Personal security review
 

It's not like Reno is Detroit, but some of us travel a lot. Sometimes to worse places. Also, with a time of falling living standards, etc, it's not a bad idea to brush up on what the street criminal mindset is, as the next generation will undoubtedly have record numbers.

I found the OP in this thread a good check, something that really should be required reading. Even if self-defense isn't your thing, it's still good information. If you happen to have a lot of time, some of the replies have additional views as well.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/128...cs.html&page=1

Love it, thanks Scotty, I 100% agree with the "when to draw" paragraph in the OP. Brandishing a weapon and using it as a deterrent is a fine line, but I feel comfortable evaluating a person enough to make the choice. I'd rather have to explain why I pulled on someone than end up shot. There are some interesting posts further down in that thread.

Yes, there is some discussion on brandishing/threat/timing, and I think that it deserves some thought especially if in self-defense-unfriendly jurisdictions (several pages in another forum member, a white-collar professional, describes how the Philadelphia justice system screwed him hard for political reasons). In any case I think that the OP's point was that if the weapon comes out, you are ready to use it instantly, and don't hesitate to prepare yourself in the few seconds you have before distance is closed. The whole body-language and prep movement thing is real, for sure.

However, the bottom line is that in a bad situation, hesitation can get you killed and unless you have your canned/trained responses prepared, the progression of the situation is not under your control. The thread about another forum member (a classic Joe Citizen) that got his hands shot up during a confrontation (but still survived the encounter) was a textbook example of how it will go down when you are not in the defensive mindset often enough.

All good points. I think another good point he made is that there are people in all places that have no reserves about causing harm to other people. Avoiding situations that place you at risk is by far the best approach.

I am very aware of my surroundings always, especially since I am a father of 3. Unless absolutely unavoidable, I never put myself or family in a questionable location. Obviously you cannot always control your environment and crazies are everywhere, I know that. When my oldest son was in the children's hospital in Philidelphia I had to walk 2 miles each way, morning and night to the hospital from the Ronald McD house. During the month I was there I was approached by over 25 unique individuals who would walk straight up to me in daylight and night trying to get money off of me. I totally agree with the OP that you need to squash the interaction immediately and every answer is a firm no. Once I started doing this it worked every time and they would leave me alone.

Personally, I will never carry a concealed weapon(gun) and I will probably never fake that I do have one. I feel that pretending to have something you don't might have its own consequences. I don't have an issue with someone who chooses to carry a weapon for personal safety and I don't know how the whole legal process works but, I do feel that the citizen should have a good reason to carry other than "what if al qaeda tries to take over the mall".

In my short time on this earth I have had 2 encounters with people(non criminals) who threatened me with a gun. One of the times I was in a car loaded with women and kids. It was evident that both men were cowards and or carrying because they were looking for conflict. I feel that carrying a gun can cause more harm than good but again its just what I choose to do and I am not debating anyone's right to carry themselves.

So far I've never had personal safety issues, or threats or scares... :) I like life just fine that way. :)

great read though

Last I saw, violent crime in the US is as low as it was when I was a kid in the early 70's - down like 40% from its peak in the early 90's. It would drop even further if America would give up on our second attempt at prohibition - the long-ago-lost "war on drugs". There is no good correlation between crime and the economy, going back to before the Great Depression.

We'll have to see, but we are talking decadal-scale lags here, so any type of correlation analysis would essentially have to include large lags as well as specific metrics such as average educational level, average wage level corrected for CPI/Inflation, unemployment, etc. Clearly geography has a lot to do with things, so spatial analysis and examining some of the possible socioeconomic links to crime in the more urban areas and how those translate to the rest of the population is more what I was getting at.

The problem with drawing 1:1 matches is that there are a lot of influential factors (such as government monetary and agency intervention) and also how these stats are tracked.

What I hear in terms of crime rates in this state point to significant increases in areas that were middle-class geography during the bubble. Hear-say, yes. Do I trust "reported" numbers, knowing that methods for reporting are not constant and that there are political reasons for fudging said numbers.......no. The best thing about that is that the internet is (until regulation) ahead of "official" sources.

I agree 100% that attempting to regulate drugs has become more of a crutch for the Justice Industry than anything else......but that's also true for a lot of areas of gov't regulation.

There's already been a correlation proved about our drop in crime. legalized abortion. Crime dropped like a rock in the 90s , because 18 years prior abortion was legalized. there is a lot of strong supporting evidence because in states where legal abortion was legalized sooner, their crime rates dropped sooner , if the state legalized it later , the crime drop off was later.

you can plot a strong rise in crime when alcohol became illegal, a drop off when it was re-legalized. Pretty sure you could plot a rise in crime directly related to the 'war on drugs'

Yes we should just legalize all drugs, and further reduce crime , reduce violent crime and let cops stop wasting time on people who are only ruining their on lives (with or with out the drug being illegal)

the problem is people (in masses) are stupid. what do i mean by that? well laws don't directly stop bad behavior. (see prohibition) when you make drug usage illegal , usage generally goes up. if you don't want people to do drugs, there's a strong tendency to want it to be illegal, even though anyone with a clear, logical mind could see that cant' stop people from doing drugs (alcohol included) just by making it illegal.

there's even a number of Dry counties in the US, no drinking there right? wrong... .. *sigh* behavior controls just don't work. especially when its a behavior that doesn't physically harm others or their property. the only thing that appears to work is pubically shaming people (like what happened with smoking) but that's only going to get it down to a certain level. some people Love to be different and 'at odds with socieity' and will seek out what ever behaviors prop up that image.


the book you want to read is Freakacomics if you want to see the proof that legalizing abortion is why crime dropped off a bunch.

if you grow up as an unwanted child, your statistical likelihood to become a criminal goes way up.

Sorry about starting a thread drift.

I have been the victim of one violent crime. I was 17 in 1983 when I was mugged by two guys. It was dark and I never even saw their faces. They both quickly opened the doors of the truck I was sitting in, slammed my face down into the seat next to me, beat the shit out of me for a minute or two, then took my wallet and ran. If I had been carrying a gun with me, or had one in the glove compartment, they would have taken it too.

Holy crap, I agree with Alex!?

Freakonomics is on Netflix for download if you want to see their "study" on the abortion/crime correlation. IMO, their presentation leaves me feeling like they may be promoting their own agenda a bit because there's not much presented in the way of an opposing viewpoint, but I still agree with their conclusions.

The real problem with the war on drugs is that it turns burnouts into criminals. Like Alex said, the world would be a better place if people that want to ruin their lives with drugs are free to do so rather than locking them up in over-crowded jails at the taxpayer's expense. If we spent 10% of the money we spend on jailing drug offenders on rehabilitation programs we could probably help tons more people get off drugs all while pocketing 90% of our money and reducing the violent crime that goes along with illegal drugs. Not to mention the sales tax revenue on legalized recreational drugs. But we also might have to fight a new war with the cartels that stand to lose trillions of dollars if the US legalizes their products.

Another mindshattering concept, regarding crime, is that because many jails today are privately owned for-profit businesses, the jail corporations are actually lobbying for stiffer penalties in the law because it means more prisoners and therefore more profit. Meanwhile, by gradually moving to harsher and harsher penalties for smaller and smaller crimes, we're taking people that may have made a small mistake in their lives and surrounding them with hardened criminals. We're actually turning petty criminals into repeat offenders... which of course is exactly what's most profitable for the prison system, of course.

When it comes to public services, it's a conundrum. We can't trust for-profit providers because their greed tends to reduce the quality of service and/or raises cost. We can't trust government providers because the lack of profit incentive results in either crap quality of service, or high bureaucratic overhead, or both. So what's the solution? Non-profit corps?

IMO there's a list of services that should be guaranteed/available to all people regardless of their economic situation (military & police protection, fire/rescue, healthcare/insurance, education, and access to justice/the legal system). Yet I can't think of one example where these services are provided at a high quality and cost effective level. Our military is incredibly capable... and insanely expensive. Fire/rescue, police departments, public education are all under-funded and service quality suffers. Healthcare/insurance is one of the biggest scams currently being perpetrated on the American public today... there is no reason why we should be paying twice as much for healthcare as other 1st world nations and getting half the quality of service while the healthcare/pharma companies are raking in billions each year... not for providing a service that *should* be a basic right of anyone in an industrialized nation. And the legal system in this nation is basically a joke for ensuring justice based on anything other than "he who has the most expensive lawyers wins".

We need some new way to fund/operate social programs that gives them the incentive to provide high quality service, without the eventual cutting of corners and price gouging to maximize profits.

/rant

ya very well said. and its very sickening that the privatized jails and prisons are allowed to lobby for harsher sentencing.

If corporations want to have "citizenship" so that they can lobby. they should be limited to a similar dollar amount for campaign contributions that every other american is limited to. (2500 a year?) they should also be limited in number of lobbyists , and number of hours lobbying.

if (made up name) Jails Inc wants to have citizenship so they can lobby they need to be treated like the average citizen. no 1 citizen can spend more than 365 days a year 24 hours a day. by allowing "corporations citizenship they should have to act like a single citizen" Actually i think we should force them to close down their businesses while they are lobbying.

If i want to go down to the congress and lobby, i have to take time off of work. If i want to donate money to a campaign i'm limited to (2500?) how much better the US can be (will be?) if we held these corporate citizens to the same standards we are held to. so if the RIAA wants to go down to congress to lobby for internet censorship, they should be required to close their entire office down while they are lobbying. they should be required to send only 1 person (the owner, ceo, or chairman of the board) and they should be limited to $2500 in campaign contributions. (or what ever the current limit is for a person) their total donations should be limited to the median income. want to donate more, figure out how to raise the median income for america... :)

that would be fair, and lead to a much better society. (and has a snow balls chance in hell because it reduces bribery money .. oh i meant campaign funding)

Damn Matt, what town were you mugged in? that's awful.

Hence the term I've been using for a while: "Justice Industry"

There is more incentive to make new laws and regulations, and charge citizens with "crime" because all of these people (lawyers, lawyers who become judges, police admin, jail admin, prison admin, special-interest, ad nauseum) need to keep their jobs. I mean, it is the standard operating procedure for any organized government to constantly exert more control over daily life, but technology has just turned it into an absolute nightmare.

The high rate of incarceration (let alone criminal proceedings) in this country is a travesty.

The historic and cosmopolitan Georgetown area of Washington, DC. Drinking age in DC was only 18 at the time, so we partied there a lot in the bars and clubs with the politicians' and lobbyists' kids. I lived across the river in Virginia.

damn. that's still crazy they came up to your car and opened the doors.. damn... maybe i need to lock my doors more often...

I would not advise being drunk and dozing off by yourself, waiting for a friend in a dark alley (where the free parking is) with your doors unlocked, no.

yet an other reason why its best to call a cab when you're drunk, and need a ride home. (not that you were going to drive drunk) but ... just to add to the pile

I was not driving, and the keys were not in the car. Otherwise they may have taken the car too. They seemed pretty pissed to only get the $40 or so I had on me.

We should have never stopped shipping criminals to dinosaur island.

...and Australia.

Could be the new Australian immigration policy! hehehe