Moriah Wilson murder: Colin Strickland ‘in hiding’ until suspect Kaitlin Armstrong found

chrisonatrike wrote:

Motor vehicles have been mentioned - that's an interesting one. 

What the hell are you talking about bikes for, I thought this was a gun site?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Finally having a car-filled environment and devoting land space to them has a wide range of other consequences for society.  For example children's welfare, old people's independence etc.

I don't disagree with much that you wrote there, although my background leads me to some different conclusions.  While I enjoy a nice bike lane or path, I'm unsure that the answer is still more pavement.  I raced cars for many years, and more importantly, instructed many drivers at high-performance, law-enforcement, and new-driver schools -- so I don't believe that driving a motor vehicle safely is all that hard.  It isn't even that difficult while sharing a road with cyclists and pedestrians.  Just about all of the road safety problems in the developed world are caused by insufficiently trained and motivated drivers -- not by lack of infrastructure.  Dedicated cycling infrastructure is nice, but it's treating the symptom, not the disease. 

Any road suitable for a motor vehicle is suitable for a bike -- as long as the drivers are properly trained -- and we already have millions of miles of those roads.

It would be far cheaper, and more effective, and environmentally-sound to train drivers properly, and discipline them when they fail to meet expectations, compared to building infrastructure everywhere.  Admittedly, my opinion on this matter is colored by where I live -- where, for example, it took $100M and 20 years to build a 1-mile dedicated bike/pedestrian bridge.

So I favor integration over "separate but equal".

[bikes - not a gun site]

Stick around and you'll find it's unpleasantly squirrel-focussed.

"It isn't even that difficult while sharing a road with cyclists and pedestrians."

Sadly we find that it is - it shouldn't be - but it is.  All the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time.  When that happens the law doesn't tend to treat the situation with gravity.  Yep - getting killed doesn't happen so much.  Having close calls is a much more frequent occurence and very salient when you're in the vulnerable position.  That's certainly a part of why most people don't get on their bikes to go half a mile very often.

[ not in favour of "separate but equal", infra not worth the cost / we already have roads, we'd be better encouraging better driving / enforcement ]

Given where you're coming from I'm not surprised that's your perspective.  Indeed it's the majority view here.  Even among regular cyclists (most regular cyclists are drive, very few drivers regularly cycle).  In fact that was where I started from myself.

If you're remotely interested you'll find plenty on that subject here.  I think it's useful to look at the "natural experiments" that e.g. Europe has provided.  There are a range of places vaguely comparable with the UK but with much higher levels of cycling (Netherlands, Copenhagen, Malmo, Seville, Berne, Paris ...).  (I was almost tempted to add New York or Portland there but I'm sketchy about them and generally the US has lower cycling levels and is still the home of the car).  Interesting to look at what changes they've made over time in how they treat the road space - and the consequences.  There's also a handy (UK-perspective) "bingo" card which covers some common beliefs about cycling and looks at the evidence:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/

chrisonatrike wrote:

Sadly we find that it is - it shouldn't be - but it is.  All the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time.  When that happens the law doesn't tend to treat the situation with gravity.

And those are fixable problems.  Not easily, but fixable.  The latter much more easily than the former -- there is absolutely no reason that law enforcement ( in both our countries ) has gone rogue on this issue, and is refusing to even uphold the laws as-written ( which aren't often written well-enough, either ).

Another of the problems with addressing this issue via infrastructure is that is a very non-agile solution.  Let's say you and I are elected Kings of our respective countries tomorrow, and our first priority is to build cycling infrastructure.  We build it everywhere, and spend trillions of dollars and pounds on it.  We put the Netherlands to shame.  It takes a decade or two, but we build every bike lane we can think of, and then we think of more.

Meanwhile, technology advances.  Specifically, let's imagine two developments in particular. 

First, autonomous driving technology is improved enough such that motor vehicles are required to have impact-avoidance sensors and those are good enough, and integrated with the vehicle controls, sufficient to stop motor vehicles from colliding with things, other road users in particular.  This is not all that far-fetched.  The current state of autonomous driving is a joke, but it is getting better, and will likely continue to do so.  I'm not talking about completely self-driving here, just the ability for cars not to hit things.

Second, someone invents 60-80 mile-per-hour transport devices that people use on our cycling infrastructure.  This does not actually require any technology advance -- people already drive motorcycles on bike paths here -- but humor me.  Obviously, mixing 70 mph devices with traditional cycling traffic would be a safety nightmare.

Either one of these developments effectively obsoletes our trillion-dollar investments in cycling infrastructure.

And, for added fun after wasting all that money, we have two redundant infrastructures to maintain, so we get to throw good money after bad for decades.

OK, we get it. USA is so far down the road of an armed citizenry that it is difficult to see what can practically or legally, given the current supreme court interpretation your constitution, be done to fix the problem. Even suggesting basic background checks is seen as an extreme political opinion.

A sizeable proportion of US citizens are now so terrified of their fellow countrymen that they feel the need to carry lethal force for a simple shopping trip and think they require military grade automatic weapons to protect themselves from home invasion. Meanwhile, their children are taught "active shooter" drills at school and the NRA suggest that teachers equip and train themselves like tactical assault troops in order to protect their classes.

I think on the whole I prefer a different kind of freedom which doesn't involve me needing a gun to protect it.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Even suggesting basic background checks is seen as an extreme political opinion

All Federally-licensed gun dealers in the US are required to perform a background check before selling to a non-dealer.  What on Earth are you talking about?

Mungecrundle wrote:

A sizeable proportion of US citizens are now so terrified of their fellow countrymen that they feel the need to carry lethal force for a simple shopping trip

No, they are not.  The entire country only has a few ten thousand active concealed-carry permits.  The huge majority of legal US firearms only leave their home to go hunting, or to the range.

Mungecrundle wrote:

and think they require military grade automatic weapons to protect themselves from home invasion.

Almost all firearms are, or once were, "military-grade".  The standard self-defense handgun for civilians is the same weapon issued to police and armed-forces worldwide, so again, what on Earth are you talking about? 

Mungecrundle wrote:

Meanwhile, their children are taught "active shooter" drills at school and the NRA suggest that teachers equip and train themselves like tactical assault troops in order to protect their classes. I think on the whole I prefer a different kind of freedom which doesn't involve me needing a gun to protect it.

Yeah, we have a lengthy history of panicky drills for school-children -- we used to drill them to hide from ICBMs under their desks.

Your Pew centre statistics are certainly notable from a UK perspective.  But I guess that it's just us Europeans.

Quote:

What share of all murders and suicides in the U.S. involve a gun?

Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 – 24,292 out of 45,979 – involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years.

Also the usual caveat about covid times etc. but the numbers seem to be fairly stable longer term.

Would - for example - the US suicide rate drop to e.g. the lower UK rate if firearms ownership was comparable?  With those numbers alone, no saying - certainly the absolute rate no doubt is most dependent on cultural and socioeconomic effects (e.g. see South Korea and the dramatic shift there over time).  Maybe comparing things across the US might be instructive though - or those living in a home with a gun and those not?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm.

Yes, and most of those are gang and/or drug related.  And yes, I'm aware that various people have attempted to debunk that claim -- doing so usually requires very sketchy data manipulation ( such as only classing as "gang-related" when both victim and perpetrator are known members with records of such ).  In most cases, bystanders killed by errant gang fire are not considered "gang-related murders", which is obvious nonsense.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Would - for example - the US suicide rate drop to e.g. the lower UK rate if firearms ownership was comparable?  

As already explained elsewhere, reducing a suicide rate on its own is of extremely dubious value.  Forcing a non-human animal to live while suffering is considered cruelty, so why would we do that to humans?  Now, if you're going to help those people escape their suffering, that's another issue.  But just preventing people from dying is cruel.

This isn't a Disney movie.  I know many people believe that if you can just stop a person from taking their own life, the sun will come out, music will play, and that person will be transformed into a happy, pain-free individual for the rest of their life.  It doesn't work that way.  Some people do not want to live anymore, and it is neither your business, nor mine, to demand that they continue to do so.

And finally, from a purely cold-hearted, pragmatic standpoint, the absolute last thing this planet needs is more people -- so suicide prevention should be just about the lowest priority imaginable.  Those resources should be spent attempting to make the world such that people don't want to leave it, not in forcing them to stay.

dh700 wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

A bit rich, given that 'snippy' would be a generous description of most of what you've posted here.

Well I've made solid arguments, so I've earned that privilege

That's.... not a thing.

dh700 wrote:

Why don't you make an attempt to illustrate how anything I've said is wrong, then?

Because I'm not interested in getting involved in this frankly rather unproductive and tedious argument. I'm just pointing out that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Or discharge firearms, for that matter.

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, then being as consistently unpleasant about it as you have been is probably not a good way to go about it.

mdavidford wrote:

Because I'm not interested in getting involved in this frankly rather unproductive and tedious argument.

You should've stayed out, then, because you aren't doing yourself any favors right now.

mdavidford wrote:

If you want to persuade people to your point of view, then being as consistently unpleasant about it as you have been is probably not a good way to go about it.

And by "unpleasant", you mean pointing out the factual and logical errors these comments are rife with.  Because if you can read, do so, and you'll find that's what I've been doing.  ( And that, by the way, was an example of being unpleasant, just so you have a control to use for reference. )

dh700 wrote:

You should've stayed out, then

Er, I have. I've not made any comment on the subject.

dh700 wrote:

And by "unpleasant", you mean pointing out the factual and logical errors these comments are rife with.

No - I mean being insulting, dismissive, and arrogant, as you have throughout your 'contributions'. It is, to borrow a phrase, not doing you any favours.

mdavidford wrote:

Er, I have. I've not made any comment on the subject.

Oh really.  One or more of those words do not mean what you think they mean.

mdavidford wrote:

No - I mean being insulting, dismissive, and arrogant, as you have throughout your 'contributions'. It is, to borrow a phrase, not doing you any favours.

I didn't insult anyone who didn't start it.  Yes, I dismissed many of the dumber comments -- exactly as they deserved.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, make an attempt.  If all you can muster is useless sideline potshots, I suggest you discontinue wasting my time.  Perhaps go read a book.

Perhaps go read a book

Perhaps sod-off to a pro-gun far-right website where you belong- although I admit that much of the blame for prolonging this tripe goes to people (now including me) responding

Guilty.  I'd just say that this isn't necessarily "far right" stuff.  For pretty much any political / ethnic / other group you can think of there will be a subgroup advocating for / educating about guns in the US.  Cyclists, lawyers, mild-mannered democrats, radical feminists... It's mainstream.  As are divisions about the who / what / how of guns there of course.

Anyway good advice, done now.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Guilty.  

Anyway good advice, done now.

Damn, I was really hoping we'd get around to you explaining why Scotland's assault rate is 50% higher than any other OECD country.  Or why Scotland's rape rate is higher than Mexico's (ibid).

Seems like a few Scots could use a little protection.

High assult rate?  We still have the ones who didn't make it to America!

Looks like the news from that is that Mexico is a place to avoid for murder, then quite a ways back Estonia interestingly and the US.  As for sexual violence, avoid Australia, maybe Sweden, then after that the rest of the pack are lower but still following behind the US.  Maybe those guns just aren't there when they're needed, or maybe the problem is the perpetrators getting ahold of them first.  The house gun maybe since the sad truth is it's more likely to be someone you know and trust?

