http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/05/020512-news-detroit-vigilantes-1-5/

"911 IS A JOKE

Detroit citizens no longer rely on police as self-defense killings skyrocket"

I have no idea what this "thedaily" is, how it leans, or if its even real, but seems close to perception.

Wow.

HJ

Right to Carry is relatively new to Michigan, coming in 2001. The Castle Doctrine became law there in 2006. It's not surprising to see some changes in how law-abiding citizens react to predators.

As a former comic geek, Frank Miller was a god in the '80's.

Yeah, some scary stuff happens.

Finn

MI is a shall issue state, so it is fairly straightforward for the average law abiding citizen to purchase firearms and to get a licensee to carry.

Chicago is about where Detroit was 2 or 3 years ago. The citizens of Chicago are generally denied any means of self protection, although there is at least now a chance of being allowed to have a usable firearm (but only one) in one's home.

Its doesn't help that thieves all over the US are stealing the wiring from street lights. Unless they solve the underlying economic issues, things won't get much better.

People need to realize that the police are your backup, not your primary line of defense. And in the case of Detroit, apparently a very poor backup.

In an adjoining city to where I live, the city is actually paying the power company to remove a bunch of street lights to save money on electricity.

There are no places where the police are sitting outside waiting for criminals to stop by. They are not even really your backup most of the time. Most places they are there to deal with the aftermath. They take reports and may go get the bad guys after the fact, but they are not there (except in very rare instances) when you truly need them, and the chance of them getting there in time to do much good is limited. That is not their fault. It is just the way it is.

Your first line of defense is living in an area with lower crime rates. Physical security is critical and is your second line of defense. Make it difficult enough and most times the criminals will go elsewhere.

FWIW I've lived on streets with a street light outside my window, and on streets without the light. I'll take the street without the street light.

Removing street lights is a product of the recession and budgets, but a lot of cities and towns are what I would consider over-lighted (ymmv). Lights near intersections can deter accidents (safety), but there is little evidence that street lights have any impact on crime. There are many factors obviously but things like foot traffic through the neighborhood - the likelihood that residents will freely take a walk at whatever hour - are a better indicator of exposure to crime.

Downsizing lighting grids can save significant energy and money, so can transitioning light poles to more modern lighting technology, light control systems, dimmers and transitioning to LEDs can all lead to more efficient uses of energy and budgets - but lighting costs, and some towns are imposing a surcharge on nearby residents for the light poles in their neighborhood. Folks who grew up with one lighting pattern in their community for most of their lives can see less lighting as the dimming of society - honestly, I see an intelligent downsizing program as the height of it. Embrace the darkness :-)