You're right but there is a logical explanation. Criminals, being what they are, will be armed in both jurisdictions. In Virginia, they face an armed populace and are deterred, but in DC they are presented with a soft target rich environment by way of gun restrictions.

wolf + sheep = fed wolves

wolf + sheepdog + sheep = starving wolves

Guns are durable goods so proximity to supply is much less important than it would be for consumables but a large percentage of the guns used in crimes in DC come from next door in Maryland.

In other words, gun laws do little to nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns, but gun laws do prevent law-abiding citizens from getting them. To use your analogy, gun laws eliminate the sheepdog, not the wolf.

 

I'm pretty sure that was his point.

 

I would rather invest the dollar amount toward a home offensive plan, security cams etc. Invest in secure windows and making entry doors more secure by installing an inner and outer door. An outer door should be installed so you can see guests via. a window, even if the camera is not working.

At least the camera might assist the police in identifying the perp.

The only people following the gun laws are law abiding citizens.

Gun control is hitting where you aim.

Racking a round in a shotgun can achieve the desired effect, the would be perp decides there is an easier target down the street.

 

When I was growing up the houses on both sides of us were broken into and robbed a total of five time -- three for one and two for the other -- over the course of fourteen years. Ours was never touched, even though for years we never locked the doors (I think it was after about the third burglary that we started locking the front door when we went to bed but it was several more years before we started locking the back door).

So why were we never touched? We had a large dog that was in the house whenever we were gone, with few exceptions. Our neighbors down the hill had three Doberman's, but they were almost always out in the back yard and had been trained not to bark. Our's had no such inhibitions. I think that was really enough by itself. But we also had a sticker on our front screen door that basically said, "This home is owned by an armed citizen prepared to defend their family and property." I suspect, based on the results in many other towns and neighborhoods around the country over the years, that even if we hadn't had the dog we would have still been a much less likely target.

Several studies involving interviews with inmates in prison have tried to get at what one thing would have had the most likely deterrent effect regarding the crime they were convicted for and in most of the one's involving property and assault type crimes the top billing didn't go to heightened police patrols, or to dogs (though that was often in the running and occasionally hit number one), or to alarm systems, or to stiffer and mandatory sentences. Those all had an effect, but the one that tended to stand out in most studies was often knowing that their victim was likely to be armed. Somewhat surprisingly, knowing that a home had firearms in it did not make the home a significantly greater target for burglary (by waiting until no one was home) unless the goal was specifically to obtain firearms. The people interviewed basically indicated that there was no way to know for sure that no one was home and that it just wasn't worth the risk.

Now, has anyone ever wondered why the proponents of "gun-free zones" never seem to put up stickers on their front doors announcing that their homes are a gun-free zones?

 

We have an interesting counter example to a city with strict gun laws AND low gun murder rates next door to me in New York City. Incidents of murder by gun have been decreasing for several years now, mostly due to a police practice known as "stop and frisk" where without any probable cause police are instructed to politely stop people on the street and pat them down for weapons.

Even dumb people soon realize it is best to leave your heat home at least most of the time, so with less opportunity for violence there is less violence.

For various reasons there is a statistical mismatch between the race of the general population and the race of the people stopped, so the incoming mayor ran on doing his best to end this practice.

Should this become city policy I do predict a rise in gun violence, and the victims will be black far above their proportion of the population. Again, that's an easy call based on FBI statistics where the majority of murders are by blacks on blacks.

I could point to other statistics that show this has no correlation to being black, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I don't think anyone can refute that the Stop and Frisk policy has been effective in reducing a number of types of crimes, particularly gun crimes. Assuming that you believe that such tactics are Constitutional to begin with, then as long as the focus of where the Stop and Frisk policy is applied correlates with where the gun crimes are the highest, then I personally don't think anyone has any kind of a racial-bias leg to stand on.

As to whether the tactics are Constitutional, frankly I have a hard time seeing that they are. Essentially, the policy authorizes searches without a warrant or probable cause. This basically makes it a "writ of assistance" along the lines of those used by the British to permit customs officials to search anywhere at anytime for anything that might be considered smuggled goods. The use of such writs were the primary motivating factor for the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While the Fourth Amendment was only binding on the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment made it binding on all states, as well.

The main difference between the writs of assistance and the Stop and Frisk policy is that at least the writs of assistance were issued by a court!

 

If someone stopped and frisked me when I was totally innocent and just living my life as a citizen, I'd be ticked off and consider going home to get my gun and coming back and shooting the bastard.

What are you going to allow next? "Stop and anal cavity search"? "Stop and DNA blood screen"? "Show your papers to get from one city block to the next"?

They tried all that type of stuff in 1939. It did not work out well for that government if I remember right.

 

You guys need to watch more of the cops T.V. show ,they show cities all across

the U.S. and other countries. When they say down on your stomach ,they give you

5 seconds to hit the ground. With picture phones you are seeing a lot of stuff

never intended to be shown. If you pull some thing out of your pocket you could be

dead ,happens every day.

 

If I were stopped I would comply. No question about it. Once they were done I might try to engage them in a friendly discussion about the policy. I've done stuff like that many times -- for instance with gate guards regarding some of their security procedures. It always starts with, "Hey, I know you are just doing your job and following procedures, but I was wondering what xxx is supposed to accomplish considering yyy?" Sometimes I get something that is basically, "Move along now, sir." (I make a point of only asking something when there is NO other traffic around.) But I've had some good conversations on most of the occasions. Sometimes it's clear I'm dealing with a kool-aid drinker, but other times I find out other ways in which the policies and procedures are pointless than what was apparent to me as an outside observer.

But, back to the point, I would definitely do what they told me. I might file a complaint or a lawsuit afterward, but I'm not going to give the cops any reason to think that I am "a problem" that has to be dealt with. If I were in their place I suspect I would quickly become a bit baton/tazer/trigger happy, too. After all, they DO come up against people that ARE real threats to them one a frequent basis and they DON'T know who is who when the encounter starts and they DO want to live to get home to their families every bit as much as I do.

 

I just happen to be making right turn when they were pulling over a pick up truck.

When they block the P.U. ,I was right there and blocked in. Doing what they always do,

without any reason I was told to get on the ground face down. I didn't get a chance

to say a word. After they said we had to sort out the bad guys ,and that was it.

 

I have a bad habit that could get me killed ,if someone come up on me out of nowhere

I have a habit of pulling my hand out of my pocket and point my finger , if the wrong

thing happens I could get shot ,it just like drawing quick.........bad habit.

 

I have a bad habit that could get me killed ,if someone come up on me out of nowhere

I have a habit of pulling my hand out of my pocket and point my finger , if the wrong

thing happens I could get shot ,it just like drawing quick.........bad habit.

Yep. It's like the saying goes: It's not illegal to have bad judgement, and it's not immoral -- but it can be slightly fatal.

 

I just happen to be making right turn when they were pulling over a pick up truck.

When they block the P.U. ,I was right there and blocked in. Doing what they always do,

without any reason I was told to get on the ground face down. I didn't get a chance

to say a word. After they said we had to sort out the bad guys ,and that was it.

Depending on the situation and what they were stopping the truck for, I don't know that what they did was unreasonable at all. They may not have had any specific reason to believe you were with them, but they probably didn't have any reason to assume that you weren't, either.

When you think about it, it probably put you in a safer position, too. With you facedown on the ground, if the guys in the truck did start something, you are less likely to be seen as a threat.

 

They were armed with bullet proof jackets ,it was a special unmarked squad.

I guess they were using the right turn to cut them off there ,life go on.

 

If someone stopped and frisked me when I was totally innocent and just living my life as a citizen, I'd be ticked off and consider going home to get my gun and coming back and shooting the bastard.

What are you going to allow next? "Stop and anal cavity search"? "Stop and DNA blood screen"? "Show your papers to get from one city block to the next"?

They tried all that type of stuff in 1939. It did not work out well for that government if I remember right.

It worked very well for the government until the "gun nuts" from across the ocean stepped in.

 

It worked very well for the government until the "gun nuts" from across the ocean stepped in.

....Well, yeah...

Huh!

 

But, back to the point, I would definitely do what they told me. I might file a complaint or a lawsuit afterward, but I'm not going to give the cops any reason to think that I am "a problem" that has to be dealt with. If I were in their place I suspect I would quickly become a bit baton/tazer/trigger happy, too. After all, they DO come up against people that ARE real threats to them one a frequent basis and they DON'T know who is who when the encounter starts and they DO want to live to get home to their families every bit as much as I do.

There are basically two correct answers to give an officer: "yes, sir," and "no, sir" with the former being preferable if correct.

However, there may come a point where no answer is the best answer. Like being asked to go downtown. "Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law" in not just some saying, but the Supreme Courts way of saying STFU buddy.

Many innocent people get convicted by talking too much. You say you were at A, your best friend from high school (who hasn't seen you in 20 years) say you were at B where some crime happened. Now your layer has a tough job since you're obviously lying about where you were that night.

 

American Rules of Engagement
Rule #1: Never speak of your own free will in the presence of a police officer.
Rule #2: When your free will has ended, you may say: "I do not consent to anything. I want a lawyer." Do that while complying very quickly with every demand.
Rule #3: If you survived, you can hire a lawyer.

American police officers kill innocent people every day, and that only includes the killings they can't hide from public knowledge.

 

American Rules of Engagement
Rule #1: Never speak of your own free will in the presence of a police officer.
Rule #2: When your free will has ended, you may say: "I do not consent to anything. I want a lawyer." Do that while complying very quickly with every demand.
Rule #3: If you survived, you can hire a lawyer.

American police officers kill innocent people every day, and that only includes the killings they can't hide from public knowledge.

Police Officers (Intelligence) decreases in proportion to adrenaline.

Adrenaline increases in proportion to the number of "police" involved at the incident.

 

American Rules of Engagement
Rule #1: Never speak of your own free will in the presence of a police officer.
Rule #2: When your free will has ended, you may say: "I do not consent to anything. I want a lawyer." Do that while complying very quickly with every demand.
Rule #3: If you survived, you can hire a lawyer.

American police officers kill innocent people every day, and that only includes the killings they can't hide from public knowledge.

Could you provide some references for this last claim? As near as I can tell, America averages about one death per day nationwide in which law enforcement is involved. So if American police officers are killing innocent people every day, then that strongly suggests that there are virtually no justifiable killings by police at all.