Quote:

the report shows that we are a high-crime society with a particular propensity to violence short of intentional homicide

Hmm... homicide not so much?  Since we already have cars, kitchen knives, very hard foreheads and indeed can obtain a shotgun or even a rifle if we only jump through enough hoops, what's stopping us though?

Again interesting parallels for those interested.  The Scottish West coast had a centuries-long history of violence, both "internal" and outside persecution.

As for Mexico - I strongly suspect that although everywhere is under-reporting violence against women it will be even more so there.  Mexico may not be a good example for this purpose anyway.  Although there are serious limitations on legal weapons purchases there happens to be a ready source just across the border.  And while it may be some effort to obtain legally you can indeed legally have weapons, including handguns.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Looks like the news from that is that Mexico is a place to avoid for murder

So what do you suppose might happen if the UK had a thousand mile border with Mexico, and 25% of the world's GDP to spend on drugs?

chrisonatrike wrote:

As for Mexico - I strongly suspect that although everywhere is under-reporting violence against women it will be even more so there.  Mexico may not be a good example for this purpose anyway.  Although there are serious limitations on legal weapons purchases there happens to be a ready source just across the border.  And while it may be some effort to obtain legally you can indeed legally have weapons, including handguns.

While I don't doubt that all manner of contraband flows across the US-Mexico border, the evidence for your "ready source" claim is not found in those links.  The main reference is to 2 eleven-year-old stories about the same smuggler -- who was caught with (3) .22 rifles and (2) collectible firearms.  The famous Project Gunrunner seized a whopping 372 guns over six years.  The Mexican authorities are known to be cooking their books to make it appear that their gun problem originates in the US, for political and financial reasons.  And, oh by the way, "Stated another way, about one-eighth of the Mexican army deserts annually."  Turns out to be easier for a cartel to buy a Mexican soldier, and his gun, than to smuggle guns across the border and then hire someone to shoot them. ( All per your source. )

So there are actually many sources for the cartels' weapons -- some are made in Mexico, and many are made in South America.

And, just for the record and all, a big part of the reason why there are so many guns in the US is because it is 25% of the world's GDP -- so companies from around the globe are happy to sell guns there.

wtjs wrote:

Perhaps go read a book

Perhaps sod-off to a pro-gun far-right website where you belong

If you think I'm far-right, then you genuinely do need to go read a book and vastly improve your skills in that area.  Or, you haven't been reading at all, and are just now trolling for attention.

Either way, good luck with that.

dh700 wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Er, I have. I've not made any comment on the subject.

Oh really.  One or more of those words do not mean what you think they mean.

It's you that's having difficulty comprehending here - you've failed to grasp the difference between commenting on the subject of gun laws, and commenting on your approach to commenting.

dh700 wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

No - I mean being insulting, dismissive, and arrogant, as you have throughout your 'contributions'. It is, to borrow a phrase, not doing you any favours.

I didn't insult anyone who didn't start it.  Yes, I dismissed many of the dumber comments -- exactly as they deserved.

This isn't how life works. Believing someone's argument is weak does not mean that they deserve to be insulted.

dh700 wrote:

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, make an attempt.  If all you can muster is useless sideline potshots, I suggest you discontinue wasting my time.  Perhaps go read a book.

And there you go again - keeping on digging.

The only person wasting your time is you - no-one's making you reply to me. You could just try being nicer instead. If you confuse asking for a civil and measured discourse with 'taking potshots', then that's your problem, not mine.

For myself, since you're clearly not really interested in a meaningful discussion, I won't be wasting any more words on you. It's probably well past time this thread came to an end.

mdavidford wrote:

It's you that's having difficulty comprehending here - you've failed to grasp the difference between commenting on the subject of gun laws, and commenting on your approach to commenting.

So you are a proud troll with nothing substantive to offer -- got it.

mdavidford wrote:

This isn't how life works. Believing someone's argument is weak does not mean that they deserve to be insulted.

Welcome to the Internet!  I try to be extra nice to folks here who are still on their first day.

