• 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
0bserver92 said:
Well for someone like me it would be rather easy to just scare them off since I am pretty tall. Just attract a lot of attention to yourself and and act intimidating and you can scare most of them away. In other cases it's rather hard for them to stab you if they don't have eyeballs or something in their eyeballs.
Click to expand...

Its good to be trained in how to best get the better of a criminal.
Its absurd, when confronted with the thief with a gun, or knife, to pull you own weapon...within that little time frame, a second or two, death or serious injury occurs.Cell phone or gun....matter not....
These are NOT the answer...
 
Choice C: Strengthening education, improving transit networks, cracking down on real crime and not victimless crimes, improving the social safety net, working with civic leaders of diverse backgrounds, building more parks and fewer parking lots, decriminalizing recreational drug use, etc. I.e., addressing the root causes of 90% of violent crime and not trying to play whack-a-mole with it.
 
earthworm said:
Its good to be trained in how to best get the better of a criminal.
Its absurd, when confronted with the thief with a gun, or knife, to pull you own weapon...within that little time frame, a second or two, death or serious injury occurs.Cell phone or gun....matter not....
These are NOT the answer...
Click to expand...
One of the choices is correct. Which do you think it is?
A? B?
 
Witnesses stop crimes, because criminals don't want to get caught. The prominence of cell phones has drastically increased the chance for witnesses to see a crime. The poll seems to expect that the criminal will fear the police literally showing up and rescuing the victim in the middle of being mugged. That's insane. But every potential person around is a danger to the criminal. Every cell phone in the hands of everyone who could call the police, take a photo, or capture of a video is that much greater chance that the criminal will be caught. Thugs do not fear that their victims might be armed. They fear capture later on. No one's fantasies of being John Wayne and valiantly shooting the black hats is going to change that. If you are met with violence, and respond with violence, odds are just that you're going to die. You have a lot more to lose. And you will lose.

Get over yourselves.
 
Paschendale said:
Witnesses stop crimes, because criminals don't want to get caught. The prominence of cell phones has drastically increased the chance for witnesses to see a crime. The poll seems to expect that the criminal will fear the police literally showing up and rescuing the victim in the middle of being mugged. That's insane.
Click to expand...
So, you choose B.
Correct?
 
H. Lee White said:
So, you choose B.
Correct?
Click to expand...

No, B is complete nonsense. We don't live in the old west. But A is worded foolishly. Communities stop crime, not lone gunmen. Not even lone phonemen, either.

Even outside of a direct confrontation, the proliferation of information technology, including through phones, has increased education and thus financial stability for many. Financially stable people don't rob others. Phones have done more to stop crime than guns ever could. We've tried to use violence to stop other violence for thousands of years, and it has never worked. Now we're trying something that could actually help.
 
Paschendale said:
No, B is complete nonsense. We don't live in the old west. But A is worded foolishly. Communities stop crime, not lone gunmen.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand the question. I only slightly wonder if this is deliberate.
 
H. Lee White said:
You clearly do not understand the question. I only slightly wonder if this is deliberate.
Click to expand...

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
 
Paschendale said:
Witnesses stop crimes, because criminals don't want to get caught. The prominence of cell phones has drastically increased the chance for witnesses to see a crime. The poll seems to expect that the criminal will fear the police literally showing up and rescuing the victim in the middle of being mugged. That's insane. But every potential person around is a danger to the criminal. Every cell phone in the hands of everyone who could call the police, take a photo, or capture of a video is that much greater chance that the criminal will be caught. Thugs do not fear that their victims might be armed. They fear capture later on. No one's fantasies of being John Wayne and valiantly shooting the black hats is going to change that. If you are met with violence, and respond with violence, odds are just that you're going to die. You have a lot more to lose. And you will lose.

Get over yourselves.
Click to expand...


Oddly enough I've met violence with violence many times, and I'm still here. If I'd cowered and done nothing, I'm pretty sure I'd be dead.

I know quite a few more people who can say the same.

This biz about "John Wayne fantasies" is a strawman argument, not to mention insulting. Quite a few of us have used weapons in real life to prevent or stop a crime, and your belittling of that is quite offensive.
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
Witnesses stop crimes, because criminals don't want to get caught. The prominence of cell phones has drastically increased the chance for witnesses to see a crime. The poll seems to expect that the criminal will fear the police literally showing up and rescuing the victim in the middle of being mugged. That's insane. But every potential person around is a danger to the criminal. Every cell phone in the hands of everyone who could call the police, take a photo, or capture of a video is that much greater chance that the criminal will be caught. Thugs do not fear that their victims might be armed. They fear capture later on. No one's fantasies of being John Wayne and valiantly shooting the black hats is going to change that. If you are met with violence, and respond with violence, odds are just that you're going to die. You have a lot more to lose. And you will lose.

Get over yourselves.
Click to expand...

You seem to contradict yourself here, so your answer should be neither. If criminals feared later identification making the cell phone more "scary" than the firearm, but yet the cell phone is non-lethal and easily defeated by the perp simply taking/destroying that phone and/or rendering the victim/witness unable to testify. The best answer is to have both, one to stop the perp and the other to request backup or report other emergencies.
 
Last edited:
H. Lee White said:
What do you suppose has stopped more violent crime?

A: Potential victim producing a cell phone and promising to call the police to report the attacker, should he not go away.
B: Potential victim producing a revolver and promising to perforate the attacker, should he not go away.
Click to expand...

Definitely B. If the attacker has a weapon, he/she can easily prevent you from using your phone.
 
H. Lee White said:
Now that you're done avoiding the question, how about answering it..
A or B?
Click to expand...

I answered the question. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted.

Your poll is rigged. I'm thinking about selecting A just as a joke.
 
Phys251 said:
I answered the question. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted.

Your poll is rigged. I'm thinking about selecting A just as a joke.
Click to expand...

It's simple enough. If you could only have one as a tool to respond to an imminent violent crime, which would you prefer?

Pretty easy answer IMO. Of course, I'd prefer to have both, naturally... and I almost always do have both.
 
I answered A, Because kids use cell phones and also because of the various gun laws(restrictions). IMO, statistically wise an aggressor is more likely to be driven off via a cell phone, especially in a city. Besides 34% of US households are wireless only.

An estimated 240 million calls are made to 9-1-1 in the U.S. each year. According to the FCC, one-third are wireless calls; in many communities, it’s one-half or more of all 9-1-1 calls.
9-1-1 Statistics - National Emergency Number Association
Click to expand...
 
Phys251 said:
I answered the question. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted.
Click to expand...
There are two possible answers.*
Unless you pick A or B (or C, below) you're avoiding the question.
Don't avoid the question.

* I suppose it is possible that the numbers are the same, leaving C: The same.
The remainder of the point stands.
 
Utility Man said:
I answered A, Because kids use cell phones and also because of the various gun laws(restrictions). IMO, statistically wise an aggressor is more likely to be driven off via a cell phone, especially in a city. Besides 34% of US households are wireless only.
Click to expand...

You must be joking. How on earth would a violent criminal be scared off by a cellphone, especially if he can just take it from you because you have NO weapon with which to defend yourself or your property? Chances are more likely that you will get your cellphone stolen along with any other valuables you have on yourself, and you might even get beaten or, God forbid, killed.
 
Utility Man said:
I answered A, Because kids use cell phones and also because of the various gun laws(restrictions). IMO, statistically wise an aggressor is more likely to be driven off via a cell phone, especially in a city. Besides 34% of US households are wireless only.
Click to expand...
So, you believe that more criminals are stopped directly by the threat of a phone call from the imminent victim simply because of the sheer number of poeple that carry cell phones.
Interesting.
 
ChrisL said:
You must be joking. How on earth would a violent criminal be scared off by a cellphone, especially if he can just take it from you because you have NO weapon with which to defend yourself or your property? Chances are more likely that you will get your cellphone stolen along with any other valuables you have on yourself, and you might even get beaten or, God forbid, killed.
Click to expand...


Well, in all fairness if you see a situation developing early enough to call 911 and get the police out there BEFORE the critical moment arrives, the cell phone works well enough... the problem of course is that it doesn't always work that way.


When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away... maybe... if yer lucky.... :)
 
Goshin said:
Well, in all fairness if you see a situation developing early enough to call 911 and get the police out there BEFORE the critical moment arrives, the cell phone works well enough... the problem of course is that it doesn't always work that way.


When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away... maybe... if yer lucky.... :)
Click to expand...

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:
 
Rather a silly choice of options. You cannot call for help on cell phone and get a response timely enough to stop a violent attack. Knowing the police are responding might get a few to run away, but really, what are the average response times to a particular location? At my homes locations, that would be about an hour or two.

Of course a revolver (gun) is not always the answer either. If you produce a revolver and aim it at someone, it is only a credible threat if the attack believes you would actually use it and you demonstrate enough courage and proficiency to be effective with it.
 
Probably big scary dogs, truth be told. Criminals do not like big dogs.
 
DVSentinel said:
Rather a silly choice of options. You cannot call for help on cell phone and get a response timely enough to stop a violent attack. Knowing the police are responding might get a few to run away, but really, what are the average response times to a particular location? At my homes locations, that would be about an hour or two.

Of course a revolver (gun) is not always the answer either. If you produce a revolver and aim it at someone, it is only a credible threat if the attack believes you would actually use it and you demonstrate enough courage and proficiency to be effective with it.
Click to expand...
So... A or B?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom