ever occur is not.

 

 

 

The most thorough survey of citizen defensive gun use in general (not just in burglaries) found that in well over ninety percent of incidents, a shot is never fired; the mere display of the gun suffices to end the confrontation. [FN43] The CDC study did not specifically ask whether a gun was fired. [FN44] Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that burglary DGU is similar to DGU in general, and that most incidents end with the burglar fleeing at the sight of the armed victim, rather than the victim shooting at the burglar.

 

352

 

 

 

B. Risks to Burglars From the Judicial System

 

 

Only 13 percent of burglaries are ever cleared by an arrest. [FN45] (This means that in 13 of 100 burglaries, someone identified as the burglar is eventually arrested. One arrest can "clear" dozens of burglaries. [FN46]) Many arrests, of course, do not lead to felony convictions. Of the felony convictions for burglary, [FN47] fifty-two percent lead to a prison sentence, twenty-three percent to jail time, and twenty-five percent to probation. [FN48] The median sentences are forty-eight months for prison, five months for jail, and thirty-six months for probation. [FN49]

 

 

 

On the whole, state prisoners serve about thirty-five percent of the time to which they are actually sentenced. [FN50] The above figures represent felony convictions. Misdemeanor convictions resulting from a burglary result in significantly shorter sentences. Given the criminal justice system's focus on violent crimes and on drug crimes, burglary has become a relatively low priority. [FN51]

[snafu]

Very good read.

I like how they point out that some of the polls are tainted just because of bad gun laws which make criminals out of homeowners. There's a law I would break too. These gun laws keep you and I from protecting ourselves. I don't understand the mentality in them at all.

 

Buglers are not usually out for the violence. They're out for the loot. But even if they were out for the violence wouldn't it be prudent to be prepared?

 

If I arm myself with a gun IWS the crook is not gonna go out and get a tank. They're looking for a couple of bucks not a war.

 

 

PS: You can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold fingers

[ImWithStupid]

Very good read.

I like how they point out that some of the polls are tainted just because of bad gun laws which make criminals out of homeowners. There's a law I would break too. These gun laws keep you and I from protecting ourselves. I don't understand the mentality in them at all.

 

Buglers are not usually out for the violence. They're out for the loot. But even if they were out for the violence wouldn't it be prudent to be prepared?

 

If I arm myself with a gun IWS the crook is not gonna go out and get a tank. They're looking for a couple of bucks not a war.

 

 

PS: You can have my gun when you pry it from my dead cold fingers

 

 

I guess you better hope that your legal pistol/shotgun/rifle can beat their illegal machine gun/full auto assault rifle. That's how escalation works.

 

If Hugo's theory was true, burglaries would have stopped when the average homeowner obtained secruity systems. The burglars would never have escalated to armed violence, and we wouldn't have needed the law in Texas that allowed the execution of criminals of property crimes.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Thans for a god read Hugo.

 

It's clear having read it, that guns in the hands of citizens are certainly a deterent to US burglars.

[timesjoke]

Most of the prison population is composed of drug offenders, not burglars.

 

I was responding to your claim that most scumbags were politicians, please try to stay in context.

 

 

I'll consider it if you can prove it.

 

Common knowledge, but Hugo posted a nice artical on it, 13 percent is about average depending on where you live.

 

 

Victims of higher insurance costs?! What?! You are living in a world where 25, 000 people die of starvation every day, and you think that having to pay a little more on insurance endows you with the title of "victim"?

 

 

If your paying more for things like insurance because some low lifes want to steal insted of getting a job, then yes, you are a victim. If your car is stolen, are you a victim or is it just what you deserve?

 

Of course we are all victims and your attempt to bring in starving people in other Countris just shows you understand how weak your arguement was so you tried to derail the discussion with some bleeding heart liberal garbage.

 

I am immune to that tactic so you may as well give it up.

 

Either my point about us all being victims of crime through things like increased insurance costs is correct or it is not, obviously you know it is correct or you would not have gotten so rediclious with that example.

 

Yeah, often enough people who are career criminals are scum. They are scummy, lousy, amoral human beings. So what? That doesn't give me, you, or anyone a right to blow them away. We have a legal system in place for good reason. but if you would like to go back to a civilization without due process, be my guest. Just don't drag the rest of us with you.

 

I have no problem with a legal system, but the guy must make it to that point for it to go into effect.

 

Most criminals do not want to go quietly when they are busted, they want to get away. Scum like this who want to get away have a very high possibility to use deadly force to avoid the penalty they are facing.

 

After the guy is under control, sure, I agree with him going through the system, but there must be that measure of control to make the judicial system possible.

 

 

A fetus is not a life. But I don't want to turn this into a pro-choice, pro-life argument, so let's assume that it is. So what? How would one type of murder then justify another?

 

The point is we cannot pretend to care about the killing of life when we are killing over a million lives every year and accepting that as a good thing.

 

A human being does not just appear one day from nothing, it is a process that must have a long series of steps. Without the fetus, there is no life, so they are connected and the same, life.

 

Besides, out of that 1.4 million abortions, about 350,000 are late term abortions, children who could live outside of the womb if given a chance, so would you call that ended life my friend?

 

 

The most a policeman can do is try and diffuse the situation without any one getting hurt. That's his JOB. Thats what we pay him to do.

 

It is much more complicated than that but again, the ratio of cops to populace is almost nothing and that is why we have so much crime. If just having a police force was enough, why is crime still out of control.

 

 

Obviously we are helpless and the only thing cops can do it show up "after" we are victims and help pick up the pieces, they cannot prevent anything.

 

Were these guys attacking him personally? Was his life in danger? No. There are lots of ways to protect yourself and your property (e.g. calling the police). Believe it or not, problems can be solved without murder! What an age we live in!

 

Letting someone get away with the property is not defending it. Clearly the attempt to not have a confrontation was made and the cops could not respond in time to protect the property, so the action was taken to defend property where the police failed.

 

The criminals were dangerious people, even the 911 operator said they would shoot him if he attempted to stop them so when they refused to stop, they were shot.

 

 

 

Only the criminals had the chance to avoid this, they could have decided to simply not be criminals, or they could have stopped when busted by the neighbor, but in both cases, they took actions that directly led to their deaths.

 

 

Why can't you liberals ever hold any responsibility to the criminals?

 

 

There has always been varying degrees of violence in society, and there have always been crooks. Scale up the violence, and you will just scale up the violence that the crooks use.

 

The people robbing homes will just buy bigger guns and bullet proof armor. And if they see someone watching, they will not hesitate to shoot him/her. Ever heard of the term "escalation"?

 

Your wrong on so many levels it is just silly.

 

The artical Hugo posted was great but you can also look at other factors.

 

 

Country areas where the owners tend to have guns, have almost no robbery calls. Using your assumption, these areas should be close to ww3 being as they are all armed to the teeth, they go hunting and sport shooting and have guns all over their homes, the robbers should be driving down the road in tanks by what your saying but what happens is they move on, move to areas where the people don't have guns and are easy victims.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

This is what hapened to a family who did not have a gun at home. They got beaten, tortured and raped by burglars:

 

 

[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d79_1183880276]LiveLeak.com - Shock: Teens gang rape mother and forced her pre-teen son to watch & participate...[/ame]

[hugo]

I guess you better hope that your legal pistol/shotgun/rifle can beat their illegal machine gun/full auto assault rifle. That's how escalation works.

 

 

People been shooting burglars since the invention of the gun. Don't see many burglars with assault rifles. Do you believe our police and military should also be unarmed? Would not want violence to be escalated.

[timesjoke]

People been shooting burglars since the invention of the gun. Don't see many burglars with assault rifles. Do you believe our police and military should also be unarmed? Would not want violence to be escalated.

 

 

I have never understood the liberal claim that if the honest resist, the criminals will just escalate.

 

On the whole, criminals are cowards, they trend to preying on those that are easy prey. Owning a gun gives you the ability to fight off any attacker, and that will cause cowards like robbers to back off most of the time.

 

 

In the use of force principle, having a gun is considered to be a type of force, it represents an ability to kill in the hands of it's owner. A crook does not want to face that force if there are other, weaker victims to prey upon especially when you are talking about robberies because the potential payoff for their successful robbery is so low, that the risk/reward factor does not make it worth death, or a murder charge just to steal some jewlery or a television set.

 

 

 

For those that simply want to roll over for criminals and be easy victims, I say fine, be the pacifist and allow yourself to be easy victims if you want. This is a free Country and you can decide to do what you want with your belongings. All I am asking is that you do not try and take away my right to defend what is mine, to not demand I let criminals take what they did not earn without a fight.

[hugo]

More facts (as oppossed to stupid little red diaper doper baby opinions):

 

Gun Ownership Mandatory in Kennesaw, Georgia

Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996. In 1982, Kennesaw Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their home, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections. Yet, after the law went into effect in 1982, there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).Seven months after it took effect, the residential burglary rate dropped 89%, vs. 10.4% statewide. Crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low.

In addition to nearly non-existent homicide, the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

 

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.

 

What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

 

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

? 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

 

 

 

Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

 

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

 

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

 

This was not what some predicted.

 

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

 

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

 

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Another god post Hugo- thanks.

 

The idea that crims will escalate their war on us if we defend ourselves is just bunkum. Claearly the opposite is true.

 

The crims in that town are not tooling up with bazookas and tanks ! They have crept of somewhere else to parasitise someone. They were never going to set about thieving in Kenesaw, where most homes have armed citizens. Far too risky, better to go rob some hand wringing liberals home.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I love living in Georgia... I have alot of friends in Kennesaw. I'll bet most of them are breaking the law :| but they are college kids. Oh well, better warn them!

[Anna Perenna]

He murdered two people plain and simple. Like the 911 operator said there's no property worth dieing or killing for.

 

That's right, that's right!

[hugo]

That's right, that's right!

 

Not here in Texas it ain't. It's called parasite extermination. Joe Horn was raised in an earlier era where neeighbors looked out for each other.

[Anna Perenna]

Not here in Texas it ain't. It's called parasite extermination. Joe Horn was raised in an earlier era where neeighbors looked out for each other.

 

Hehe.

 

Why doesn't Texas just emancipate itself from the USA and declare itself a rogue state already?

 

It can take in all the worst inmates from around the country (and promptly execute them), the National Guard can take over and declare martial law, and all the hardcore Texans can live happily ever after.

[hugo]

Hehe.

 

Why doesn't Texas just emancipate itself from the USA and declare itself a rogue state already?

 

It can take in all the worst inmates from around the country (and promptly execute them), the National Guard can take over and declare martial law, and all the hardcore Texans can live happily ever after.

 

We gotta wait till GW is out of office. We got oil, GW would find some humanitarian, or national security, excuse to invade.

[snafu]

Hehe.

 

Why doesn't Texas just emancipate itself from the USA and declare itself a rogue state already?

 

It can take in all the worst inmates from around the country (and promptly execute them), the National Guard can take over and declare martial law, and all the hardcore Texans can live happily ever after.

 

I think California already tried that. I say we let'em

[hugo]

Great news. The grand jury did not indict. Joe can go on helping his neighbors. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6235878

[wez]

Hahahaha.. Zero Joe..

 

Apparently I coulda killed those 4 kids ransacking cars the other week if I were feeling a bit murderous... I let em off easy..

[ImWithStupid]

Great news. The grand jury did not indict.

 

How could they? He didn't break any laws in Texas.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

Joe Horn can move in next door any time he likes. I'd be happy to have him there. I'm glad he killed that filth.

[hugo]

Hahahaha.. Zero Joe..

 

Apparently I coulda killed those 4 kids ransacking cars the other week if I were feeling a bit murderous... I let em off easy..

 

 

Better check Minnesota law first. Any state that had Mondale for a senator probably ain't real strong on private property rights.

[ImWithStupid]

Better check Minnesota law first. Any state that had Mondale for a senator probably ain't real strong on private property rights.

 

Don't forget, they're likely to get Al Franken next.

[wez]

Yeah.. Pretty sure the cops wouldn't have appreciated 4 corpses when they got here..

 

See, here in Minnesota we value human life a bit more than a handful of cd's and some pocket change .... and Al Franken is just the man to prove it..