Hero stabbed to death after chasing muggers who stole woman's bag

Dolph said:
Citation needed, given that it flies in the face of the vast majority of research into the effect....
Click to expand...

ok from your own links.

An article by Moody and Marvel uses a more extensive data set and projects effects beyond a five-year span. Though their data set renders an apparent reduction in the cost of crime, Donohue and Ayres point out that the cost of crime increased in 23 of the 24 jurisdictions under scrutiny. Florida was the only jurisdiction showing positive effects from Shall-Issue Laws.
Click to expand...


The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis
Click to expand...

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2



So you support a claim of "vast majority of research" with a book written by an economist?


I'll concede that it may not lead to an increase in the violence of the crime.

And side with the "it doesn't really make any difference" National Academy of Sciences.





Also why is it countries with very lax gun laws always seem to have more issues with the illegal ones?
 
its really unlucky. I have huge respect for him

You can come out looking great or you can come out looking dead, as stated you need to review the situation first before anything. when it's 2 on 1, you can make it even and get hurt, if its 3 on 2 then its a safe bet you'll be fine providing nobody has a weapon. but that is the ace in the hole.
 
Such a shame. :( Unfortunately these days it's sometimes better to be a wimp than a hero... I just hope I follow my own advice. These people have such a disregard for the sanctity of life of others :(

I also feel sorry for the woman who no doubt feels (unnecessarily) partially responsible.

Such a tragic waste of life. However, good on Mr Singh for trying to do the right thing, though it really doesn't sound as the outcome was going to be anything other than tragic :(
 
Tefal said:
ok from your own links.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2

So you support a claim of "vast majority of research" with a book written by an economist?

I'll concede that it may not lead to an increase in the violence of the crime.

And side with the "it doesn't really make any difference" National Academy of Sciences.

Also why is it countries with very lax gun laws always seem to have more issues with the illegal ones?
Click to expand...

In which case, surely you must agree that prohibiting something that doesn't really make any difference either way is nonsensical...
 
I'd have thought that according to most on here, the law is on the side of the muggers because they stabbed Mr Singh in self defence. Remember that chasing after criminals is an aggressive act and unreasonable force if Mr Singh were to strike the crim more than once.

RIP Mr Singh, died a hero imo :(
 
NeilFawcett said:
Wonder what the chances are of drugs being behind it...
Click to expand...

It's possible they were high on something, but that's not the reason they steal and murder.

There are loads of people who take drugs and have never harmed another person.

Or did you mean the hero was high?
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
I'd have thought that according to most on here, the law is on the side of the muggers because they stabbed Mr Singh in self defence. Remember that chasing after criminals is an aggressive act and unreasonable force if Mr Singh were to strike the crim more than once.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing chasing with gathering a group of mates and beating someone with weapons as they are laid on the ground until they end up with brain damage...

RIP Mr Singh, died a hero imo :(
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Dolph said:
In which case, surely you must agree that prohibiting something that doesn't really make any difference either way is nonsensical...
Click to expand...

If legal weapons are used in most massacres, ans you agree that they don't make any difference to the average citizen in relation to crime then surely legalizing something which shows no benefit and the odd anomalous but very disastrous event is pointless?



What gain is there?
 
Dolph said:
In which case, surely you must agree that prohibiting something that doesn't really make any difference either way is nonsensical...
Click to expand...

When you say it like that I agree. The perpetrators killed the samaritan. If he had a gun or similar would they still have killed him? They didn't have guns and he was killed regardless, in fact they could have killed him with their bare hands so there couldn't have been a worse outcome even if weapons were involved.
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
When you say it like that I agree. The perpetrators killed the samaritan. If he had a gun or similar would they still have killed him? They didn't have guns and he was killed regardless, in fact they could have killed him with their bare hands so there wouldn't have been a worse outcome than there was.
Click to expand...

Well there would be if he was killed and carrying a gun.

You'd now you have two murderers with a gun.
 
Tefal said:
If legal weapons are used in most massacres, ans you agree that they don't make any difference to the average citizen in relation to crime then surely legalizing something which shows no benefit and the odd anomalous but very disastrous event is pointless?
Click to expand...

Because a massacre happens once in a blue moon? Tragic but still statistically irrelevant.

Banning something that the vast majority use safely, because very occasionally someone with existing problems misuses it is not fair in any way.

What gain is there?
Click to expand...

The same question applies to the vast majority of recreational activities, they nearly all carry some additional risk over not doing them. People do them because they enjoy them, restricting that enjoyment because of a spotlight fallacy and an appeal to emotion makes no sense at all.
 
Tefal said:
Well there would be if he was killed and carrying a gun.