If you are looking for a space to make dumb comments without being insulted for same, the Internet is not it.

mdavidford wrote:

For myself, since you're clearly not really interested in a meaningful discussion,

Right, because I've written dozens of posts -- with supporting data -- that no one to-date has been successful countering, while you are standing on the sidelines with nothing to offer, by your own admission.

mdavidford wrote:

I won't be wasting any more words on you. 

Thank goodness you finally learned your lesson. Run along now.

Tell me, are you interested in cycling at all?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Tell me, are you interested in cycling at all?

I have a dozen bikes, most of which I built myself.  You guess.

dh700 wrote:

If you were trying to make a point, you really do not want to touch Greenland as an example.  In point of fact, per some sources, Greenland's murder rate is 5 times that of the US.

There was a murder at the end of my street last year; there are around 300 people who live in my street, therefore the murder rate for my street for 2021 is over 3000 murders per million people, making it approximately 50 times more dangerous than the USA. Honestly, there's no need to argue with you when you do such a good job of proving just how weak your argument is yourself.

Rendel Harris wrote:

There was a murder at the end of my street last year; there are around 300 people who live in my street, therefore the murder rate for my street for 2021 is over 3000 murders per million people, making it approximately 50 times more dangerous than the USA. Honestly, there's no need to argue with you when you do such a good job of proving just how weak your argument is yourself.

 

While you are puzzling about the mysteries of statistics that you never learned, maybe edit your post to say that the murder rate of that one household was hundreds of thousands per million.

Or, go back to school.  Your choice I'm sure.

dh700 wrote:

"Guns owned per 100 people" is a meaningless number.  Once you get beyond 2 guns per person, you cannot fire them all simultaneously, so there's no difference between owning 2 ( and for most people, 1 ) and owning a thousand.  This is relevant in particular because a small percentage of Americans own an enormous percentage of the private firearms.  Contrary to this misleading, junk chart, about 1 in 4 Americans own private firearms.  Not that different from, say, Switzerland's rate.

Not quite. If I have one by my bed, one by the front door, one in each car, one that I keep in my rain jacket, one in my summer jacket, one in my cycling jersey, I'll be cocked just as soon as you can say "well regulated militia" and ready to blow the bad guys away.

dh700 wrote:

"Gun homicides per 100k people" is equally meaningless, since as repeatedly pointed out, the weapon used in a homicide is irrelevant -- the victim is dead either way.  Total homicide rate would be the appropriate number to use, if one is trying to be honest.  When using the appropriate statistic, one finds that the US' homicide rate is the 3rd-lowest in the Western Hemisphere, behind only Canada and Chile (slightly).  Yes, even Greenland's murder rate is higher than the US.

 

Wow, quite the cherry pick there. The US murder rate isn't the worst in the world, but much worse than comparable countries. 4 times the UK rate, 5 times Australia, 3 times Canada, etc. And with Greenland, there were only 3 murders in their sample so basic stats knowledge would tell you that the figure may not be indicative of the long term mean.

TheBillder wrote:

Not quite. If I have one by my bed, one by the front door, one in each car, one that I keep in my rain jacket, one in my summer jacket, one in my cycling jersey, I'll be cocked just as soon as you can say "well regulated militia" and ready to blow the bad guys away. 

Yes quite, because there's no difference between possessing X guns in your example and just carrying one (or perhaps two if you are a cowboy) with you all the time.

TheBillder wrote:

Wow, quite the cherry pick there. The US murder rate isn't the worst in the world, but much worse than comparable countries. 4 times the UK rate, 5 times Australia, 3 times Canada, etc. And with Greenland, there were only 3 murders in their sample so basic stats knowledge would tell you that the figure may not be indicative of the long term mean.

Half the planet is not a cherry pick.

There are different ways to define "comparable countries".  Three of your four counter examples are islands, who by their nature have far more secure borders, for example.

The fact of the matter is that violence is endemic almost throughout the Americas.  And due to the trade drug, quite a lot of that violence bleeds across lines on map, so there are excellent reasons why, say, Australia or the UK may not be the best comps in this analysis.

And, for the record, Greenland's murder rate is almost never less than the United States over the past 30 years.  It very rarely is similar, but in many years Greenland's rate is 3 to 5 times higher.  Next time, take a minute and educate yourself, to avoid further embarrassment.

dh700 wrote:

ktache wrote:

Thing is, most of the many, many ways of killing people are a bit incidental, the car, the kitchen knife, poisons (unless novichec). But guns are actually designed for killing people, especially the military stuff.

First off, much like a kitchen knife, a very large number of people use firearms to put food on their tables.  Many also use them for protection from animals -- both human and otherwise.

Second, draw a clear, legally-defensible line between "military stuff" and non.  No such distinction exists.  The 9mm handguns that are standard issue for many armed forces are the same ones that are most-commonly owned for personal self-defense.

The problem with this argument is that many people in western european countries might need a kitchen knife.  Almost no-one in Western Europe or most of the US is a subsistence hunter who needs a gun.  Outside of the far north / wilderness north america / Canada you do not need to go "armed for bear".  Plenty people in the US live or pass through bear territory, most are not armed with guns.

"Deterrence" doesn't seem to work particularly well in the US.  If someone's got literature to show that if private firearms were less widely available civil society would break down, roll it out.

My main issue with firearms is that by design they are easy to use and are often lethal.  It's the speed that something can turn deadly and how quickly and easily one or more people can be killed (UK example).  Given humans and their impulsive nature that turns many common situations - suicidal crisis, kids fooling around, a wild argument, some kinds of mental health issues - into deadly ones.  For suicide there is indeed evidence that the peak of crises pass fairly quickly.  However if you've a gun on hand then there is no "it was a cry for help" - the story ends there. See "Lethal-means reduction".

Also many places - Mexico for one - has found to its cost weapons tend to "leak" from places where they are "properly managed / safely stored".  They tend not to find their way into the hands of the "good guys".

I agree that "military" and "non-military" is in some ways a blind alley.  (Pretty sure no-one's using miniguns for drive-bys, although apparently there was a bank robbery with with an anti-tank rifle).  Having said that compare the ammunition capacity / rate of fire of guns in the US (nothing fancy like actual machine guns, just the basics) and how simple it is to obtain with what you could get here and what you have to do.

So overall it's a matter of degree - but e.g. US is so different from the UK in this regard it's almost a matter of different quality.

chrisonatrike wrote:

The problem with this argument is that many people in western european countries might need a kitchen knife.  Almost no-one in Western Europe or most of the US is a subsistence hunter who needs a gun.

The glaring problem with this response is that we do not ban everything non-essential.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Outside of the far north / wilderness north america / Canada you do not need to go "armed for bear".  Plenty people in the US live or pass through bear territory, most are not armed with guns.

You would do well to inform yourself before prognosticating.  The largest black bears in North America -- up to 800-odd pounds -- live just a few hours outside New York City, and black bears are endemic almost everywhere in North America except the Great Plains.

I have camped on family land within that area, that is the territory of a family of bears -- two of whom are estimated to be around 600 pounds from the trail camera footage.  The bears were just up the hill from my camp on the first night, and they let me know it.  We managed to avoid interaction, but if you are willing to tell everyone who frequents the woods that they do not need protection, I invite you to have that conversation with a bear.  Or a cougar.  I personally would not shoot either animal, except with my camera, but that doesn't mean I can tell everyone else that they cannot.

chrisonatrike wrote:

"Deterrence" doesn't seem to work particularly well in the US.

How often do open-carriers get mugged, raped, or shot?

chrisonatrike wrote:

My main issue with firearms is that by design they are easy to use and are often lethal.

So are cars, suppose we'll have to ban them too.

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's the speed that something can turn deadly and how quickly and easily one or more people can be killed (UK example).  Given humans and their impulsive nature that turns many common situations - suicidal crisis, kids fooling around, a wild argument, some kinds of mental health issues - into deadly ones.  For suicide there is indeed evidence that the peak of crises pass fairly quickly.  However if you've a gun on hand then there is no "it was a cry for help" - the story ends there. See "Lethal-means reduction".

If you are going to drag suicide into this out of a desperate lack of any reasonable argument, we better ban: cars, trains, buses, drain cleaner, alcohol, knives, buildings over 5 stories, bridges, cliffs, electricity, and a whole bunch of other things.

By the way, the garbage Wikipedia page you cite is worthless.  It purports to link to "strong evidence" which is nothing but unsupported claims.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Also many places - Mexico for one - has found to its cost weapons tend to "leak" from places where they are "properly managed / safely stored".  They tend not to find their way into the hands of the "good guys".

And a lot of them find their way into the drug trade in the United States.  Which is one of the reasons that people feel the need to arm themselves for protection.

I live in a town that is 4 miles long by 1 mile wide, and has a population of roughly 24,000 people in a county with about 1 million residents.  The police station is a bit over a mile from my house.  A few years ago -- before the Pandemic, and before George Floyd, and before most US Police began their work slowdown protest -- I had the occasion to call 911 at 4:30 in the morning, to report a dangerous individual with a deadly weapon.  At 4:30 in the morning, my sleepy town has no traffic at all.  I have cycled down the middle of the main drag at that time of the morning, just because I could.  Despite those facts, it was 43 minutes before an officer arrived.  When he arrived, he was in possession of almost none of the information that I provided to the 911 dispatcher.

I reiterate, that was before the police began their current work slowdown, and before any Pandemic.  So you are telling me that, for example, my neighbor who lives with only her teenage daughter, should not have the Right to possess a weapon for their defense?  In an emergency, they should do what, exactly?  Patiently wait three-quarters of an hour for one clueless officer to show up?

This example is not from a rural area, out in Montana, or West Virginia.  It's from a very typical area in the United States, and some 200 million people live in similar areas.

EDIT: And since my anecdote does not constitute data, here are the official US Bureau of Justice statistics on 911 response time.  One-third of the time, the response arrives within 11 to 60 minutes.  If you are wondering why I'm posting 2008 statistics, it's because the hard-working folks at the Bureau of Justice have not updated these numbers in the past 14 years.

The police in this country are not reliable, and rarely there when you need them.  Their role is mainly to clean up the mess after the fact, and write speeding tickets.  For many people, that is an unacceptable state of affairs, so they exercise their Right to have an alternate option.  If you are going to take that Right away, I suggest that you need to provide a reasonable replacement.

dh700 wrote:

 

You would do well to inform yourself before prognosticating. 

You would do well to check a dictionary before trying to use the $10 words. To prognosticate means to make a prediction about the future; one assumes the word for which you are groping is pontificating.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You would do well to check a dictionary before trying to use the $10 words. To prognosticate means to make a prediction about the future; one assumes the word for which you are groping is pontificating.

And the individual in question was claiming to know that people would never need a firearm.  In other words, they were precisely making a prediction about the future.

Try again.  Or, actually, don't waste my time.

dh700 wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

You would do well to check a dictionary before trying to use the $10 words. To prognosticate means to make a prediction about the future; one assumes the word for which you are groping is pontificating.

And the individual in question was claiming to know that people would never need a firearm.  In other words, they were precisely making a prediction about the future.

Try again.  Or, actually, don't waste my time.

No he wasn't, he was talking about what happens now, not what might happen in the future. Your grasp of grammar and language is as tenuous as your grip on reality, clearly.

Quote:

chrisonatrike wrote: 

Outside of the far north / wilderness north america / Canada you do not need to go "armed for bear".  Plenty people in the US live or pass through bear territory, most are not armed with guns.