Armed citizens can make it more difficult for attackers (John Lott)
MelvinFullerton
Please explain how.
The Lonely Island
melvin WW2 ETO Reg Army DAV VFW Amer Leg 54 years union age 82 years.
James Chamblee
bogle <bug...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>Armed citizens can make it more difficult for attackers
What nonsense.
The only things that armed citizens do well is kill themselves, their
children and their other relatives, with an occasional neighbor thrown in.
Diego
residents without guns. That way we will know it is safe to visit and for the
children to play there.
robobt
news:3C2FF9D2...@hotmail.com...
> You should have a gun control law passed requiring signs in the yard at
> residents without guns. That way we will know it is safe to visit and for
the
> children to play there.
>
cheers
bob
Bob Laramee
bug...@wahoo.com wrote on 12/30/01 4:46 PM:
>
> Armed citizens can make it more difficult for attackers
>
> By John R. Lott Jr. / Special to The Detroit News
>
> http://www.detnews.com/2001/editorial/0112/30/a17-378433.htm
>
> With the FBI issuing alerts, what should American's do to protect
> themselves? We have all heard that we should be observant and report
> strange events to the police. In the last weeks, other things have
> been added to the list, such as be careful of letters with powdery
> substances. Yet, one option has not been encouraged. News articles
> mention the large increase in gun sales that have taken place since
> Sept. 11, but fail to mention the benefits and belittle those who
> buy the guns. We could learn something about responding to terrorism
> from Israel, and encourage more ordinary, responsible citizens to
> carry guns.
>
> Israelis realize that the police and military simply can't be there
> all the time to protect people when terrorists attack. And even when
> the police or military are nearby, terrorists wait until the police
> and military leave the area before attacking. If attacks still go
> forward, those who are openly carrying a gun for protection become
> the first targets that the terrorists try to take out.
>
> What Israel has found helpful in thwarting terrorist attacks is
> allowing law-abiding, trained citizens to carry concealed handguns.
> Today, about 10 percent of Jewish adults have permits to carry
> concealed handguns. Concealed handguns put terrorists at a
> disadvantage because they don't know which citizens carry guns.
> During waves of terror attacks Israel's national police chief will
> call on all concealed handgun permit holders to make sure they carry
> firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where
> concealed permit holders have saved lives.
>
> Americans only carry concealed handguns at a fraction of the rate of
> Israelis, and to reach Israel's rate of permit holding, Americans
> would have to increase the number of permits from 3.5 million to
> almost 21 million. Thirty-three states currently have so-called
> "right to carry" laws, which allow law-abiding citizens to obtain a
> permit if they are above a certain age and pay a fee, with about
> half these states requiring some training. Encouraging more states
> to pass such laws, and possibly lowering fees could greatly expand
> the number of law-abiding citizens carrying guns.
>
> States that pass concealed handgun laws not only experience drops in
> murder and other violent crime, but the types of attacks most
> similar to terrorist attacks, multiple victim public killings,
> experience particularly dramatic declines. Studying all these
> attacks in the United States from 1977 to 1999, Bill Landes at the
> University of Chicago and I found that deaths and injuries from
> multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80 percent after states
> passed so-called "right-to-carry" laws that allow citizens to carry
> concealed handguns.
>
> In their warped minds, both terrorists and the murderers we studied
> are kamikaze-like killers, who value maximizing the carnage they can
> create. Even if the killers expect to die anyway, having guns at the
> scene can help deter these crimes in the first place by reducing the
> expected return on their "investment."
>
> Just as in Israel, the type of person who is willing to go through
> the process to get a permit has proven to be extremely responsible.
> Permits are rarely revoked for any reason, usually very trivial
> violations, with permit holders losing their permits at only tenths
> or hundredths of one percent.
>
> Nor are permit holders vigilantes. Up to 98 percent of defensive gun
> uses simply involve people brandishing their weapon. It is only as a
> last resort that people fire their weapon and even most of firings
> are merely warning shots.