You'd now you have two murderers with a gun.
Click to expand...

If the original bag theft had even occurred, which is debateable, and if the gun had not been deployed correctly.

The odds still look better for the victim or the have a go hero in such situations than they do currently...
 
Dolph said:
Because a massacre happens once in a blue moon? Tragic but still statistically irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But we;ve already established that the benefits are statistically irrelevant too.

Banning something that the vast majority use safely, because very occasionally someone with existing problems misuses it is not fair in any way.
Click to expand...

People also develop these problems after getting their license, but again probbaly statistically irrelevant.

The same question applies to the vast majority of recreational activities, they nearly all carry some additional risk over not doing them. People do them because they enjoy them, restricting that enjoyment because of a spotlight fallacy and an appeal to emotion makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...



If you read back on quite a few threads I'm generally against banning pointless stuff.

And I'm not against gun ownership

But in the case of concealed carry it's not like other recreational activities.

Most if not all recreational activates the risk is focused towards the participant or other willing participants.

With concealed carry laws the risk is aimed solely at non consensual bystanders.

And if we're to believe the purpose for them it's not meant to be recreational at all.
 
Tefal said:
But we;ve already established that the benefits are statistically irrelevant too.
Click to expand...

The benefits on crime I'm meeting in the middle with you and taking the irrelevant argument (even though I find it less compelling). We haven't considered any other benefits so far.

People also develop these problems after getting their license, but again probbaly statistically irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Indeed, certainly Dunblane could have been prevented with existing laws and information at the time...

If you read back on quite a few threads I'm generally against banning pointless stuff.

And I'm not against gun ownership

But in the case of concealed carry it's not like other recreational activities.

Most if not all recreational activates the risk is focused towards the participant or other willing participants.

With concealed carry laws the risk is aimed solely at non consensual bystanders.
Click to expand...

Who, statistically, are already violating the rights of others. The number of crimes committed by CCW holders is so small they gave up tracking it...

And if we're to believe the purpose for them it's not meant to be recreational at all.
Click to expand...

When you criminalise weapons, only criminals have weapons, is that the best solution?

Would I rather have a situation where the criminals didn't have weapons, or didn't commit crimes? Absolutely. But that isn't realistic.
 
Dolph said:
I would guess a better question would be what justifies the status quo on a rational level. Guns weren't banned due to problems with most gun owners, but as an emotional reaction to a few tragic but massively outlying anomolies.
Click to expand...

Have we ever had CCW permits in the UK? It seems like a separable point to me between that and the question of re-legalising handguns in specific circumstances such as for competition in regulated shooting clubs.

If we've never had CCW permits then introducing them can only count as an experiment and it's not necessarily a road that I'd be eager to go down.

I do agree that the amount of legally owned gun related crime (where the licenced owner perpetrates it) is minimal to the point of insignificance but I'm not yet convinced that introducing CCW permits would be a step forwards for us as a Nation. We do not have the same gun culture as America, whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your point of view but I don't think it is something that changes quickly or without trouble along the way.

Dolph said:
Definitely. It's worth remembering that carrying knives is illegal as well. Laws don't prevent criminals carrying things, they only impact the already law abiding...
Click to expand...

I'm not making the argument that it does, I'm happy to acknowledge that the criminals shouldn't be carrying weapons either. Whether having more people armed is of benefit to society is less certain to me, indeed if people are armed then there is always the risk that they will be disarmed by the criminal and have their weapon used against them - the risk may be low but it is of course increased.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Have we ever had CCW permits in the UK? It seems like a separable point to me between that and the question of re-legalising handguns in specific circumstances such as for competition in regulated shooting clubs.

If we've never had CCW permits then introducing them can only count as an experiment and it's not necessarily a road that I'd be eager to go down.
Click to expand...

I'm not especially eager to go down the road, but given the alternative (Criminals having weapons and everyone else not doing so) it seems the best solution.

I do agree that the amount of legally owned gun related crime (where the licenced owner perpetrates it) is minimal to the point of insignificance but I'm not yet convinced that introducing CCW permits would be a step forwards for us as a Nation. We do not have the same gun culture as America, whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on your point of view but I don't think it is something that changes quickly or without trouble along the way.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we never had adequate protection from pointless legislation...

I'm not making the argument that it does, I'm happy to acknowledge that the criminals shouldn't be carrying weapons either. Whether having more people armed is of benefit to society is less certain to me, indeed if people are armed then there is always the risk that they will be disarmed by the criminal and have their weapon used against them - the risk may be low but it is of course increased.
Click to expand...

That particular risk is increased, but is the risk to the individual increased overall? Many studies suggest that it is, both in the US and in other countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom