No More Police Protection.
 

From USA Today
Guess its time to arm up, if you already haven't.

I also noticed they didn't mention speed traps nor minor drug offenses. Perhaps they are the moneymakers.

the force has gone from 687 down to 607 and they are now saying they can't do their jobs? That's complete bullshit. Put the donuts down and get back to work, slackers. They could start by transitioning the spokeswoman to street duty.

When budget election times come, government officials often...
(No, very often)
(No, almost always)
(No, always)
identify the budget cuts as police, fire, water/sewage, and football.

Our city does that, but then continues to give the local Chamber of Commerce over $100 K each year. And coincidentally the CofC takes credit for putting up flower baskets each summer on the street lights in the business area.

No, I'm not the least bit cynical.

Okay, folks. Get ready for the massive influx of criminals to Oakland, Tulsa, and, of course, Norton, Mass.

Especially Norton, Mass.

The thread title is misleading - the police will still protect you as they have in the past, they just won't hold your hand for the little things. Classic may be right, arm yourself to protect yourself from fraud, burglary and theft. Or pay for private security. Or pay more taxes. Any way you look at it, you'll be paying more.

But your taxes will not go up one dime.

The police aren't under any legal obligation to protect you.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (Supreme Court)

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (Supreme Court)

Pinder v. Johnson (4th Circuit)

Warren v. District of Columbia (DC Appeals Court)

If there's no more police protection, there are going to be a lot more little baby policemen running around, I can tell you that.

Cut that out, this is serious internet problem solving. :lol2:

One of the benefits of living next door to the police station is that they'll come right on over for every little thing. Especially if the little thing you call them about at 0300 is that their unmarked is in the parking lot with the pursuit lights running and nobody in it.

That's important. After all, the $50 more in taxes is worth much more than the $hundreds that a gun and ammo will cost, or the $thousands you'll pay for private security.

Double the police force and they still won't protect you, they only try to catch the perp after the fact. You still need to protect yourself, if you don't want to be a victim.

The hundreds (or thousands) for guns and ammo give you the ability to actually prevent or stop a crime rather than waiting for a cop to ask what has already happened to you.

Always remember that when seconds matter, the cops are only minutes away.

lookout - thanks for explaining the pro-active approach to problem solving.

And I thought that community policing programs and community crime prevention programs were pro-active approaches to problem soving...all of which face funding shortgages.

Silly me...having a gun makes one pro-active.

I think it also increases the size of your penis. :lol:

HI Redux! :)

I worked for the National Crime Prevention Council years ago and even got to wear the McGruff Crime Dog suit once.

It was not anatomically correct.

Shoulda worked for the NRA where size matters.

And hi to you :D

Some consider a gun prophyl-active

Try? If you're lucky...

The way I look at it, you have two choices...

1. Choose to keep a gun for home protection (or carry it with a permit) and protect yourself.

2. Dial 911 and PRAY the police get to you in time...which probably won't happen in most cases.

Police response time is several minutes. Your response time is several seconds. It's your life, do what you want. I know what I do.

Mine is probably the last home in my neighborhood someone should attempt to enter illegally - just sayin.

Or you can get yourself an iPhone. And a security system.

Texas man watches home burglary. From a distance.

3. Divest yourself of all worldly goods, and be enlightened that you are not merely flesh and bones. Repeat after me "ommmmm"

4. Put bars on your windows and get a dog.

Lookout stated that his philosophy was not to pull out his gun unless he was going to shoot, but recently he did just that. When Wolf found a snake (IIRC) in her apartment, she wasn't packing so she didn't shoot it, and she didn't go get her gun and shoot it. Guns might not be the panacea you're looking for.

Repeating myself with this link

England did away with guns and the stabbing rates skyrocketed. What's your point?

I can run faster than a knife?

:lol2:

There are so many "points" in this link, but they almost always fall in the direction that guns do more harm than good, whether in
self-defense
spousal abuse
children killed by accident
suicide prevention
on and on...

37-39. Overestimates of self-defense gun use
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use.We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence.
Major findings: The claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens appears to be invalid.

Having a gun means nothing. Having a gun and being ready, willing, and able to use it if necessary means you are less likely to be a victim. It is pro active in that you aren't just waiting for the cops to take your statement if someone wants to harm you.

Your first statement about community policing and crime prevention is accurate. They are proactive methods for deterring crime but they are not 100% successful in eliminating crime. Taking personal responsibility for you and yours is the next obvious step.

I absolutely agree that every citizen not only has the right, but the responsibility to protect oneself, family and property - by the means with which they are most comfortable - for you it is a gun, for me it is not.

But that does not in any way detract from the need for a well-staffed and well-trained police force and one that focuses as much on prevention and deterrence as it does on apprehension....programs that are currently facing severe budget pressures.

An armed populace will not replace a civil police force accountable to the public. The wild west concept of vigilante justice does not play well today.

I agree the police force should be fully staffed and supported, as should fire and other emergency services. Budget problems should not ever put those areas at risk.

That is exactly why I voted against the recent Phoenix food tax that was packaged and presented as the only viable means of saving police and fire jobs. That is complete and utter bullshit. Those vital services should be among the first expenditures and nearly untouchable in budget negotiations. Once the necessities are paid then come back and ask for more money for optional programs and services. You pay the absolute necessities first and then make the hard choices with things that may not be absolutely necessary.

Cutting vital services in a budget crunch strikes me as ludicrous. If I lose my source of income and the future looks dire, I don't quit buying food and paying the electricity. I cut out unnecessary dining out. Cable. Try to lower the water and electric bills. Maybe sell some of my unnecessary luxury items. I cut out every last discretionary item I have before I even think about touching the items that materially affect my family's health and well-being. If none of that works then I rob the neighbor because that dumb fucker probably doesn't have a gun.

Local government budgets are something like 75% personnel related and if you look at recent studies, public safety cuts have been the last resort for many.

You also need to balance short and long-term outcomes. Cutting education (teachers) or even social services, recreation programs, etc have longer term implications...ie the potential for more "at risk" kids resulting in the potential for more to turn to crime.

Even cutting basic public works programs have implications.

Budgeting a city during times of significant revenue shortfalls is not quite as simple as balancing the family budget.

So if 75% represents the personnel costs am I to believe police and fire are the least necessary personnel? If personnel are to be cut I would think they'd be from non critical activities unless the politicians are playing the fear card simply as a motivational tool.

3. But I like my worldly goods....:)

4. No need for bars on the windows because I have 3 dogs.

I never claimed guns were my panacea. It is the LAST option if shit goes really, really badly. Rest assured though...I won't be an unwilling victim.

Everyone in the Gravdigr household has a gun within reach of the bed (even Momdigr, she has her mom's .22 revolver, and can put three rounds in the bottom of a soda can at 40 feet, the longest distance she'd have to shoot inside the house). We have one loaded (not the chamber) short-barrell Mossberg 500 behind the front door (everyone knows how to use it), and an outdoor-screaming-yellow-light-flashing alarm system. And VERY watchful neighbors.

We've all lived right here for around 35 yrs, this neighborhood belongs to us.

Good for you dmg.

Lookout - when they say a policeman has been laid off, they do not necessarily mean one from the streets. Many times, the desk personnel are the ones taking the hit.

I wonder how much people would care if their trash collection was being reduced - Has all that been cut? Nope - The police get cut - err they notify you that the police are GOING to get cut because that creates the public outcry they want.
Think of all the other cuts that could be made - srsly. Police, fire and the like should be the last on list, but I doubt they are.

Oh and while we are on the subject - are these the same police who's jobs were getting cut already and were "saved" by the stimulus?

The ones that we were told were going to lose their jobs in 12 months because thats all the stimulus was going to pay for? I remember some discussion about.

What I said and what you will find in most studies is that public safety personnel are generally the last to be cut.

And still, the choices are never as simple as the police should be the last...it is not that black and white. Every cut has implications that need to be balanced.

Example...is going from two-person to one-person squad cars in certain (low crime) districts and during certain (low crime) shifts worse than cutting the need to replace a broken water treatment system?

Just not your front porch step.

I don't think I've ever seen a two-person squad car, except on tv.

@ BigV - bwahahahaha!

glatt loves Adam-12 reruns. :)

The best was when Adam 12 would make a run to the hospital, and see Johnny and Roy there from the fire department. Worlds colliding!

Epidemiological theory to explain results they didn't want? There is no need for epidemiological theory when they know what the fuck they are talking about.
Harvard never asked me if I've used a gun to prevent a crime or bodily injury to myself. I've done both but how would they know? Police reports? The police only hear about it if someone gets shot. My roommate was robbed at gunpoint. He handed over his wallet, and when the perp turned and started to walk away my roommate pulled out his gun, took back his wallet, plus the perp's wallet and gun. No police involved. Harvard doesn't know.

How do they count the burglaries, robberies, or assaults that don't happen because the perps aren't sure if I'm armed or not?

Just curious xoB

By your account, do you consider your roommate's actions armed robbery?

By the way, I agree with your larger point that most successful deterrents (not methods but instances) are most likely unreported or at least underreported.

Yes, probably two the way Harvard counts.

Where in the world did you get that? You believe this? The claims by Gun Grabbers are equally invalid.

earlier in this thread.
I just did not copy over the list of publications.

Yes, I am inclined to believe data published in peer-reviewed journals that publish their methods and data for others to evaluate.

I'm have not yet seen a basis for claiming these data from Harvard School of Public Health are invalid or biased.

But it's not data, it's theory. Says so right in your quote:

Is the word "theory" sufficient reason to dismiss conclusions ?

Well, "epidemiological theory" is what turned up the two egg-farms
that distributed salmonella-tainted eggs throughout the US that recently caused ~2K infections.
That is, they did not go out and test every egg and/or hen in the US to determine what was happening.

In any case, the conclusions drawn in the Harvard links are drawn
from "data" collected and/or analyzed in published sources... and
again, those publications or sources are in the same link.

I have met many people who have related first person experiences of personal defense/prevention, but none that ever related being questioned about it unless somebody got shot.

Academics, and their reviewing peers, live in a parallel universe, somewhat insulated from mine. This is why Henry Louis Gates Jr, had no clue to what Sgt. James Crowley was doing or why.

Have you read any of these? Some just aren't available online, although they are relentlessly cited. Of those that are, the data isn't always straight forward. Lots of proxies are used, and lots of citing of their* own work to support those proxies. Not saying I'm dismissing it outright, just that's its a tangled web.

*
Miller
Hemenway (his book)
Azrael

This is a chicken/egg type situation where they've chosen which came first but don't know why/can't support it. One could also conclude that in areas of disproportionately high homicide rates, household firearm ownership is increased.

More Guns, Less Crime is out in a new edition, with additional material. The first edition started out with a database of all 3015 counties in the United States over a period of fifteen years. Pretty substantial sample. Now the research has added more years, and I believe on all 3000+ counties too.

No one has ever mounted a successful academic refutation of John Lott's research, either. Makes worthwhile reading. Lott's findings induced him to buy a Ruger revolver and practice with it.

Hey, when you're pro-gun, you are genuinely both anti-crime and anti-genocide. That, ladies and gentlemen, is virtue. And you needn't submit to the State -- for the State does not have all the guns. When it does, that, in brief, is an essential condition for a genocide to happen.

fraud, burglary and theft, meh the police don't do anything about those crimes anyway. Hell most of the time they just try and throw you in jail once they get there.

This says it all.


There is an agenda associated with all medical journals when it comes to firearms issues. It is another approach by those who wish to restrict the Second Amendment. Make it a public health issue. Much of their data conclusions are incorrect.

If you are interested in the contrary views of supporters of Gun Rights you can read a well footnoted summary here and see where many of the flaws in health journal come from.

http://gunowners.org/fs0401.htm

More on John Lott.....makes worthwhile reading:
And another study: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.pdf

No academic refutation of John Lott's research? I count at least two.

It kind of sounds like Ayres and Donohue mounted a successful academic refutation of John Lott's research, hmmmmm?

Doesn't matter....:cool:

You consider that to be a "study"?

I thought the Stanford Law paper was much better written, but I am not sure of some of the findings other than refuting some of Lott's contentions, there were not any findings that individuals who hold CCW permits were responsible for any of the crime. There was no evidence that demographic changes were accounted for in population size. Findings often noted that there was a neutral or no effect using their models vs claims by Lott that crime went down. I don't see how that matters much, other than as fodder to discredit Lott.

But what ever. If you need the police I hope they get there in time, but don't hold your breath.