Detroit Police Chief Fires Up The Gun Debate

**TKshreve** · January-03-14, 10:10 AM

Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.

Seems to me this new Chief of ours likes rocking the boat.

Is this exactly the type of paradigm shift our city needs to turn the proverbial corner?

Or has he opened up Pandora's Box?

One thing is for sure, this is quite a surprise coming from the biggest little liberal city in the mid west.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

**Hypestyles** · January-03-14, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by TKshreve

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Seems to me this new Chief of ours likes rocking the boat.

Is this exactly the type of paradigm shift our city needs to turn the proverbial corner?

Or has he opened up Pandora's Box?

One thing is for sure, this is quite a surprise coming from the biggest little liberal city in the mid west.

Okay chief. put your resources where your mouth is. Start CCW training classes for low cost, available for city residents without any convictions.

**guito13** · January-03-14, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

Okay chief. put your resources where your mouth is. Start CCW training classes for low cost, available for city residents without any convictions.

There are courses available to ANYONE for less than $100 bucks all over the place. Once you apply for your CPL [[around $150 bucks) you will not be approved if you have anything on your record that the laws say prohibit you from obtaining the CPL.

**Dan Wesson** · January-03-14, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

Okay chief. put your resources where your mouth is. Start CCW training classes for low cost, available for city residents without any convictions.

Let's get some facts going on this thread.

A CCW is a term for a Felony Charge of Carrying a Concealed Weapon without a CPL which is a Concealed Pistol License.

The proper term is CPL in Michigan.

**poobert** · January-03-14, 01:26 PM

“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2pMPpRXXB

Wait, seriously? He's drawing that conclusion.

Maine is sparsely populated and largely wilderness. Its largest city has 66k people, smaller than St. Clair Shores. It essentially has no urban areas.

Well, Chief Einstein, murders and ice cream sales both increase, year after year, in the summertime, so ice cream must cause murders, right?

This is the first time I've really doubted his intelligence. I mean, it is just such a ridiculous comparison.

I have no doubt that criminals don't want to get shot, and would sooner rob an unarmed person than an armed person, but I'd be willing to bet Detroit is one of the most heavily armed cities in the country. I just take for granted that most people here are armed. I'm sure criminals do too, and realize it is a roll of the dice when they go to rip somebody off. I'm not sure how many more guns we're supposed to get, really.

Hey, Chief Cocksucker, your cops all have guns, make them show up and do their jobs instead. Loser.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-03-14, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by TKshreve

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Seems to me this new Chief of ours likes rocking the boat.

Is this exactly the type of paradigm shift our city needs to turn the proverbial corner?

Or has he opened up Pandora's Box?

One thing is for sure, this is quite a surprise coming from the biggest little liberal city in the mid west.

We'll see how much radical thinking Detroit can take. Pandora's box? I think it has been open for a long time as far as crime and guns are concerned. Maybe a political Pandora's box... but as with the new mayor -- it will all be about results. If Craig can made a difference in crime rates, maybe even liberals will realize not every solution is one-government-mandated-size fits all.

**rb336** · January-03-14, 11:10 AM

Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.

How many people need to be armed for this affect to happen? There is literally no empirical evidence that more guns = less crime.

**TKshreve** · January-03-14, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

[/I][/COLOR]How many people need to be armed for this affect to happen? There is literally no empirical evidence that more guns = less crime.

Yes, but a lot can be deduced from the fact that criminals have been targeting soft marks like the elderly, dollar stores and churches. Seems to me criminals have some semblance of logic behind their "decision making" process. And it would suggest they want to find t least resistance possible.

**rb336** · January-03-14, 05:18 PM

Switzerland is a tiny country with almost 0 poverty, universal healthcare, an average income more than 50% higher than the US, 3% unemployment...the lack of violent crime has WAY more to do with those facts than gun ownership

**401don** · January-03-14, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Switzerland is a tiny country with almost 0 poverty, universal healthcare, an average income more than 50% higher than the US, 3% unemployment...the lack of violent crime has WAY more to do with those facts than gun ownership

This is why it drives me nuts when the argument is for "responsible gun ownership". How does gov't decide who is responsible? Is the applicant stupid, short-tempered, lazy, uneducated, mentally unstable, a loner, drug addict, alcoholic or all of the above?

**swan** · January-03-14, 05:45 PM

Hey, I got an idea. How about the police department start a unit that puts policemen trained in the use of firearms out on the street to act as victims. Maybe we cam call it S.T.R.E.S.S. or something like that.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · January-03-14, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

How does gov't decide who is responsible?

In a few ways.
First, you create a list of things deemed "irresponsible" that preclude you from getting licensed or revoke your license. This list would inlcude but not be limited to: any violent crime convictions at any time, any felony convictions in the last 10 years, delinquent on taxes or child/spousal support, orders of protection against you, and documented history of making violent threats, active warrants for your arrest, history of substance abuse [[including a hair follicle drug test), or mental illness. Most gun crime is not committed by a first time offender.

Second, you create a list of requirements for firearms owner: completion of a gun safety class that teaches proper maintenance and storage of your firearm, and also provides an overview of legal responibilites in terms of hunting, self/property protection, and carrying/transporting your firearm; and a minimum number of hours of firing range practice with the model of firearm you seek to be licensed to have.

Certainly, these things are not perfect. There will still be gun crime and accidents. But a certain number of parents abuse their children. The answer isn't an abolition of parenthood. It's vigorous prosecution of the minority of people who break the law. Some drivers are not responsible with their cars. So we need to punish them, not all drivers.

Most gun crimes are not committed by people who are otherwise obeying gun laws. I have never heard of a gang member or carjacker registering his gun and submitting themselves to a background check. I don't envision someone holding a gun to a kid's head thinking to themselves, "Well, I am willing to murder this individual, but I am in violation of the gun-free zone outside this school. I should reconsider my actions."

**JBMcB** · January-03-14, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

There is literally no empirical evidence that more guns = less crime.

There is no empirical evidence that less guns = less crime, either.

**EastsideAl** · January-03-14, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

There is no empirical evidence that less guns = less crime, either.

There's certainly empirical evidence that less guns = less deaths and injuries from gunfire. At least there is everywhere else in the world where the NRA doesn't pay to have the research and evidence suppressed.

**JBMcB** · January-03-14, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

At least there is everywhere else in the world where the NRA doesn't pay to have the research and evidence suppressed.

There are fewer gun-related deaths in England than in the US to be sure. There are even fewer gun deaths in Switzerland, where pretty much everyone owns an assault rifle, and is trained in it's use. The same statistical aberrations can be found all over the US. You can find correlations going both ways, so I don't see how you can draw inferences from the statistics.

**Bham1982** · January-03-14, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

There are fewer gun-related deaths in England than in the US to be sure. There are even fewer gun deaths in Switzerland, where pretty much everyone owns an assault rifle, and is trained in it's use. The same statistical aberrations can be found all over the US. You can find correlations going both ways, so I don't see how you can draw inferences from the statistics.

Switzerland's gun owners are all trained military, and are forbidden from keeping ammo. Kind of a poor comparison to the U.S.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-03-14, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

There's certainly empirical evidence that less guns = less deaths and injuries from gunfire. At least there is everywhere else in the world where the NRA doesn't pay to have the research and evidence suppressed.

Thanks for bringing us the evidence that the entire world knows, yet is suppressed successfully by the NRA. Congrats as well to Edward Snowden for telling us the US spy agencies spy.

**EASTSIDE CAT 67-83** · January-03-14, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

[/I][/COLOR]How many people need to be armed for this affect to happen? There is literally no empirical evidence that more guns = less crime.

You ever read the Armed Citizen, works every time for those folks.

Score
Potential victim who is armed and trained: 1
Bad Guy: 0

**aj3647** · January-03-14, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

[/I][/COLOR]How many people need to be armed for this affect to happen? There is literally no empirical evidence that more guns = less crime.

It's not just how many are carrying, but WHO is carrying. The statistics I've seen about concealed carry show that those with permits tend to be older, white males, middle to upper-class, who live primarily in rural or suburban areas. So most of the people who are carrying guns are the people who are least likely to be crime victims.

Meanwhile, the people who are at highest risk for crime are the ones who are least likely to even own a gun. Gun ownership rates among blacks is 40% less than among whites. And gun ownership rates among urban dwellers are significantly lower compared to rural and suburban.

If the NRA really thinks guns are the best way to reduce crime rates, they should be handing out free guns and free gun training to eligible working-class black people living in big cities. Bet that idea would go over really well with your average white NRA member.

**Dan Wesson** · January-03-14, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

If the NRA really thinks guns are the best way to reduce crime rates, they should be handing out free guns and free gun training to eligible working-class black people living in big cities. Bet that idea would go over really well with your average white NRA member.

Free!?

Like them Phones!? I bet that goes over well with all working class, taxpaying citizens no matter what color. That's funny and oh so entitlement minded.

I'm sorry....

**aj3647** · January-03-14, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

Free!?

Like them Phones!? I bet that goes over well with all working class, taxpaying citizens no matter what color. That's funny and oh so entitlement minded.

I'm sorry....

Who are you to tell any private organization or individual how they should spend their money? I didn't say the government should hand out free guns, now did I? Soooo, where exactly is the entitlement and why would the taxpayer care?

Hey did you know that there are soup kitchens that actually hand out FREE food to hungry people? And non-profit charity-run medical clinics that provide FREE health care to the indigent? The Horror! I know taxpaying citizens everywhere hate the idea of private charity.

FYI, there is a charitable pro-gun group that IS handing out free guns to poor people in high-crime areas:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-guns/2404307/

Clearly this private, voluntary effort is nothing but taxpayer-funded socialism furthering the entitlement mentality. Thanks for the input!

**Dan Wesson** · January-03-14, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

If the NRA really thinks guns are the best way to reduce crime rates, they should be handing out free guns and free gun training to eligible working-class black people living in big cities.

Originally Posted by aj3647

Who are you to tell any private organization or individual how they should spend their money?

Nobody really...

**Hypestyles** · January-03-14, 11:15 AM

How in the heck does the modern history [[50 years) of Portland, Maine even REMOTELY compare to Detroit in terms of population, local economics and violent crime trends?

**davewindsor** · January-03-14, 11:37 AM

Typical politician. Talk about why you agree with the status quo instead of coming up with a new policy or system to address the city's high crime rates.

**bailey** · January-03-14, 12:40 PM

I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2pMGqTmYZ

Maine is also 98% white.

Since we're making stupid apples to oranges comparisons....instead of more CCWs in Detroit... how about less black people? Because, MAINE is safe.

Right chief?