Posted on 12/09/2014 5:02:51 AM PST by marktwain
In April, a clerk at a Shell station in Houston was shot. From abc13.com:
Now we learn that the clerk was paralyzed. From click2houston.com:HOUSTON --Police say armed robbers held up a gas station in northwest Houston overnight. They got away, but not before shooting the clerk
According to his co-workers, the shooting left that clerk paralyzed. No one was arrested.Back at the Shell station, Thursday night, 4 December, 2014. This time things proceeded in a different fashion. From click2houston.com:
Police said the clerk pointed his gun at the robbers and ordered them to leave. One of the crooks opened fire and the store clerk shot back, hitting one of the suspects in the leg, officers said.
(snip)
The clerk was not hurt in the gunfight and the robbers did not get away with anything, according to police.
“Statistically, guns probably do not decrease crime a large amount” sounds like a probability that this reporter needs to investigate before reporting.
> “Statistically, guns probably do not decrease crime a large amount” sounds like a probability that this reporter needs to investigate before reporting.
Sounds like a personal opinion and not objective reporting to me. I have a
Just one question to ask him - but if it only saves YOUR life isn’t that enough?
The hedging in that statement is so big that you could make a maze out of it.
:: Statistically, guns ^^probably^^ do not decrease crime a large amount. ::
Probably...probably?
LMBO!
Does this “urinalist” need to experience a home-invasion...Large, nondescript individuals kicking his doors down and “menacing” himself and family? Maybe thay have black T-shirts that say “POLICE” on the back and “I CAN’T BREATHE” on the front?
Now, don’t misunderstand me. I do not promote any 2A-Conservative publicly providing the street address and a description of any presumed armament of the the author but, at what point, in history, do we delineate between the revolutionaries and Crown-Tories?
The correct use of the word probably allows one to correctly state
guns probably do not decrease crime.
Probably means … likely but not certain.
“and the robbers did not get away with anything,”
So they were caught with everything?
Sounds like the personal opinion of a moron.
I believe he answers that question with the remainder of the sentence, where he states...but if you are one of the statistics, they (guns) can make an enormous difference in your life.
For something to be rated "statistically" it needs to have all its data added into the statistical formula...
Putting out my occasional request for the Glendenning trigger lock video fail that apparently has been scrubbed from the Internet.
LOL I had to take statistics. Ended up a lot like the great depression graphs.
“Statistically, guns probably do not decrease crime a large amount, and they do not appear to increase crime at all;”
What a liberal idiot for saying that. Everywhere guns go crime doesn’t.
Every State that adopted Shall Issue had a massive decrease in crime.
I don’t really even care if it decreases crime. The collective is fascinating and all, but I’m interested in myself as an individual.
Its one of their most sickening tricks to coldly tell a rape victim, an elderly person, a single mom, or a man driving somewhere with his family that their possession of a gun may drive up overall crime rates, and breezily disregard whether or not it can help them survive an encounter.
This really debunks the silly advice ‘get them what they want and they’ll leave you alone’. Why on earth would you trust a criminal to do the right thing or to show mercy? Warning shots are equally stupid. At any rate you must come to peace with the ideas that security is your responsibility and youre the first responder, not a govt employee. However, you decide to mange that is up to you but domination of a situation usually carries the day w/o debate. Criminals look for easy the score, hard targets are passed over.
“Statistically, guns probably do not decrease crime a large amount...”
A statement like that needs a LOT of footnotes. Just from a very short list that pops into mind:
Short, medium and long term crime statistics.
Decrease to the cost of prosecuting and imprisoning criminals.
Changing the type of crimes criminals are willing to commit.
Thwarted crimes never recorded as crimes.
Redirection of police resources towards crimes not inhibited by guns.
Increase in crimes less likely to face a gun.
Yep we never leave home without one. :-)
Statistically, when gun ownership in the home drops dramatically, home invasions of occupied homes go up dramatically. The correlation is extremely strong. That may not be a large net change in crime, but it is a change for the worse in the character of those crimes.
“Statistically, guns probably do not decrease crime a large amount...”
It is based primarily on John Lott’s work, “More Guns, Less Crime”. He shows that more guns result in less crime, but not by a large amount. It is in the 2-3% range per year, according to Lott.
http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html/
Some studies by others show no increase and no decrease.
My view, from all of the studies is that more guns likely decrease crime a small, but measurable amount.
But the clerk should have had more marksmanship training. Center of mass shots have a higher win rate than leg shots.
Criminals tend to be very bad shots, legal gun owners do better.
More training is better, and participating in competetion helps make hits during high stress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.