Armed Detroiters Cut Terror Risk Says Detroit Police Chief Craig

**GPCharles** · December-01-15, 02:49 PM

Particularly if the terrorists stopped for gas within the city limits.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...risk/76592116/

**Hypestyles** · December-01-15, 02:55 PM

Too many people in the city are armed as it is—including people who “don’t deserve to be” armed.
Thanks again, Chief. Basically, we're on our own.

**JBMcB** · December-01-15, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

Too many people in the city are armed as it is—including people who “don’t deserve to be” armed.
Thanks again, Chief. Basically, we're on our own.

What policies would you enact if you were chief of police? Keep in mind you are incredibly resource-constrained, and your officer turnover rate is atrocious.

Now, policy #1 to keep Detroiters safer is....

**Gpwrangler** · December-01-15, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by GPCharles

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...risk/76592116/.

That explains the lack of crime in the city. Well-armed citizens are a deterrent.

**Honky Tonk** · December-02-15, 09:42 AM

This guy's been silly since day one, with the Big Blue Bus Raid Parades and all. I don't know if i could do any better, but then I don't claim to be able to. Maybe we can all chip in and get him a tie for Christmas.

**Shai_Hulud** · December-02-15, 12:37 PM

I think we're safer due to being low on the potential target list. I agree, it's a silly statement.

The argument that a suicidal attacker is going to be deterred by the possibility of encountering return fire has always seemed spurious to me. Armed citizens might cut a shooters rampage short, with a bomber, it's not going to matter.

**ndavies** · December-02-15, 02:08 PM

The public being armed is not a deterrent to terrorists. Terrorists already think they are going to die when they do this.

Having the public armed will reduce the duration a terrorist is active. Law enforcement always used to recommend cooperating with the assailants in theses types of situation to stop victims from being killed. Now that the terrorists are going to kill everyone anyway, Law enforcement is now recommending you fight back with all you might.

**ddaydetroit** · December-02-15, 03:36 PM

looking at the top 28 shootings since 1949 only one has been stopped by a civilian with a gun http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...cts/index.html

**canuck** · December-02-15, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by ddaydetroit

looking at the top 28 shootings since 1949 only one has been stopped by a civilian with a gun http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...cts/index.html

Chances are you would need serious firepower to contain terrorist threat. More gunz are definitely the solution.Here is an interesting website that keeps a tally of all the multiple shootings that happen on a daily basis in the US.

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

Gunzr'fun.

Today as we speak in California, 14 killed and 14 maimed. More gunz please!!!

**canuck** · December-02-15, 06:39 PM

And another thing, if you think about it, the more people with gunz there are, the fewer people without them there will be.

**Honky Tonk** · December-02-15, 08:08 PM

I'm more concerned about the growing trend of dogs shooting people.

**Gpwrangler** · December-02-15, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by canuck

And another thing, if you think about it, the more people with gunz there are, the fewer people without them there will be.

Putting the "z" on the end of the word is very "hip" and cool.

**Wesley Mouch** · December-02-15, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by ddaydetroit

looking at the top 28 shootings since 1949 only one has been stopped by a civilian with a gun http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...cts/index.html

One is better than none -- but what of course isn't in the stats is how many shootings didn't happen because of the presence of guns.

If you were made at Planned Parenthood and the NRA, which would you choose to attack?

**Gpwrangler** · December-02-15, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

One is better than none -- but what of course isn't in the stats is how many shootings didn't happen because of the presence of guns.

If you were made at Planned Parenthood and the NRA, which would you choose to attack?

And why are the rural areas not really worried about this, only the city??? Hmmmmm...

**canuck** · December-02-15, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Gpwrangler

Putting the "z" on the end of the word is very "hip" and cool.

Yes, the same goes of course for the noze "earringz and piercingz I wear, same with all thoze folkz with goateez that eat at Slowz and drink at Nemoz.

**Jimaz** · December-02-15, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Gpwrangler

Putting the "z" on the end of the word is very "hip" and cool.

Your envy has been noted.

**archfan** · December-03-15, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

If you were made at Planned Parenthood...

...then they failed in their mission.

**Honky Tonk** · December-03-15, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by canuck

Yes, the same goes of course for the noze "earringz and piercingz I wear, same with all thoze folkz with goateez that eat at Slowz and drink at Nemoz.

When they' re not working @ Fordz.

**Jimaz** · December-03-15, 08:44 AM

I wish I could find this old cartoon but I can't so I'll have to describe it from memory.

It showed a group of people standing knee deep in gasoline and one of them has the brilliant idea of passing out matches to everyone so that everyone is equally deterred from lighting their match. The caption was something like "There. At least now we're all safer."

Clever cartoon.

**GPCharles** · December-03-15, 09:03 AM

Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD.

Cornerstone of cold war defense strategy.

**southen** · December-03-15, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

One is better than none -- but what of course isn't in the stats is how many shootings didn't happen because of the presence of guns.

If you were made at Planned Parenthood and the NRA, which would you choose to attack?

0 is better than 28 as well, no?

Presence of guns stopping a murder? Are you saying that because these shootings don't take place at police stations or gun ranges, or are you implying that gunmen are walking around and taking note of bulges before shooting up the place?

**Wesley Mouch** · December-03-15, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by southen

0 is better than 28 as well, no?

Presence of guns stopping a murder? Are you saying that because these shootings don't take place at police stations or gun ranges, or are you implying that gunmen are walking around and taking note of bulges before shooting up the place?

Yes.

Of course not quite taking note of bulges, but in many cases taking paths of least resistance.

I do believe in gun control -- but I don't believe in private gun elimination either. We can and should control guns -- but not try and take them from everyone based on the idea that elimination will improve things.

Its a complex issue -- and Obama's simplistic focus on gun elimination doesn't help. It about as realistic as drug elimination. Or terrorist elimination. You can't 100% control results by controlling methods. You do have to work on root causes too. Obama should know this.

My heart feels for the San Bernadino victims. I'm not convinced that gun elimination would hvae stopped this -- and even if it had, the less spectacular but important Warren Bank Robber effect matters too. And matters far more often. Guns in private hands do have a deterrent effect -- that is harder to see.

So yes, I do mean that gun-wielding bad guys are often discouraged or stopped by gun-wielding citizens -- and that's a public good that outweighs the mad shooter / Islamic terrorist problem.

**southen** · December-03-15, 11:39 AM

Unless you are able to determine prior to shooting that people are carrying how is it a deterrent? There was someone carrying at the community college shooting not that long ago, that did nothing to stop the shooting and the carrying individual wasn't comfortable enough to try and stop the shooter.

Obama has pushed for common sense measures each time something like this happens. The other side screams "He is coming for our guns" and proposes that more guns are the answer. There is nothing more simplistic than the argument that the only deterrent for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

As far as the good outweighing the bad 33,000 gun fatalities per year and 80,000 gun injuries per year sort of fly in the face of that. Why are we the only civilized country that kills one another at these levels? Could it be lax gun laws? I think so.

**Honky Tonk** · December-03-15, 12:02 PM

I'm just want to say one thing, and not get involved in this "who can pee further" match. Had someone had a handgun and managed to take @ least one of yesterday's asshole out, lives would have been saved. Now I already know the posts that are going to follow mine, "what if" and "you think" and of course "Honky", but you have two choices. You can try to make a stand, or you can take the silence of the lambs approach. They may have gotten their weapons "legally", but if they hadn't, there are other ways, and always will be, to obtain them. I wonder if they had permits for the pipe bombs?

**Wesley Mouch** · December-03-15, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by southen

Unless you are able to determine prior to shooting that people are carrying how is it a deterrent? There was someone carrying at the community college shooting not that long ago, that did nothing to stop the shooting and the carrying individual wasn't comfortable enough to try and stop the shooter.

Obama has pushed for common sense measures each time something like this happens. The other side screams "He is coming for our guns" and proposes that more guns are the answer. There is nothing more simplistic than the argument that the only deterrent for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

As far as the good outweighing the bad 33,000 gun fatalities per year and 80,000 gun injuries per year sort of fly in the face of that. Why are we the only civilized country that kills one another at these levels? Could it be lax gun laws? I think so.

I also think lax gun laws are a problem. But I disagree with you on the politics here.

Obama has pushed for common sense? He represents a party that is pushing for ZERO. He wraps it in common sense, but I don't believe that he'd be happy with some reform. The right is no better. The NRA's zero limitation policy is misguided. Some control is OK. Some control is good. Very good, IMO.

Demonizing the right does not help the cause of making improvements. It hardens the opposition.

Just moments after my last post, I found this on Bloomberg View. I think this sentence stands out.

Many angry voices on the left have been saying that we could reduce the bloodshed if not for the National Rifle Association and its sympathizers. But they overestimate what gun control can achieve and underestimate the extent to which their own partisan emotion is an obstacle to progress.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...control-agenda

Compromise is hard to accomplish while both sides bitch about each other, and disrespect their ideas.