Knife robbery attempt in Palermo

[bigbadwolf]

Interesting answer but, with all due respect, please explain why you think a collective approach is necessary in this context.

Don't mean collective approach; mean that if everyone does it (i.e., run away and otherwise avoid confrontation), the attacking will become more aggressive. Sometimes there's no alternative to taking a stand and fighting.

 

[CedarPawn]

Don't mean collective approach; mean that if everyone does it (i.e., run away and otherwise avoid confrontation), the attacking will become more aggressive. Sometimes there's no alternative to taking a stand and fighting.

By way of illustration, where I'm from (an urban area of Virginia in the USA) muggings, carjackings and the like are comparatively rare, and confined to the absolute worst neighborhoods. One important reason for this is that those who attempt crimes of that nature are quite frequently shot in the attempt, and so the criminally inclined know they're likely hazarding more than just jail time. This is why I'm such a proponent of guns (not to open up that can of worms), they enable US to intimidate the bad guys, collectively, instead of the other way around.

Hache, I know this gets back to the discussion we had a while back, so I'll try not to beat a dead horse. You're absolutely right: running is safer if possible, and not being in the wrong place at the wrong time is certainly safest of all; the point here I think is that resistance (if you can pull it off) benefits the community as a whole by intimidating would-be robbers.

 

[bigbadwolf]

By way of illustration, where I'm from (an urban area of Virginia in the USA) muggings, carjackings and the like are comparatively rare, and confined to the absolute worst neighborhoods. One important reason for this is that those who attempt crimes of that nature are quite frequently shot in the attempt, and so the criminally inclined know they're likely hazarding more than just jail time. This is why I'm such a proponent of guns (not to open up that can of worms), they enable US to intimidate the bad guys, collectively, instead of the other way around.

Hache, I know this gets back to the discussion we had a while back, so I'll try not to beat a dead horse. You're absolutely right: running is safer if possible, and not being in the wrong place at the wrong time is certainly safest of all; the point here I think is that resistance (if you can pull it off) benefits the community as a whole by intimidating would-be robbers.

I agree. With regard to crime, BsAs seems to be the worst of places: you're not allowed to defend yourself legally, and the politicians and police are corrupt and ineffective. I lived in Iraq for a couple of years in the early '70s. This was before the oil price quadrupling -- Iraq was a poor country. But we used to leave our house unlocked (whether we were there or not). Why? The punishment for stealing or robbery was death. So no street crime.

 

[jp]

Why? The punishment for stealing or robbery was death. So no street crime.

If that was the case, you wouldn't see street crime in any society that executed its perpetrators. But you do. Why? Because street crime is generally opportunistic, impulsive and frequently motivated by drug addiction. Rational "risk and reward" assessments don't really enter into it.

Tooling up and going rambo on the evildoers makes for good TV, but 99% of the public lack the training required to respond to a confrontation with a weapon without harming themselves or others in the process.

The solution isn't "more guns", its addressing the underlying social problems that cause street crime in the first place.

"More guns" just leads to escalation. Instead of criminals rationally deciding to eschew a life of crime and lead a productive life, they just get more trigger happy. If there's a chance someone's armed and ready to shoot, why take the risk of even asking them to hand over their stuff? Just shoot them and rob their wounded/dying body. This is already happening in some parts of the world - notably in parts where "armed resistance" is recommended as a strategy for dealing with street crime.

 

[bigbadwolf]

If that was the case, you wouldn't see street crime in any society that executed its perpetrators. But you do.

For example? Saudi is another example I can give -- get caught stealing three times and your hands get cut off. Again, no street crime.

Why? Because street crime is generally opportunistic, impulsive and frequently motivated by drug addiction. Rational "risk and reward" assessments don't really enter into it.

That is a popular misconception. Those involved in street crime generally have an idea of the rewards and risks. If the risks are few (slap on the wrist, police looking the other way, victims turning the other cheek and dirtying their pants), then crime will rise.

Tooling up and going rambo on the evildoers makes for good TV, but 99% of the public lack the training required to respond to a confrontation with a weapon without harming themselves or others in the process.

This is true.

The solution isn't "more guns", its addressing the underlying social problems that cause street crime in the first place.

Again, I agree -- to an extent. But there's more. Those who are criminally inclined weigh up the reward and risk equation. If they're pretty sure they'll get off scot-free, there's no deterrence.

"More guns" just leads to escalation. Instead of criminals rationally deciding to eschew a life of crime and lead a productive life, they just get more trigger happy. If there's a chance someone's armed and ready to shoot, why take the risk of even asking them to hand over their stuff? Just shoot them and rob their wounded/dying body. This is already happening in some parts of the world - notably in parts where "armed resistance" is recommended as a strategy for dealing with street crime.

Again: where?