Fisher
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Messages
- 17,002
- Reaction score
- 6,913
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
So... A or B?
The fear of B waiting on the other side of the door.
So... A or B?
Probably big scary dogs, truth be told. Criminals do not like big dogs.
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:
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.
So... A or B?
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.
One of the choices is correct. Which do you think it is?
A? B?
The question is -exceedingly- simple -- one has stooped more violent crime than the other.It is NOT a simplistic answer to a complex question.
Because....?This is such a stupid poll...
Because....?
It asks a simple question, to compare one number to another.
Maybe you just don't like the answer?
That's a very 3rd-grade response. Well done.It's a stupid poll.
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.Well, it was a third grade poll.
Nope. One has stopped more than the other. Which do you think?Is this a trick question?
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
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
Compared to a victim brandishing a gun...All you people seem to assume that if a victim brandishes a gun the criminal is going to decide to run away.
First, see below.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.
Not so. 70% of violent crime does not involve an attacker with a gun.And the criminal already has his gun out and pointed at the victim in the most logical scenario.
So... your response in non-sensical. Roger.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.