• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you suppose has stopped more violent crime?

What do you suppose has stopped more violent crime?

  • Total voters
    37
Fisher said:
Probably big scary dogs, truth be told. Criminals do not like big dogs.
Click to expand...

That's true. A DA we know said she has never had a case where a woman was assaulted in any way by a stranger when she had a dog with her - any size dog. It goes against "crime of opportunity." Pick someone easier.

We used to have a real problem with tresspassers coming uninvited and for not good reasons on our property. They knew we certainly could defend ourselves, but using violence against someone who is being obnoxious and refusing to leave is a hassle, even waiting for police etc. The solution was 2 big, very unfriendly dogs. Part pit. Black. Wide jaws. VERY protective of their space. Big warnings. Double fence and gate. Can't argue with them. And really don't like tresspassers.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm thinking more of a scenario where I am confronted by a *violent* criminal (*emphasis on the word violent). But yes, if there was time to make a call, I would do it, but I would also like to have a weapon to defend myself against the attacker because more than likely the police would not arrive in time to save my sorry butt! :shock:
Click to expand...

The problem is a "violent criminal" rarely pre-announces intent in public - shouting while approaching "I'm going to assault you!"

That is the most complex question in training someone (women). When to draw. What to say. When to aim. When to shoot. At someone who MIGHT be dangerous approaching. In most states, threatening someone with a gun is a felony UNTIL (generally) you had a legal right to shoot.

Florida has an insane law that a "warning shoot" is a MINIMUM of 20 years, even if to legitimately scare someone off, and probably more of a sentence if you just shot the person - where shooting the person to death would be legal but its 20 years if instead you just fired a warning shot.
 
joko104 said:
That's true. A DA we know said she has never had a case where a woman was assaulted in any way by a stranger when she had a dog with her - any size dog. It goes against "crime of opportunity." Pick someone easier.

We used to have a real problem with tresspassers coming uninvited and for not good reasons on our property. They knew we certainly could defend ourselves, but using violence against someone who is being obnoxious and refusing to leave is a hassle, even waiting for police etc. The solution was 2 big, very unfriendly dogs. Part pit. Black. Wide jaws. VERY protective of their space. Big warnings. Double fence and gate. Can't argue with them. And really don't like tresspassers.
Click to expand...

A cop told me a funny story where they chased some guys into a thicket one night and had them surrounded and they refused to come out and they did not want to go into the briars to get them. They made it sound like they were bringing in the dogs and had a couple officers who were good at it start barking like crazy and shaking limbs, rustling leaves and the guys they were chasing came shooting out of the bushes screaming for them to keep the dogs away from them.
 
H. Lee White said:
So... A or B?
Click to expand...

Neither. They are both inanimate object incapable of acting on their own. Also, you limited to only a revolver instead of all fire arms.

People is the only correct answer. However, I do think that the revolver, actually fire arms in general, is a more useful tool in the prevention of violent crime, since when you use a cell phone, it is to call someone who has a fire arm to help you.

Also, since the revolver allows you to take immediate action, while a cell phone requires you to wait until someone else arrives, of course the revolver is better for stopping violent crime, unless of course you are unwilling or unable to use the revolver.

The core of your questions is whether taking action yourself or calling for someone to take action on your part works better. Generally, taking action yourself is the better choice.

Statistics which I have posted on this forum before, clearly shows that the advent of violent crime was much lower when almost everyone in America had a gun and could use it. Since the revolver was the primary handgun during that time, the revolver wins.
 
joko104 said:
The problem is a "violent criminal" rarely pre-announces intent in public - shouting while approaching "I'm going to assault you!"

That is the most complex question in training someone (women). When to draw. What to say. When to aim. When to shoot. At someone who MIGHT be dangerous approaching. In most states, threatening someone with a gun is a felony UNTIL (generally) you had a legal right to shoot.
Click to expand...

I know it can probably be pretty complicated. That is why, if I ever decide to get a gun, I will take safety and instructional classes. It would be totally worth the extra $$ to be in the "know".

Florida has an insane law that a "warning shoot" is a MINIMUM of 20 years, even if to legitimately scare someone off, and probably more of a sentence if you just shot the person - where shooting the person to death would be legal but its 20 years if instead you just fired a warning shot.
Click to expand...

That is a completely ridiculous law. :roll:
 
H. Lee White said:
One of the choices is correct. Which do you think it is?
A? B?
Click to expand...

It is NOT a simplistic answer to a complex question.
As posed, the poll question is absurb, but I'll not be forced into the gun lovers arena.
As stated before, the answer is a better people via time and education.
 
This is such a stupid poll I think I'll start one of my own.

Which do you suppose has caused more violent crime?

A) Cell phone

B) Revolver
 
Revolver, unless you got the gun app.
 
A gun has stopped more violent crimes than a cellphone.

What has prevented more violent crimes?

A gun or a cellphone?
 
H. Lee White said:
Because....?
It asks a simple question, to compare one number to another.
Maybe you just don't like the answer?
Click to expand...

It's a stupid poll. You'll get all of the gun nuts voting for the revolver and most of the rest of us won't bother.
 
Well, it was a third grade poll.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, it was a third grade poll.
Click to expand...
Hardly - it was simple, sound and provocative, as illustrated by the responses - such as yours - that did everything except address the question that was asked.
 
TurtleDude said:
those who think citizens ought to outsource personal safety to the benevolent big brother government tend to be hostile to those who think that one's own personal safety is mainly an individual duty
Click to expand...

*chuckles* little over the top maybe?

Government should provide the best environment it can for it's citizens that includes policies of safety.
 
Honestly truth is this. If some one is determine to attack you neither will likely save you, both are too slow if your adversary is better prepared or more powerful which is usually the case.
 
Wiggen said:
This is such a stupid poll I think I'll start one of my own.

Which do you suppose has caused more violent crime?

A) Cell phone

B) Revolver
Click to expand...

Actually saw this post right after I made my poll.

I think a gun is more useful if you're being attacked but I answered cell phone because there's so many more cell phones than guns.
 
I'm an avid supporter of the second amendment and gun owner, but I said cell-phones not for the silly reason the OP listed, but because the introduction of cell phones has massively increased the coverage area for police who can hear about a crime that hitherto would have gone unreported due to lack of an immediate payphone or home phone. The benefits from increased police response, crime reporting, and the subsequent removal of criminals from the streets has probably been a massive boon.
 
All you people seem to assume that if a victim brandishes a gun the criminal is going to decide to run away. That might be true, but just as a victim should rightly feel threatened by a criminal with a gun, a criminal will feel threatened by a victim with a gun. And the criminal already has his gun out and pointed at the victim in the most logical scenario. As western cinema makes clear, guns are only really effective if you're the first one to draw.

For that reason, I suspect a cellphone is more likely to stop violent crime than a gun. Not because it is particularly likely to stop violent crime, but because an additional gun seems more likely to exacerbate the situation.
 
Krhazy said:
All you people seem to assume that if a victim brandishes a gun the criminal is going to decide to run away.
Click to expand...
Compared to a victim brandishing a gun...
Is it more or less likely that criminal will run away when his victim brandishes a cell phone?
Is it more or less likely that criminal will run away when his victim brandishes nothing?

That might be true, but just as a victim should rightly feel threatened by a criminal with a gun, a criminal will feel threatened by a victim with a gun.
Click to expand...
First, see below.
Second... this is why the criminal is likely to run away.
:shrug:

And the criminal already has his gun out and pointed at the victim in the most logical scenario.
Click to expand...
Not so. 70% of violent crime does not involve an attacker with a gun.

For that reason, I suspect a cellphone is more likely to stop violent crime than a gun. Not because it is particularly likely to stop violent crime, but because an additional gun seems more likely to exacerbate the situation.
Click to expand...
So... your response in non-sensical. Roger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom