Friday, October 10, 2008

What a mess!

"Requests for Jury Trials Swamping City Courts"

After searching Juvie, police still don't know what mystery drug sent five detainees to the ER.

A broad-daylight robbery last weekend, four doors down from where Ken Harris was killed!

Wow, remember the possibly gang-related beating death of Sgt. Juwan Johnson in Germany? There's been an arrest!

A man shot in the leg, two GFs going at each other with a hammer and pepper spray, a scooter-jacking and stolen crappy cars in the blotter.

Homeland homeowner's association is being totally dickish about crime information. I guess it's bad for property values when people hear about moms getting mugged at gunpoint in the alley behind the 300 block of Taplow.

In AAC, four and a half deaths so far this year at the Jennifer Road Detention Center.

Will crime go up as the economy tanks? We all get to find out, together!

24 comments:

Sebastian-PGP said...

No wonder robberies continue unabated, unlike every state surrounding Maryland, here in the People's Republik, private citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves.

Remember Delawntae Finley? The guy who got shot to death while he was trying to rob a gas station owner a couple weeks back? Sounds harsh, but a few more assholes like him getting ventilated is the ONLY thing that will slow our robbery epidemic.

Period.

I am so wise said...

Ahh yes, gang members whom routinely shoot each other and fight trained professionals with guns (cops) will be deterred by the possibility to the person they are going to rob may be carrying a gun.

Worked in Iraq. Every family was allowed an AK-47 and the kidnapping and robbery rackets died out. Way no, it didn't.

Sebastian-PGP said...

Not so wise,
Actually, it does work. When was the last time you heard of a uniformed cop getting robbed? The bad guys would much prefer to find someone unarmed.

Criminals prefer disarmed victims. Felons surveyed have overwhelming said they fear the armed citizen more than police precisely because they don't know who is or isn't armed. This is why every state surrounding Maryland has a lower rate of robbery than we do.

Cops aren't "trained"--they spend less time at the range than the average gun owner. They get trained on use of force at the outset of their careers but aren't usually particularly proficient with firearms compared to the general public.

Comparing a civil war between ethic rivals like Sunnis and Shiites to Maryland is ridiculous on its face.

This is why armed robbery rates have fallen in every state that's gone shall issue.

In any event...even if I'm wrong (and clearly I'm not), so what? You should have the right to defend yourself from the felons who plague our city.

buzoncrime said...

sebastian--- I often don't agree wih the Wise One, but he/she is very wise here. While we're very pleased with your Baltimore John Watch blog--it's very interesting--I'm not sure your approach to fighting "robbers" is really going to work in the real world. Yeah, there are from time to time examples of business owners killing stickup boys. But you may not know, business owners can already carry handguns on their premises without a Maryland handgun permit. Most choose not to do so; they live in the real world of common sense, textured with the elements of risk, location, quality of them arming themselves, and a host of other factors. Most gun aficionados live in some sort of Rambo fantasy world, where they're gonna shoot it out with the bad guys. Yeah, you might shoot some jerk bothering you or someone else in anger.
But....................
A real stickup guy(s), unless you're really watachful and ready is gonna get the drop on you before you get the chance to do anything. Yeah, you might drive some low-level low-lifes off, but dangerous street thugs will shoot, and probably kill you. Take Detective Troy Chesley, coming home from work late at night, armed, trained-he qualified every year, and street-wise. He tried to resist, and a wild gun battle ensued, he got killed. Sure, he hit the thug in the leg. The irony is that if he was an unarmed citizen, he would have given the hoodlum his wallet, and still be around today to tell the tale.

Criminals overwhelming don't want to get caught. They pick their time and place carefully, usually, along with their victim. (for robberies, anyway; following johns around is a different story).
Police are trained when they go thru the academy, then must qualify at the range every year. They also are taught when they can legally use deadly force, and face potential criminal, civil, and administrative liabilties for its misuse--just like you might.
Oh, and they aren't particularly proficient with firearms compared to "the general public"?! Huh, what general public do you hang out with? The folks down at the gun range? C'mon, get real. There have been many, many instances of people shooting and kiling people, using deadly force when they really shouldn't.
Every time a serious crime is publicized, folks come out of the woodwork and start talking that concealed carry is the answer. Do ya really think Ken Harris would've had a chance if he had a gun under his coat?
The owner had a gun in his bar, fired three shots, but it didn't do him any good.

Now, in this income-starved environment, where the richest state in the country is about to approve slots, maybe Maryland can make some money selling concealed carry permits for.............maybe a bit more than our recent auto renewal?!

I am so wise said...

I think we should the military's system for gun control. Only those who need them are given them or the training to use them and even the minor infractions are harshly punished.

ppatin said...

"Oh, and they aren't particularly proficient with firearms compared to "the general public"?! Huh, what general public do you hang out with? The folks down at the gun range? C'mon, get real. There have been many, many instances of people shooting and kiling people, using deadly force when they really shouldn't."

From what I understand in states that have introduced concealed carry permits for law-abiding citizens accidental/unlawful shootings by CCW permit holders are almost unheard of. I'd need to do a little more research to cite proper sources, but from what I remember citizens with concealed carry permits are an extraordinarily law-abiding bunch. Admittedly the benefits of legalized concealed carry are modest according to most unbiased sources, however there are essentially zero negative effects.

Sebastian-PGP said...

"I'm not sure your approach to fighting "robbers" is really going to work in the real world."

It's working fine in the real world, actually. Even by the most conservative estimates, Americans defend themselves from criminals hundreds of thousands of times per year with firearms. I could link you to dozens and dozens of examples of CCW permit holders defending themselves successfully if you really want to waste time trying to defend a point you didn't give much thought.

"But you may not know, business owners can already carry handguns on their premises without a Maryland handgun permit"

I myself have a permit (obviously you haven't read my other blog). I can assure you I am MUCH more familiar with MD's permitting process than you are, having been on TV for fighting my way through it.

"Most choose not to do so; they live in the real world of common sense,"

If you think choosing to not defend yourself is common sense, I think you need a little help with the notion of common.

"Most gun aficionados live in some sort of Rambo fantasy world, where they're gonna shoot it out with the bad guys."

You know this how? There are 80 mil gun owners in the US. If we're all a bunch of Rambos, you'd think you'd hear about us shooting it out a lot more. The reality is that gun owners are actually just every day people who, unlike you, recognize that waiting around for the cops to show up 20 minutes later isn't a valid defense strategy when confronted with a violent criminal.

Here's a newsflash for you: the BPD actually INSIST that I carry a gun given what I do--you think you know more than they do? Are they Rambos too?

Funny how you anti-gunners engage in projection like that, and insist on insisting that people who simply don't want to give the crooks the upper hand are in some way bad people. Hallmark of the ill considered, immature argument, that.

"A real stickup guy(s), unless you're really watachful and ready is gonna get the drop on you before you get the chance to do anything."

Oh yeah? Then why don't you read about them getting the drop on the cops? If carrying a gun isn't useful, why do cops carry them? Why can I point to so many examples of people in fact getting the drop on the bad guy? Why do criminals almost uniformly say they prefer unarmed victims and that they fear the armed citizen more than LEOs? Simple: because they don't know who the CCW permit is.

The reason people can effectively defend themselves when they carry is that the crook isn't actually expecting armed resistance, and the ones who are aren't typically prepared to handle it.

In any event, your point here is immaterial--regardless of the skills of the bad guy, your odds of surviving are better when you're armed than when you're not. The FBI has studied this extensively and concluded that your best odds of avoiding injury when confronted by an armed thug intent on doing you harm are when you yourself can offer armed resistance.

"Yeah, you might drive some low-level low-lifes off, but dangerous street thugs will shoot, and probably kill you."

In reality, armed citizens defend themselves successfully every day. Like Harry Goodman, the dry cleaning shop proprietor.

Det. Chesley isn't a good example. He presented his badge first, not his weapon. A tactical error that a CCW permit holder won't make.

"The irony is that if he was an unarmed citizen, he would have given the hoodlum his wallet, and still be around today to tell the tale."

Or maybe the career criminal would have killed him to leave no witnesses--I've been mugged too, and the Detective who interviewed me told me I was quite lucky, as many robbers in this city have taken to eliminating witnesses in robberies.

"Police are trained when they go thru the academy, then must qualify at the range every year."

You're quite misinformed (my brother's a cop, he'll be happy to confirm that). Their yearly qual amounts to 50 rounds. My buddy who works the western district says at this point the BPD essentially offers zero chance for range time other than what he pays for himself. When you're working 60+ hours a week...you don't have much spare time. Cops have a hit rate of about 15% nationally--you're living in a dream world if you think they're the gun experts.

I've trained at The Tactical Shooting Academy in VA, by the guy who trains USSS guys.

Cops OVERWHELMINGLY support CCW nationwide, by something like a 9 to 1 ratio. Why do you think that is?

Because they know they can't be everywhere, and your best odds of surviving criminal attack are armed resistance.

The plain reality is that your entire premise is nonsense--you have a basic civil right to defend your own life, and it isn't predicated on how effective said defense is.

A seatbelt won't save you from every car crash, but I bet you wear one anyway. By the same token, my sidearm won't save me from every criminal, but it sure does give me better odds. For every misuse of a gun by a CCW permit holder you show me, I'll show you 25 examples of a CCW permit holder getting the drop on a bad guy and saving his own life (you just don't read about such things often because the media is relentlessly antigun).

buzoncrime said...

Well, Sebastian-whew! Sorry to upset you so much! All told! I think you protest too much! And you made some of my points for me, better than I could have.

I guess you really put me in my place!

And I am very glad you went thru all that trouble and got your permit and you feel much better carrying it around.

Hundreds of thousands of cases!? Really?

Well, since I was only on the police force in Baltimore a few years (almost 30), I will admit to hearing about a few cases. And I guess a permit is necessary if you live in a bad neighborhood or go around doing risky things. My point was, coming from a security perspective, with some exceptions, it is not a terribly practical idea.

If you feel better carrying a gun around everytime you go outside your house, and when you go to school or work, that's great. It's just not for me or most people I know. Unless you need it for work, most people would think it's a little paranoid and weird. Um, do you like carry it at work, (does your boss know and approve?) and while you're following Johns around?
I suppose if one of them gets irritated at you at some point in the future and jumps out at you, you're gonna blast him?
Good! I hope that he presented a deadly threat to you. And of course, since you went to all that Secret Service training, I'm sure you won't hit anybody else.
Do you take it to school or the doctor's office?
I live in the city, have a handgun home, had a permit for a previous job, but NEVER carry it outside my house.

Some people like guns; I think they're ok and have their place.

And I suppose if the legislature changed the law, and anyone that applied could get a permit, that would be fine as long a people were screened. I frankly don't believe that the typical violent criminal will be deterred, because most criminals pick their victims carefully and are ready. I don't think it will change the crime rate very much--unless somehow several of these guys get killed every week; somehow, I feel that's not gonna happen.

Sorry about your mugging; please tell us about it. Were you armed then? Or is that what made you spend all your time and money buying and carrying and training with guns. If you weren't armed then, would it have helped?

Common sense: most store owners don't want wild shoot-outs in their stores; customers are precious; we don't want them killed.

I'm sure you're right: Buz's head would hurt reading all the thousand and thousand of cases and books you're going to refer us to.
I write from an experiential basis, having spoken to many crime victims and having read hundreds of crime reports.

I will not have any problem with someone carrying a handgun legally for security or police purposes. My point is that the average joe carrying a gun around all the time, thinking it will be safer, is probably not. And it sounds like you've missed your calling: you should be on the police force SWAT team.
Good job on the Baltimore John Watch!

Sebastian-PGP said...

"I think you protest too much!"

I don't. I simply pointed out that sophomoric comparisons to Rambo movies and juvenile suggestions that people who like to defend themselves are problem folk of some sort deserve the skewering I gave your post. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I don't take kindly to people that aren't sympathetic to civil rights, and I can see no civil right being more important than the right to protect your own life.

"you feel much better carrying it around."

It has nothing to do with feelings. It's a FACT. If the Bloods and TTF guys in my hood decide to make good on their threats to do me in, my odds of survival ARE better with my Glock model 22 on my hip. To say otherwise is simply a sign of ignorance. That shouldn't hurt your feelings to read that any more than it hurts them to read the sky is blue.


"Hundreds of thousands of cases!? Really?"

Uhm...yeah. Do some research for about 0.0000897 secs on google for "defensive gun use". Like everything else around the gun issue it's somewhat controversial, but even the most conservative studies commissioned by the anti gunners show that yes, hundreds of thousands of times a year people use guns to protect themselves. Much of the time a shot isn't even fired, the mere presentation of the gun prevents a crime in progress. If you really were a cop in Baltimore you'd know that. Much as you don't read about planes that don't crash...you don't read about non-discharge DGUs. Like the night I used my sidearm to prevent a pimp from beating a prostitute to death here in Pigtown without firing a shot.

In any event, yeah that's not really controversial--people use guns to protect themselves WAY more than they use them to murder others.

Again...why do cops carry them? Why don't they get robbed? The reality you may or may not want to grasp: even if you refuse to accept that a gun is quite useful for defending yourself, the FELONS OUT THERE DO!!!

"And I guess a permit is necessary if you live in a bad neighborhood or go around doing risky things. My point was, coming from a security perspective, with some exceptions, it is not a terribly practical idea."

Uhm...did you proof that before you posted it? You just completely contradicted yourself. If having a CCW is necessary for me (and BPD agrees it is) and is therefore an effective tool for me or someone like me...how is it not practical for someone else? Either guns are effective defensive tools or they aren't. Cops, BPD, the FBI, security experts, etc agree they are. So how are they not "practical"?

Part of the problem is that Marylanders tend to be isolated. You do realize that in every state surrounding Maryland, and in fact in 40 states across the nation, CCW permits are issued to anyone who qualifies and passes a background check?

"It's just not for me or most people I know."

That's hardly a convincing argument for not allowing CCW. In fact, that's the argument for it--in a democratic, free, liberty loving society, you accept that not everyone will make the choice for themselves that you make for you. Don't like guns? Great don't carry them. Don't like smoking? Don't smoke! Don't like booze? Don't drink! Don't like premarital sex? Don't have it!

But let me choose for myself what works for me. That's the very definition of freedom.

"Unless you need it for work, most people would think it's a little paranoid and weird. "

Who are these most people? Do they live in one of the most crime ridden violent cities in the world like I do? Do they wear seat belts? They probably have one car accident every 30 years. What a bunch of paranoids. Do they live in a state like MD where your odds of being the victim of a violent crime at some point in your adult life approach 1 in 2? '

I think these most people aren't very good at taking precautions.

Now, mind you, I'm not saying everyone should carry. I'm simply saying that we're all safer if you have the CHOICE to carry because the baddies won't know who has the means to protect themselves. It should be like sexuality, marriage, abortion, religion, speech, association, etc--a matter of choice.

"Um, do you like carry it at work, (does your boss know and approve?) "

I work from home, but I don't see how that's a relevant question. When I'm out in public and doing the neighborhood thing, I'm on my own time. When I go to the store or the movies or to walk the dog or to watch Johns, yes, I'm armed, and it's a damn good thing.

And spare the condescending bullshit coy questions. I wouldn't shoot a john for annoying me anymore than you would as a cop, assuming you really were one. The plain reality is that every state that's bothered to study the subject has found that CCW permit holders are MORE law abiding than the general public. There is NO record of a MD permit holder being convicted of a violent crime.

So spare me. Really. That sort of question shows how divorced from reality and uninformed you are on this topic.

"And of course, since you went to all that Secret Service training, I'm sure you won't hit anybody else."

Yawn...still condescending I see. I'll betcha my hit rate will exceed that of the national rate achieved by LEOs of around 15%. Or do you think they shouldn't be armed either?

"And I suppose if the legislature changed the law, and anyone that applied could get a permit, that would be fine as long a people were screened."

They're already screened. I had an interview, a background check I paid for, fingerprints, etc. If that makes you feel better, great--but the criminals out there aren't getting background checks, training from professionals like I have, etc. Bear that in mind.

Criminals won't be deterred? Why are people in Georgetown, DC getting mugged and robbed like crazy but 200 yards away in Crystal City, VA, just across the river, the robbery and violent crime rate is a fraction of that found just over the bridge in DC a couple football fields away? Why when Florida passed its CCW law in the mid 90s did tourists in rental cars with rental tags (they later fixed this) start getting targeted like crazy for car jackings? BECAUSE CRIMINALS WANT UNARMED VICTIMS. Duh. The FL thugs knew the rental cars would be tourists without permits.

"Sorry about your mugging; please tell us about it. Were you armed then? "

No, he had a gun because he didn't obey the law, and my gun was locked up in my bedroom when he approached me on my steps. He took my money and told me to walk down the street away from house. I was sure he was going to shoot me. It was the most helpless feeling in the world. If I'd been armed and he started shooting, I could have had the option of returning fire. Would it have helped? It's possible. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have been a factor--but I didn't have that CHOICE.

"Common sense: most store owners don't want wild shoot-outs in their stores; customers are precious; we don't want them killed. "

I don't want them killed, I want them able to defend themselves. With 40 shall issue states issue permits to any non felon who can qualify, where are these wild shootouts? If you really were a cop, you'd remember that 90% of gun fights involve five shots or fewer. If CCW permits lead to the OK Corral on every corner and in every store, why haven't we seen that in the states that issue them left and right?

EVERY state around MD issues permits regularly, and they're all much less violent states than MD. The sad reality you don't want to accept for some reason is that allowing qualified people to defend themselves saves lives, it doesn't take them.

"I write from an experiential basis, having spoken to many crime victims and having read hundreds of crime reports."

And I'm just pointing to the facts--people defend themselves with firearms all the time, states that allow CCW are almost always safer than MD, and law enforcement all but universally supports private citizens defending themselves.

"My point is that the average joe carrying a gun around all the time, thinking it will be safer, is probably not."

I'd like to see you actually defend that statement. How are you not safer when you're able to defend yourself? How do you account for all those states safer than MD where people get to carry guns way more readily than here in MD? How does having the means to defend yourself make you LESS safe? Are cops less safe with their guns than without? Of course not--so why would private citizens be any different?

And while I have the tactical skills QRT requires, I couldn't serve as a community activist if I was spending 60 hours a week runnin and gunnin for BPD. My calling is here in my neighborhood working with the police, not for them.

BJW is great, but what you're missing is that I'm only able to be such a visible and overtly active member of the community doing the good that I do BECAUSE I'm afforded the ability to defend myself.

Why should I have that ability but not other Marylanders? We've got the most restrictive gun laws in the nation save for DC and Chicago and NYC, but we're amongst the most at risk people in the nation--why is it so hard for you to see that YOUR formulation for what gun laws should be has FAILED?

ppatin said...

Sebastian:

"And spare the condescending bullshit coy questions. I wouldn't shoot a john for annoying me anymore than you would as a cop, assuming you really were one."

I'm on your side on this issue, but I think you're being a bit too prickly. Buz has always been an interesting and level-headed contributer when he posts here, and I see absolutely no reason to doubt that he was a police officer.

Sebastian-PGP said...

That's swell...he probably was a cop--but I really think that sort of question is out of line.

Think about it--he apparently carried a gun for 30 years on this job. Think he'd appreciate somebody saying "geeze you gonna blast somebody cause they annoy you?"

Of course not. So why shouldn't I be prickly when that sort of insulting question is leveled at me? I'm sure he means well but frankly that's pretty much a suggestion that he thinks I'm dangerous or unstable simply because I don't think denying me the right to defend myself is just.

I am so wise said...

I am still at lost at why gang members who routinely wage war on other gangs far better armed than sebastian-pgp are going to cower before the prospect of him carrying a gun. That scenario did not play out in the Middle Ages, the American Wild West, Serbia in the 1990s, Bosnia in the 2000, Kosovo, or Iraq today.

But, if Sebastian's figures are to be believed, it'll worked for America. Apparently we're immune from Hobbes.

Sebastian-PGP said...

I am still at lost at why gang members who routinely wage war on other gangs

No wonder you're "at lost", you're completely confused about the various things the rest of us are discussing. In particular, we're talking about individual thug on civilian crime (robbery) not gang on gang turf battle. It's like you arguing about what'll stop white collar bank fraud and ivory tower accounting malfeasance while we're discussing what'll stop people knocking off liquor stores. Two different kinds of crime.

far better armed than sebastian-pgp

You're misinformed from listening to too many rap albums and watching too much TV. A huge majority of crime guns are six shot .38/.357 revolvers and cheap semiautos (remember those "Sat Night Specials we were supposed to fear?). I carry a .40 Glock with two spare 15-round magazines on the other hip. I can assure you it's a rare criminal better armed than I am. They prefer cheap, small firearms, not higher-end tactical weapons.

Wow, there's a shocker--a pro gun-control person who A) doesn't actually know anything about guns and B) is arguing based on what he saw on Boy's N Tha Hood back in 1992. Yawn...

Anyway, again you're trying to compare the urban crime environment to CIVIL WARS throughout history.

What's interesting is that as daft and pointless a comparison as that is, you nonetheless undermine your own argument--those conflicts were all resolved through the application of force, not the disarmament of one side or the other.

It's a sad reality that you simply can't accept--as long as evil lurks in the hearts of mankind, people will need to defend themselves.

If you choose to not defend yourself...great! But when you foist that choice upon me, you're an authoritarian and anti-freedom to the core.

Anonymous said...

For everyone here arguing against Sebastian, I used to feel just like you do. That concealed weapons were going to be the scourge of society, that it would lead to our towns turning into "Dodge City", that criminals were toting AK-47s, that there were such things as "cop-killer bullets", and other things like this. I never knew whether I was right or wrong, because the issue wasn't terribly important to me — it was just that I knew that these things had to be true because I was raised to believe that guns are nasty, violent things and that only nasty, violent people would voluntarily use them.

Then one day I decided to do some research — on a whim, really. I started reading studies by the FBI, and statistics by the CDC on their own websites. What I found surprised me. First of all, I learned that in fact 48 states in this country actually already allow some form of concealed carry by its citizens, including the one I currently inhabit. This was pretty shocking. At first, I was slightly fearful. "If anyone around me could be packing heat, what if one of them gets mad and shoots someone!?!" Soon I realized that attitude was self-defeating; in all the time I've been here, I've never once witnessed any sort of public abuse of firearms by CCW-holders, nor have I heard of any on the news (what I have heard is plenty of illegally-armed criminals causing problems, though).

Then I found the FBI study that Sebastian referenced that did indeed indicate that felons feared armed victims far, far more than being caught by police. That too surprised me. And after that I discovered that the favored weapon by criminals was a sturdy revolver — the kind of weapon almost never, ever targeted by gun control legislation which usually attempts to ban high-capacity magazines and military-caliber rifles that criminals almost never use, according to the study (again, by the FBI).

And so on and so forth. I know how fear-inducing it can be to imagine that everyone around you may be an armed powderkeg, but our fears were not realized when CCW became legal throughout 96% of the country. Give the idea a chance. At the very least, don't prevent others from doing so because you don't like it; we live in a country founded on individual liberty.

Rob K said...

I'll chime in to support Sebastian. I live in Indiana. I carry my handgun almost everywhere I go. In Indiana, it's very easy to get a license to carry. Many of my co-workers also carry. Almost everyone I know has a gun at home. I don't know anyone who's been shot. Compare the crime rates of Indianapolis to those of Baltimore. We don't have that much crime here or accidental shootings.

Are Marylanders more incompetent or less trustworthy than Hoosiers?

I am so wise said...

What's interesting is that as daft and pointless a comparison as that is, you nonetheless undermine your own argument--those conflicts were all resolved through the application of force, not the disarmament of one side or the other.

Actually the crime waves in Serbia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were solved by the application of law enforcement, not letting anyone carry guns.

Learn to read careful and read up what you missed the last 20 years and then you know I was not speaking of the wars but the crime problems. Ask politely, and I'll tutor you.

"Wow, there's a shocker--a pro gun-control person who A) doesn't actually know anything about guns and B) is arguing based on what he saw on Boy's N Tha Hood back in 1992. Yawn..."

I based my positions on gun control on what works for the military.

helix said...

Such a shame to see a knowledgeable person such as buzoncrime verbally roughed up because he rationally disagrees with what some pigtown anti-crime zealot thinks is the gospel truth.

The following things are true:

1) Given a choice, the vast, vast majority of people going about their daily routines WILL NEVER choose to be armed. Its not cool, it IS WEIRD, and it is a burdensome responsibility to carry a deadly weapon. Unless your life revolves around gun-rights issues, you just aren't going to be motivated to carry when going to, say, the local starbucks.

2) I trust the judgement of a seasoned cop, regardless of marksmanship score, over the judgement of some shooting range enthusiast when it comes to life and death issues.

3) While having a gun handy might be a plus, there are a huge number of things you can do that have a much greater impact on your security than being armed.

4) sebastian is going to burn out. While residents can be motivated enough to solve problems in their neighborhoods, operating a in a seige-like fashion, where everyday brings conflict will burn out even the most hardcore activist. My guess is that he will move out to the burbs before pigtown sees real gentrification. You just can deal with the scum-of-the-earth criminals day in day out and not tire of the icky feeling that comes from interacting with them. I don't know how cops do it, but at least they are paid for it.

buzoncrime said...

Thank you, wise one: societies can only survive thru the application of force by legitimate forces of law and order, whether it is in the Great Plains, Bosnia, Darfur, Baltimore.

Thanks, Ppatin--Though we may mildly disagree on "must issue" concealed carry, I have no problems, in certain circumstances, with armed, necessary security and police, as well as handgun permits issued to persons deemed by the legislature allowed to carry concealed.

Thanks, Helix--your support is appreciated. Certainly, if I lived in Pigtown in the same amount of fear that Sebastian suggests, I would certainly move.
Betcha, 87-1, Carol Ott doesn't carry a gun around Pigtown.
And if it's that scary there, I'd certainly not waste my time driving around looking for whores and the johns looking for them; go looking for trouble and you'll all too often find it.

By the way, I've written a little piece for the last printed issue of Exhibit A, the Daily Record's legal tabloid for us non-lawyerly types. (They're going only on-line after this issue). Sebastian will hate it!

Some little factoids:
`The overwhelming majority of police gun battles with criminals are at five yards or less.
`The overwhelming majority of gun battles are over in a minute or less.
`About 20% of police who are shot, nationally, are shot with their own guns.
`If a criminal gets an officer's gun, the officer's chance of being shot are about 80%.

These facts were drummed into our heads at Firearms Training regularly, and training and tactics have been adjusted to reflect some of these.
In addition, many, many tragedies over the years have been documented by Hopkins and others over guns in the home. Again, I'm not generally opposed to guns in your home, but with children present, the risks are high, and intemperate uses of them are full of risks.

There's no point in responding to Sebastian and the others because he/she is not going to change their mind, as indicated by the breathlessness of the responses. It is just so sad that people live in such fear as described, yet believe deadly force if the primary answer-in order to "defend oneself".
Remember, the thugs have nothing to lose; you, the law-abiding citizen has a lot to lose. So, be careful out there.

Sebastian-PGP said...

you nonetheless undermine your own argument--those conflicts were all resolved through the application of force, not the disarmament of one side or the other.

Failing to see what possible point you think you're making here--that's exactly what I'm arguing, that sometimes situations call for force. And unlike in civil wars, in day to day life on the streets of Baltimore, there isn't a NATO sanctioned tactical team everywhere. Sometimes the only person who can apply force in time to save a life is YOU.

What works for the military isn't going to work in Baltimore, because Baltimore isn't anything like the military. There's no accountability. You can't control other people's actions, only your own. Bad guys will get guns no matter what the rules are. The only thing you can control is your response to that, not what they do.

Again, BPD supports me defending myself. Why wouldn't you? What do you know that they don't?

Such a shame to see a knowledgeable person such as buzoncrime verbally roughed up

I don't think I'm being all that rough, but it's not a shame--he was making an incoherent, self contradicting argument using appeal to authority fallacies. Everyone involved is better for me having shown the mistakes he was making.

Nice to see you're referring to me as a zealot. Name calling, the hallmark of a sophisticated argument. Er...not!

Why am I a zealot? Because I see that the policies of the last forty years aren't working? Because I don't think turning a blind eye and blithely accepting criminality is a virtue like you do? That doesn't even pass a smell test.

Its not cool, it IS WEIRD, and it is a burdensome responsibility to carry a deadly weapon. Unless your life revolves around gun-rights issues, you just aren't going to be motivated to carry when going to, say, the local starbucks.

One of the glaring red flags about how weak your argument is is quite simply that you can't help but speak judgmentally and derisively about people who simply choose to defend themselves. The reality you don't seem to understand is that millions of Americans have CCW permits and use them every day. Hundreds of thousands of times a year Americans use guns to defend themselves. It's not weird to want to protect your life any more than it's weird to have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen or a seat belt in your car. You almost never need those either.

As for the responsibility, of course it's a huge one. As is driving a car (an activity that kills way more people in an afternoon in this country than law abiding citizens carrying guns kill in 20 years). Or flying a plane. Or piloting a boat. Of fathering a child.

What's wrong with people having to be responsible?

Again, if you don't want to carry...THEN DON'T. I have no issue with that until you try to force that choice on me.

I trust the judgement of a seasoned cop, regardless of marksmanship score, over the judgement of some shooting range enthusiast when it comes to life and death issues.

And you're talking about rationality? Marksmanship DOES matter when it comes to using lethal force. In any event, what sort of black magic abstract calculus do you think we're using in these cases? There's a simple rubric--you can't use deadly force EVER AT ALL unless your life or the life of another innocent person is on the line. This isn't a hard concept to master.

If it were, you'd read all the time about CCW permit holders going to jail. The fact that CCW permit holders are actually MORE law abiding than the general public makes it clear that your sense of trust is perhaps a bit misplaced.

But so what? I don't care who you trust more--there isn't going to be a cop around every time a criminal tries to commit a heinous act. In the end the only person I can count on to save me is ME. When it boils down to brass tacks, when seconds count and my life is on the line, the cops are only about 10 minutes away. Doesn't matter who you happen to trust, most of the time the situation is going to boil down to an armed bad guy and me. If I'm disarmed because of policies you support, the bad guy is going to be way ahead in a tactical sense. And that's messed up.

sebastian is going to burn out. While residents can be motivated enough to solve problems in their neighborhoods, operating a in a seige-like fashion, where everyday brings conflict will burn out even the most hardcore activist.

That's the same kind of nonsense I keep reading from the mongers over at USASexguide.info who are griping about me and my friends exposing them.

What you don't realize is that I actually ENJOY this. I get a kick out of urban renewal and out of seeing my equity in my house grow. Housing values in Pigtown have skyrocketed and continued to grow despite the shitty economy and bubble. People keep moving in, life is getting harder for the dealers, and easier for us! Why would I burn out? I'm winning!

People said the same ignorant crap about South Baltimore, Fed Hill, Patterson Park, Canton, etc. As gas prices rise and more people move back into the city, our position continues to improve.

Sounds like schaudenfreude coming from you, plain and simple. I'm part of something positive and I'm not afraid to defend myself.

I think you're projecting your own insecurities.

I notice in point three you didn't bother to inform us what those other things are. What else should I be doing when confronted by armed thugs that I'm not doing?

I love people who drop turds like that in the punch bowl and then don't even bother trying to defend them.

Sebastian-PGP said...

Thanks, Helix--your support is appreciated. Certainly, if I lived in Pigtown in the same amount of fear that Sebastian suggests, I would certainly move.
Betcha, 87-1, Carol Ott doesn't carry a gun around Pigtown.


That's nice he's making you feel better, but you're still making an erroneous argument and his pat on the back doesn't change that. As for moving out, guess what? THE CRIME WILL FOLLOW YOU. That's why MD's suburbs are plagued with crime. That's why we lead the nation in car jacking and armed robbery. Just moving away from the socioeconomic issues of Maryland won't fix them. If you don't wanna be part of the fight...great. But belittling those of us who do just makes you look like a heartless goon. Besides, not everyone can afford to move out of the city--so putting aside the fact that MD needs Baltimore to work, some of us recognize the social responsibility we have to make our city better for everyone.

MD needs more people who give a shit, and can do with fewer naysayers who aren't contributing much but griping and pantswetting.

And you're dead wrong about Carol. In addition to being an NRA member and self defense supporter, she was working with my help on getting a carry permit before the shop closed down. If you think I'm rough on you, you outta hear the ass-reaming she gives people who tell her she shouldn't support using firearms for self defense or carrying them. Talk about speaking out of turn. Wait till I call her...she's gonna love reading what you wrote. :)

Sebastian will hate it!

Why? Those factoids are A) not news to me and B) hardly reasons to not support defending myself.

There's no point in responding to Sebastian and the others because he/she is not going to change their mind, as indicated by the breathlessness of the responses.

What's funny is how wrong you are about me; until a few years ago, I DID support gun control, more than you even do. It wasn't until I started learning about guns, studying their use, and reading up on them that I changed my mind. I'm about as liberal as they come. I support gay marriage, abortion rights, and just about every civil liberty you can imagine. But I changed my view on gun control because I realized that it is simply a policy that doesn't work!

I'd be happy to change my mind if you could show me a rational reason to do so. But the sad reality for you is that the facts are in--the bad guys are going to be armed no matter what laws you pass, and as a result the best way to prevent yourself from being a victim is to be prepared accordingly--which means to be armed.

You still never addressed the central point there--cops carry guns for a reason! If they're not effective self defense tools then why do they carry them? Why do so many hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with guns successfully every year?

Until you can address that, you're just pissing in the wind and I see little reason to see any merit to your suggestion that I'm the hardheaded one here. It is sad that we have to live in fear, but the solution isn't abdicating your right to self defense nor is it to give up and let the criminals win, as you'd have us do.

And you're engaging in another fallacy, the strawman, by arguing that I said using force is the "primary" response. I said no such thing. If that were my line of thinking I'd have already shot someone. I've shot way fewer people than Dick Cheney, I can assure you. I recognize that force is the last resort, and frankly think you're the one being a bit insulting by suggesting that I think otherwise.

helix said...

I actually don't care anymore about your obsessed screeds, sebastian.

When some _defines_ themselves by an issue, you really can't expect rationality from them-- why don't you tell us what "pgp" means.

The thing is _you_ are the one who us laying down the personal insults. You need to take a breath and get some perspective.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the wars in the former Yugoslavia of the early 1990s, it was actually quite common to see an ethnic cleansing operation preceded by weapons confiscations. If the Bosnian Serbs (say) were planning to cleanse a particular village or cluster of villages, then a week or two beforehand, Serb policemen and SDS (Serb nationalist party) would go round those households known or thought to contain guns (hunting rifles, shotguns, the occasional handgun) and confiscate them, ostensibly to prevent them falling into the hands of "terrorists."

Would a few civilians with hunting weapons have been enough to stop an organized ethnic cleansing? Of course not, but evidently, the ethnic cleansers took the prospect of possibly being shot sufficiently seriously to take steps to make sure that couldn't happen. In other words, armed citizens do provide some measure of deterrence, even in a particularly vicious sectarian civil war.

For that matter, it's notable that the weapons of choice for Iraqi insurgents to murder Shi'ites have been bombs, particularly car/truck bombs and personal suicide bombs. Not coincidentally, these are weapons that are difficult to defend oneself against using firearms, so we may conclude that the prevalence of privately owned firearms in Iraqi society has had some influence on the insurgents' choice of methods.

The same development has been seen in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict: certain Palestinian groups switched to suicide bombs after using gunmen proved ineffective. And the primary reason gunmen proved ineffective was because Israeli citizens had armed themselves, and were shooting the gunmen before they had the opportunity to do much damage.

Sebastian-PGP said...

I actually don't care anymore about your obsessed screeds, sebastian.

I'm obsessed with staying alive. I'm obsessed with making the world a better place than I found it. I'm obsessed with changing Baltimore from being the crime ridden hell hole that policies you espouse have made it. I'm obsessed with making our city more livable.

Why is any of that something I should apologize for?

For the record I am pretty used to people who aren't doing anything positive assailing me for trying to make an impact in a good way. It's pretty telling that you're so angry and judgmental just because I'm not comfortable with people using irrational, emotion driven arguments to suggest I shouldn't get to defend myself from evil people.

When some _defines_ themselves by an issue, you really can't expect rationality from them-- why don't you tell us what "pgp" means.

Who the FUCK are you to tell me how I define myself? I define myself as someone trying to make our city better. If you have a problem with that, you have much bigger issues than your feeble attempts to disagree with me.

PGP stands for my other website, which I linked here, so obviously I'm not embarrassed about my pro-RKBA positions. Again, you're revealing yourself by making it clear you think my pro-self defense stance is something to ashamed of. It's not. It's something I'm quite proud of.

As for insults, I'm not the one being judgmental. I'm simply saying don't try to force choices you'd make for yourself on me. Let me decide what works for me.

