13 ms·
Maybe they should issue more concealed carry permits in bay area counties. It's wrong for the police to simultaneously neglect your protection and also prevent
by jeffdavis 8y ago
Maybe they should issue more concealed carry permits in bay area counties. It's wrong for the police to simultaneously neglect your protection and also prevent you from protecting yourself.
- anothergoogler 8y agoI don't want somebody shooting for any reason on the BART.
- SllX 8y agoI don’t think anyone does, but I think that is besides the parent’s point.
- wyclif 8y agoI don't either, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let some scummy BART thief rob and assault me when I have a concealed carry permit.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoAgreed. I don't want to be caught in the cross-fire between a criminal and a layman trying to be a hero.
- stickfigure 8y agoI know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. There can't be that many criminals. The steady-state equilibrium might be safer than the current regime, which is that criminals can assault (and kill) with little risk to themselves. Of course I'd like my chance of death-by-bullet to be zero. But for whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be an option on the table.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> I know this sounds crazy, but I'd be willing to tolerate a modest number of bystander deaths if it meant a dramatic uptick in the number of criminal deaths. I'm of the opinion that it's better for a criminal to walk free than for an innocent person to be punished or killed for something they have nothing to do with.
- symlinkk 8y agoIf criminals are walking free left and right, they will feel less afraid to commit more crimes, including murdering innocents.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> If criminals are walking free left and right They aren't: conviction rates are high and crime rates are at record lows.
- wolco 8y agoIf the criminal kills innocent people all hope is lost in your opinion.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- JPKab 8y agoWhat if that layman isn't trying to be a hero. What if they are just exercising their right to protect themselves or their family? When the police in a municipality have the monopoly right to posess and use force to protect citizens, then citizens should expect them to actually keep them safe. If they fail in this duty, citizens should have recourse. Oakland in particular has a very difficult problem prosecuting criminals. The "stop snitching" culture that is prevalent in urban, black communities, combined with historical mistrust of police, translates to no cooperation and no arrests. Criminals aren't being deterred, and are acting with impunity. Probability is on b your side in keeping you safe, until one day you're the unlucky target. You won't be able to defend yourself, the other riders will not help and will pretend to not see you, and you will feel the helplessness that I once felt when I was savagely beaten by several laughing teens in DC next to a metro station. None of them were caught, but the police were sure helpful in telling me that the station I went to was a bad place for white people to go and I shouldn't go there anymore. Layman with weapons isn't ideal, but neither is the delusion that the police can keep you safe in an area rife with cultural dysfunction and the young, borderline psyco men who target anyone that looks like they are productive for predation.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> What if that layman isn't trying to be a hero. Stray bullets don't care about the shooter's intentions.
- pteredactyl 8y agoThe ideal is for the firearm to be a threat deterrence. And that it would not be used.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoSeems to me that escalating a situation with firearms increases the chances of a gun being shot.
- 8y ago
- jopsen 8y agoIt's probably safer to just carry a little extra cash and pay off the robbers..
- paulddraper 8y agoAs long as that's all they want.
- krackers 8y agoI don't think that's a good idea. Seeing you have some cash on hand is a signal that you are more well-of and they might be more incentivized than they were previously to take your bag/wallet/etc. Basically there's no incentive for them to stop at just taking that extra cash when they can take that and whatever else they were planning to.
- toomanybeersies 8y agoIf someone is robbing you of all your valuables, I don't think that offering them some cash is going to help, they'll still steal all your valuables.
- rdtsc 8y agoThat depends on the context. There is a criminal culture in every country, city, etc. In some parts if you delay or are trying to negotiate you'll be killed.
- wolco 8y agoJust make sure the money has a deadly material that will absorb into the robbers skin rendering them unconscious
- vlozko 8y agoSan Francisco issuing concealed carry permits!? There’s literally only a handful issued for the entire city. There’s no hope of that changing, short of a SCOTUS ruling.
- Bud 8y agoMaybe we should do absolutely anything other than increasing the number of guns in a crowded, enclosed space.
- userbinator 8y agoThe more likely it is for criminals to be fatally shot by everyone around them if they try to do anything, the less likely they're going to try --- even if they themselves have a gun, they're going to be outnumbered.
- iknowstuff 8y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/80rno0/fatal_school_shootings_in_europe_compared_to_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/80rno0/fatal_school...
- matchbok 8y agoThis is 100% wrong. Not sure if you are joking or just misinformed. Everyone already knows there are tons of guns out there. It doesn't deter crazy crime at all.
- pteredactyl 8y agoThat's because it's illegal to carry them pretty much anywhere in public.
- burfog 8y agoYes, there are tons of guns, but who has them? Legal ownership is rare due to the law. Lawbreakers don't follow the law by definition, so they have guns and you can't change that. There is something to be said for evening things up.
- vikingcaffiene 8y agoNo. Just no. What you’re going to have is a shit load of people with guns firing in close quarters. When the police get there they’ll have no idea who the bad guy is. How about we just make the damn trains more safe instead of advocating for Mad Max Thunderdome?
- claydavisss 8y agoEven if you were to get the veritable Golden Ticket and land one of the hundred or so CCWs in SF, using your firearm in California, even in self defense, would result in your life being ruined. Move to a SHALL ISSUE state. I did.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sdinsn 8y agoOr perhaps we should make different changes to society that allow citizens in public to be safe without having to carry a gun?
- rkho 8y agoI'm all for this. What changes do you propose, how do you intend on carrying out those changes so that the execution matches the intent, and how can I help?
- KozmoNau7 8y agoAs a country, take care of your disadvantaged people, the jobless, the homeless, the troubled. Enforce a proper minimum wage, scaled as a proper living wage for a given area. Enact single payer healthcare. Stop persecuting minorities, and end the ridiculous war on drugs. Enact gun control. In the longer run, abolish (crony) capitalism, abolish lobbying and "campaign donations" (bribes) and break the military-industrial complex. Make the wealthy actually pay their taxes and give back to the society that they built their wealth on top of. Increase equality.
- pageandrew 8y ago> make the wealthy actually pay their taxes Sounds like you need to get your facts straight. > A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjKrI2YxPHeAhXeGTQIHYJ0DPkQzPwBegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffact-tank%2F2017%2F10%2F06%2Fa-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax%2F&psig=AOvVaw2msuvZt4ZVhtEqDoVs4Me6&ust=1543303633491797 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjK...
- KozmoNau7 8y agoThey are still paying nowhere near the same portion of their income as those of less advantage are paying. Plus their disposable income is still vastly larger, and they're basically untouched by the regressive costs paid by less fortunate people. The wealthy should pay more, that is why progressive tax systems exist. They reap the largest benefit of society's goods, by a gigantic margin.
- pteredactyl 8y agoAgreed. You have a right to self-defense. But I've met people out here who do not believe in self-defense. Somehow in their theoretical mind they believe any form of violence is evil. They also believe people who believe in self defense are evil too. The lunacy has no end. But my stay here sadly might...
- KozmoNau7 8y agoRight to self-defense does not mean a right to use deadly force in every situation. The essence of self-defense is to use only the necessary force to ensure your safety, by incapacitating or immobilizing the assailant, until police arrives or you can make a safe escape. It is not a license to kill.
- pageandrew 8y agoThe right to self defense means that you have the right to use force, including deadly force, to stop a threat to your life. In a life or death situation, your last concern should be moderating your force against your assailant to stop the threat.
- pteredactyl 8y agoFor the bless-ed among us, they are so woke they've evolved the ability to moderate themselves in a life or death situation. Funny none of them have been in one.
- KozmoNau7 8y agoOnly in the case where is is a life or death situation. The vast majority of self-defense situations involve the threat of simple material loss. Just hand it over, your wallet/phone is not worth your life. If your life is threatened, you use the necessary force to stop the assailant. That may include the use of deadly force, but that threat of deadly force (brandishing a firearm) should absolutely not be the first cause of action. A lot of people seem to have worked themselves into a paranoid mindset, where every unpleasant altercation is a life or death situation. That is a very dangerous state of mind, and one that results in completely unnecessary loss of life.
- masonic 8y agoIt is almost impossible for somebody not politically connected to get a CCW in a blue or purple county. There WAS one police chief in Contra Costa County that had a shall-issue policy for CCW (after clearing training and background checks). In response to this, the Legislature actually changed the law, disallowing all police chiefs except your city or residence to issue you a CCW.