What possible friggen perspective could I possibly need here? What "perspective" do I need when the issue is whether I be able to defend myself from a felonious animal who wants to kill me because he wants to peddle addiction untrammeled by my efforts?

There are some things that require neither perspective nor context--and the basic civil right that is self defense is clearly one of them.

Anonymous said...

Helix wrote:
"The following things are true:

1) Given a choice, the vast, vast majority of people going about their daily routines WILL NEVER choose to be armed. Its not cool, it IS WEIRD, and it is a burdensome responsibility to carry a deadly weapon. Unless your life revolves around gun-rights issues, you just aren't going to be motivated to carry when going to, say, the local starbucks."


I think you're overreaching. Yes, a majority of Americans, even when they are not prevented from doing so by local government, choose not to own a firearm, let alone carry one in public. In Washington state, only 6% of adult residents hold a Concealed Pistol License--one of the highest percentages in the country--and likely not all of those actually carry in public. Your first assertion, then, is true.

However, that makes carrying a firearm in public unusual, but "unusual" is not same as "weird." "Weird," in modern usage, carries a connotation of something being not as it should be, something deviant even, and that is necessarily a subjective assessment.

(Of course, to wax pedantic for a minute, "weird" derives from the Middle English werde, meaning "regarding, or able to control, fate or destiny." In this sense, describing the act of carrying a firearm for self-protection is arguably indeed werde, in that one who does wishes to exert some measure of control over his or her destiny.)

The last sentence is simply untrue. Speaking for myself, my life does not "revolve around gun-rights issues" (though I do have an interest in such issues, it is one interest of several, and I will not vote for a pro-RKBA candidate with whom I disagree on any issue I consider more critical, e.g. abortion rights), and yet I do carry on a fairly frequent basis. Yes, that includes to Starbucks, if I happen to stop there on my way to or from someplace less innocuous.

2) I trust the judgement of a seasoned cop, regardless of marksmanship score, over the judgement of some shooting range enthusiast when it comes to life and death issues.

It may interest you to know that quite a few private citizens who own firearms for defensive purposes also go to the extent of acquiring training in judicious application of lethal force. Such courses are available at a lrge number of private facilities around the country, and are typically taught by current and former law enforcement personnel, with names like Clint Smith, Marty Hayes and (of course) Massad Ayoob being a few of the more famous ones. And, unlike police officers, private citizens don't have their law enforcement agency to take (or avoid) responsibility if they fuck up and shoot someone they shouldn't, which adds a measure of incentive right there. A cop might lose his job and his pension, but a private citizen will probably go to prison.

Bear in mind, moreover, that it takes time for a cop to become "seasoned," and in the interim, he can still wield lethal force as an agent of the state. Hey, how about those "seasoned" NYPD Street Crimes Unit cops who shot Amadou Diallo? How many rounds did they fire, 41? Of which 19 actually hit Diallo, leaving another 22 to go stray. How about the judgment of the three Atlanta narcotics officers who shot and killed 92 year-old Kathryn Johnson in 2006?

Buzoncrime wrote:
"Some little factoids:
[...]
`About 20% of police who are shot, nationally, are shot with their own guns.
`If a criminal gets an officer's gun, the officer's chance of being shot are about 80%."


Interesting that you chose to use the word "factoid" there. A factoid can either be something that is true but not of significance, or something that is presented as established fact when it is, in actuality, unverified or even plain false. Which kind of factoid did you mean, I wonder?

I lean towards the first definition: true, but irrelevant to this discussion. Law enforcement officers are known to carry sidearms, and typically carry them openly in hip holsters. One study by the FBI of LEO killings (Killed in the Line of Duty: A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Officers, US DoJ, 1992) showed that, of the 11 cases of officers killed using service weapons studied, in only one was the weapon taken from the officer's hand; far more often, the weapon was taken from the officer's holster or vehicle, i.e. when the officer was not actively engaged in self-defense using that weapon. Even in more recent cases where the weapon was snatched from the holster of a plainclothes detective (NYPD Dets. Parker and Rafferty in 2004; Providence PD Det. Allen in 2005), the snatch occurred after the detectives had identified themselves to the shooter as police officers, and were thus known to be armed to the shooters (and had possibly even revealed the location of their weapons).

These circumstances do not apply to private citizens carrying concealed handguns. Such people typically do not willingly and knowingly reveal that they are carrying (lest they run afoul of "brandishing" laws) unless and until they draw their weapon in self-defense. Several Google searches on my part have come up with at most four instances that were reported in the press over the past year in which an assailant gained control of a citizen's privately owned defensive firearm and used it against its owner, and even then, it's not clear that in every incident the weapon was on the owner's person when the incident began.

Moreover, unlike law enforcement officers, private citizens don't generally find themselves called upon to (attempt to) physically restrain suspects during arrest. But it is precisely during this type of situation that the majority of gun grabs from holsters occur. I have to add that the "factoid" about the chance of an officer being at 80% risk of being shot if the suspect manages to grab his gun strikes me as a bit of no-brainer; what other possible motivation is there to snatch a cop's gun in the first place, if not to shoot him with it? To beat it into a plowshare to protest the use of force by the agents of the state? I imagine that in 100% of such instances, it is the suspect's intent to harm the officer, and any failure to do so is the result of incompetence on the suspect's part.

But what I'm getting at, in this roundabout way, is that statistics on LEOs being shot with their own weapons bear no implications regarding risks to private citizens from weapons they are carrying concealed on their person.