>
> The mantra that people should behave passively when confronted by
> criminals seems impervious to all the scholarly research that
> indicates that passivity is definitely not the safest course of
> action. For terrorists whose only goal is to inflict as much carnage
> as possible, the passivity makes even less sense. Before we give up
> yet more freedoms, let us make the terrorists worry about who might
> be armed.
>
> John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
> Institute. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of
> Chicago press, 2000)
Like individual citizens carrying guns could have prevented the incidents of
terrorism in the past few years! What a sick joke.
Bob Laramee
book...@lightspeed.net
James Chamblee
Bob Laramee <book...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>> John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
>> Institute. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of
>> Chicago press, 2000)
I guess this means that Yale University no longer permits Mr. Lott to claim
that he is a member of their faculty.
>
>Like individual citizens carrying guns could have prevented the incidents of
>terrorism in the past few years! What a sick joke.
Well said.
GLC1173
>>Like individual citizens carrying guns >>could have prevented the incidents
of
>>terrorism in the past few years! What a >>sick joke.
and replied:
>Well said.
Quick - why are taxpaying peasants still paying for ARMED security 24/7 for
the Klintons, then?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<B>Dissident news - plus immigration, gun rights, nationwide weather
<I><A HREF="http://www.alamanceind.com">ALAMANCE INDEPENDENT:
official newspaper of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy</A></b></i>
Mary Rosh
You might want to read Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime if you want
to read stories about bombings and other attacks that have been
stopped by citizens with concealed handgun permits. Since Lott's
piece was on Israel, below are a couple recent cases from Israel.
As to your statement about armed citizens, I think that you need to
take into account that guns save many more lives than they cost. The
people who kill others are overwhelmingly criminals. 90 percent of
adult murderers have an adult criminal record. Most accidental gun
deaths involving children are done by adult males with long records of
arrests for violent crimes. The risk of a child being accidentally
shot in the home of law-abiding adults is akin to the risk of the
child being struck by lighting. See the books by Kleck and Lott.
Armed Israeli civilian stops terrorist attacker
Originally ran here as:
"Gunman Ambushes Bus in Jerusalem, Killing Two"
by Staff Writer
Fox News Channel
November 04, 2001
JERUSALEM, ISRAEL — A Palestinian gunman killed two people and injured
more than 40 when he opened fire on a bus at a crowded Jerusalem
intersection Sunday, prompting the Israeli government to reconsider a
planned withdrawal from the West Bank.
The attacker, identified by police as a member of the militant group
Islamic Jihad, was shot and killed at the scene.
Coming only hours after the Israeli cabinet decided to withdraw from
Qalqilya and three other West Bank towns, the attack could mean the
Israeli troops who entered the areas two weeks ago to pursue
Palestinian militants will stay after all. But Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres said he thought the withdrawal would go ahead.
Witnesses said the gunman opened fire on the No. 25 city bus at an
intersection in the French Hill section of northeastern Jerusalem,
which is near several Palestinian villages and neighborhoods.
He in turn was shot by a civilian, a border guard and a soldier,
police said.
"He was standing there and shooting [into the right side of the bus],"
the civilian shooter, who identified himself only as Marcus, told
Israeli radio. "I got out of the car. I fired. I emptied an entire
clip. He fell. Then two soldiers came and I showed them where he was
and they shot him with their M-16s," he said.
Marcus said he himself was a civilian living in a West Bank
settlement.
Jerusalem Police Chief Mickey Levy confirmed that a border guard and a
soldier fired on the attacker.
"The response was very quick and they prevented further wounding of
innocent people," he said.
Two other men were seen running from the scene, but were not believed
to be carrying weapons and may be innocent, Levy said. A police
helicopter was searching the area anyway, and Israeli forces sealed
off the Palestinian village of Anata and other nearby Palestinian
villages, Levy said.
Two people died at different area hospitals, which were treating more
than 40 people, hospital officials said. At least five of the injured
had serious injuries.
Levy told reporters at the scene the attacker was a known, 34-year-old
member of Islamic Jihad and had lived in the West Bank town of Hebron.
The intersection, which had a trail of blood running through it, was
cordoned off at the start of the busy afternoon rush-hour as police
swarmed the area. Some teenage girls sobbed nearby as medical
officials attended to them. Backpacks were strewn on the ground near
the shattered glass from the bus windows.
Dore Gold, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said the pullout
would have to be reassessed.
"Israeli intelligence has warned if it precipitously redeploys, a wave
of terrorism will hit Israel proper," Gold told Israel radio. "Today
it has begun to seep in already."
But Peres said he believed that if calm was maintained in the West
Bank areas, the pullout would go ahead, starting with Qalqilya.
"If the Palestinians can control security there, we have no reason to
sit there," he told Israel Channel 2.
Israel pulled out of Bethlehem and Beit Jalla on Oct. 28, even after
Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli soldier in a drive-by shooting
and sprayed a northern Israeli bus stop with gunfire, killing four
people.
Cabinet Secretary Gideon Saar said that Sharon concluded the
incursions had been very successful and could be ended, Saar said. He
said the army had been ordered to prepare a plan to withdraw in
stages.
He stressed that Israel's demands that the Palestinians arrest
militants remain, and that the withdrawals wouldn't take place if
Israel received any specific warnings of attacks from the areas.
Israel launched incursions into six West Bank towns following the Oct.
17 assassination of Israel's ultranationalist tourism minister,
Rehavam Zeevi, by Palestinian militants.
Also Sunday, Israeli forces shot surface-to-surface missiles toward
three factories in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian security
officials and witnesses said.
The Israeli army said the plants produced mortar shells and that 30
mortar shells had been fired toward Jewish settlements in the area in
recent days.
Palestinian witnesses denied shells were produced at the factories,
saying that machines to cut wood and marble were made at the
facilities.
Jerusalem Post
10 Tevet 5762 22:00 Monday December 24, 2001
(16:15) Terrorists seriously wound Israeli in Samaria shooting
Palestinian terrorists shot and wounded an Israeli motorist in Samaria
a few minutes ago.
The Karnei Shomron resident sustained very serious chest wounds in the
terrorists opened fire from close range.
He told medical personnel on the scene he managed to shoot and kill
one of his three attackers and causing the others to flee.
Palestinian sources said Tanzim activist and al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades
member Jamil Abu Adwan, 30, was killed in the incident, Israel Radio
reported.
An armored Magen David Adom ambulance evacuated the casualty to Hillel
Yaffe Hospital in Hadera where he is undergoing surgery, Army Radio
said.
The attack took place near the village of Ramin, located adjacent to
Palestinian Authority-controlled Nablus.
GLC1173
>The risk of a child being accidentally
>shot in the home of law-abiding adults is >akin to the risk of the
>child being struck by lighting.
Indeed, federal Centers for Disease Control and (nonprofit) National Safety
Council statistics make clear that no more than 1 in 3 U.S. counties have ANY
child under 15 die by gunfire in any given year - accidentally, suicidally, or
homicidally.
James Chamblee
(Mary Rosh) wrote:
>You might want to read Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime if you want
>to read stories about bombings and other attacks that have been
>stopped by citizens with concealed handgun permits.
When I want to read fiction, I go to the fiction section of the Bookmobile.
You might want to read about the chances that another person living in a
house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house. Especially
children.
James Chamblee
glc...@aol.com (GLC1173) wrote:
> Indeed, federal Centers for Disease Control and (nonprofit) National Safety
>Council statistics make clear that no more than 1 in 3 U.S. counties have ANY
>child under 15 die by gunfire in any given year - accidentally, suicidally, or
>homicidally.
Selective statistics intended to deceive. Just give us the number of people
killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000 wounded),
compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop crimes (about
250)
MJ
An armed citizen wrote:
>
> "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:12:10 -0500, in article
> <a0sg3f$2t0$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> Your statistics seem selective to me. Would you please cite their source
> in support of your claims.
Jim cite a reference? He is his reference....
MJ
An Armed Citizen wrote:
>
> "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:07:50 -0500, in article
> <a0sfvv$m93$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> Would you care to quote about the chances of being shot or are you just
> blowing smoke?
Probably inhaling smoke....
James Mayer
> glc...@aol.com (GLC1173) wrote:
>
>
> > Indeed, federal Centers for Disease Control and (nonprofit) National Safety
> >Council statistics make clear that no more than 1 in 3 U.S. counties have ANY
> >child under 15 die by gunfire in any given year - accidentally, suicidally, or
> >homicidally.
>
> Selective statistics intended to deceive. Just give us the number of people
> killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000 wounded),
> compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop crimes (about
> 250)
That 250 number is only the number of perpetrators killed. Is a defensive
gun use only successfull if the attacker is killed? What about when the
attacker is wounded or decides to leave of his own hasty volition with
the gun only being presented?
How many of the estimated eighty thousand to two and a half million
persons that have used a gun per year in defense of themselves as reported
by the NCVS and others are you willing to sacrifice to those that would
have done them grievous bodily harm? Would you tolerate the increase in
violent crimes and deaths as long as the potential victim couldn't defend
themselves with a gun? How many elderly and weak are you willing to
sacrifice to the strong and young? Would you be satisfied that the increase
in deaths caused by violent criminals will justify making guns illegal?
Troy
An armed citizen wrote:
> "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:12:10 -0500, in article
> <a0sg3f$2t0$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> >
> >
James Mayer
> (Mary Rosh) wrote:
>
>
> >You might want to read Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime if you want
> >to read stories about bombings and other attacks that have been
> >stopped by citizens with concealed handgun permits.
>
> When I want to read fiction, I go to the fiction section of the Bookmobile.
>
Where should be found most of the gun control advocacy studies
especially Michael A. Bellesiles' book ''Arming America: The Origins of
a National Gun Culture''.
> You might want to read about the chances that another person living in a
> house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house. Especially
> children.
You mean the study done by Dr. Arthur Kellermann? Read what he has
to say about his own wife having a gun:
"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more
lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a
.38 Special in her hand?
Yeah." Dr. Arthur Kellerman: Health Magazine (March/April 1994) and
the author of the infamous "43 times more likely to kill an acquaintance"
study.
James Mayer
Bert Hyman
<jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Selective statistics intended to deceive.
Well, thanks for labeling what was to follow in your post.
> ... Just give us the number of
> people killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000
> wounded), compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop
> crimes (about 250)
Killed "by" firearms? That's interesting. Autonomous killing machines,
huh?
And, from what alternate reality did you pluck that last figure? Only 250
defensive uses of firearms? If you're going to lie, you should at least
->try to make your lies convincing.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Bert Hyman
<book...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> Like individual citizens carrying guns could have prevented the
> incidents of terrorism in the past few years! What a sick joke.
>
So you believe that unless a defense is proof against ALL perils, it's
useless against any?
You'll be getting rid of your fire extinguishers because they don't
protect against burglars?
Bert Hyman
<jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Bob Laramee <book...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
>>> Institute. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of
>>> Chicago press, 2000)
>
> I guess this means that Yale University no longer permits Mr. Lott to
> claim that he is a member of their faculty.
I'm not aware that he ever claimed to be on their faculty. Lott's vitae:
Senior research scholar, School of Law, Yale University,1999-2001
Law and economics fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago, 1995-1999
Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Business,
University of Chicago 1994-1995
Visiting fellow, Cornell University Law School, 1994
Assistant professor, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
1991-1995 Visiting assistant professor, Graduate School of Management,
UCLA, 1989-1991 Chief economist, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1988-1989
Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Rice University,
1987-1988 Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1986-1987
Visiting assistant professor, Department of Economics, Texas A&M
University, 1984-1986
GLC1173
>You might want to read about the >chances that another person living in a
>house has of being shot when a gun is >present in the house. Especially
>children.
What do you say to the widow with no kids? The single woman with no kids?
Or do you just not care if she is the victim of a "serial rapist" like the one
who broke into the homes of six women around Charlotte, North Carolina in the
past two years and raped five of them - before Victim #6 shot him to death?
GLC1173
>> Indeed, federal Centers for Disease >>Control and (nonprofit) National
>>Safety Council statistics make clear that >>no more than 1 in 3 U.S. counties
have
>>ANY child under 15 die by gunfire in any >>given year - accidentally,
suicidally,
>>or homicidally.
and replied:
>Selective statistics intended to deceive. >Just give us the number of people
>killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, >with another 150,000 wounded),
You wanted to discuss CHILD gun deaths - and I cited federal statistics and
National Safety Council statistics.
>compared to the number of times guns >are used to try to stop crimes (about
>250)
I'll make it real simple for you. Insurance companies don't give discounts
for merchants who have remote-monitored burglar alarms hoping to get burglars
arrested; they count "success" in DETERRANCE. Same as the "success" of my dog
is not measured in pieces of some burglar's arm dug out of her teeth.
Ronald Lawrence
Jim wrote:
"Selective statistics intended to deceive. Just give us the number of
people
killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000 wounded),
compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop crimes (about
250)"
Then compare that number to countries which discourage private gun
ownership.
Warm Regards,
Ron Lawrence, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Troy
Mary Rosh
1n 1998, 53 children under age 10 died from accidental gun shots in
the United States. For children under 15 the number is 121. You can
check these numbers from the CDC web site. The accidental gun deaths
are overwhelming caused by adult males with long criminal records for
violent crimes, people who it wasn't legal for them to have a gun to
begin with.
You should actually read the Kellermann studies that you refer to.
The claim that you or someone else is more likely to die from a gun in
the home than the gun is going to be used to kill an attacker is a
dangerous myth. The data Kellermann uses is from a survey.
1) He identified the people who died over the course of a year and
asked the relatives of the deceased whether the person who died owned
a gun or whether a gun was owned at the residence. If the answer was
"yes," Kellermann simply assumed that it was that gun that involved in
the death. In fact when people have gone back and checked, even
including suicides, at most 14 percent of the deaths could be
attributed to the gun that was owned by the deceased or the gun in the
residence.
2) Kellermann assumes that the only benefit from using a gun
defensively occurs when the attacker is killed. In fact, in fewer
than 1 out of a thousand defensive gun use cases is the attacker
killed. The 98 percent of the time that guns are simply brandished
are ignored. Warning shots are ignored.
As to your dismissing Lott's work, it has been widely praised by Nobel
prize winning economists (Gary Becker, James Buchanan, and Milton
Friedman). Professors from Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern and other
major universities have written that it is the largest, most important
empirical study that has been done on the topic.
Here are a couple quotes:
"Armed with reams of statistics, John Lott has documented many
surprising linkages between guns and crime. More Guns, Less Crime
demonstrates that what is at stake is not just the right to carry arms
but rather our performance to controlling a diverse array of criminal
behaviors. Perhaps most disturbing is Lott's documentation of the
role of the media and academic commentators in distorting research
findings that they regard as politically incorrect." Professor Kip
Viscusi, Cogan Professor of Law and Director of the Program on
Empirical Legal Studies, Harvard Law School.
"This book will - or should - cause those who almost reflexively
support the limitation of guns in the name of reducing crime to
rethink their positions." Professor Steve Shavell, Professor of Law
and Economics, Harvard University
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
"An Armed Citizen" wrote ...
> "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:07:50 -0500, in article
> <a0sfvv$m93$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> >You might want to read about the chances that another person living in a
> >house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house. Especially
> >children.
>
> Would you care to quote about the chances of being shot or are you just
> blowing smoke?
You know that any time you ask these people for evidence, all they do is
glaze over and start chanting "43 times more likely ... 43 times more
likely...".
They really believe that all they have to do is say something, and it's
automatically true.
Ronald Lawrence
Troy asked (I think):
"Guns are not used to try to stop crimes there."
Yes our police carry them but very rarely remove them from their holster.
Study the facts. Criminals arm themselves to deal with what they will
encounter on the job. You carry a gun, they will carry a bigger gun. Guns
don't stop crimes - they escalate crimes.
Compare the crime statistics in Australia with your own in the States, then
ask yourself what the different is in our societies. There were 0.4 firearm
deaths per 100,000 people in Australia in 1994 and 6.4 deaths per 100, 000
people in the US in 1994. We did not have gun control laws in Australia
until last year - we started to phase it in in 1995-6 - the buy back scheme
and amnesty ended last year. The statistics for 1998 and later are not yet
available.
I am not afraid of criminals because my chance of encountering one is very
slim indeed. I have never been burgled or mugged and most Aussies can say
the same and certainly not at gunpoint. I cannot recall when the last gun
death took place in my State and I have lived here since 1985.
About 85% of all firearm deaths in Australia are suicides; most gun related
hospital admissions are due to accidents. Most firearm related deaths occur
in rural areas in Australia and these are not criminal related. FYI, suicide
is not carried out by criminals on the general populace.
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/data/phonebook/queries/guninjuries94.php
Charles Galbach
news:23fa92fe.02010...@posting.google.com...
If you keep spouting facts and the truth, you'll confuse Jim and delay his
"dismissive", "non-factual", and "PC" response.
Chuck
GLC1173
>>"Selective statistics intended to deceive. >> Just give us the number of
>>people killed by firearms in a year (about >>12,000, with another 150,000
wounded),
>>compared to the number of times guns >are used to try to stop crimes (about
>>250)"
and replied:
>Then compare that number to countries >which discourage private gun
>ownership.
You cannot compare the U.S. crime experience to that of all-white or
nearly-all-white nations - nor to nations in which their big cities are
nearly-all-white. Federal statistics released under the Klintons show why;
black Americans commit homicide at EIGHT times the rate that European-Americans
do.
I've lived in this same house for 26 years now - in gun-loving North
Carolina. NOBODY on this street has been shot - at home or elsewhere,
homicidally, suicidally, or accidentally - during those 26 years.
Ronald Lawrence
Nobody wrote:
"You cannot compare the U.S. crime experience to that of all-white or
nearly-all-white nations - nor to nations in which their big cities are
nearly-all-white. "
So your guns are for shooting blacks - as a part nigger that now makes sense
to me!
Mary Rosh
> Jim wrote (to Mary):
> >You might want to read about the >chances that another person living in a
> >house has of being shot when a gun is >present in the house. Especially
> >children.
>
> What do you say to the widow with no kids? The single woman with no kids?
> Or do you just not care if she is the victim of a "serial rapist" like the one
> who broke into the homes of six women around Charlotte, North Carolina in the
> past two years and raped five of them - before Victim #6 shot him to death?
The Kellermann claims are a danger to public safety. They scare
people from owning guns in their own and that leaves them more
vulnerable to criminals. If you want to see what happens to crime
rates after people lock up their guns, see
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=228534
You shouldn't conceed anything to these guys. Single women are
important to protect, believe me I know. But families with kids are
also important to protect. In 1998, 53 children under age 10 died
GLC1173
>> "You cannot compare the U.S. crime >>experience to that of all-white or
>>nearly-all-white nations - nor to nations >>in which their big cities are
>>nearly-all-white. "
and replied:
>So your guns are for shooting blacks - as >a part nigger that now makes sense
>to me!
They are for shooting FELONS. Don't make yourself one - and I won't shoot
you. The habitual burglar who stalked my mother and me was WHITE - but, had he
done what would have been just another breakin here, believe me I would have
shot him.
I am just telling you that you cannot compare the U.S. crime experience to
that of nations whose urban areas are almost-all-white. Proof of the fact that
demographics matter a whole lot more than gun policies in determining a
nation's crime experience is that neither Switzerland nor Israel have felony
crime rates as high as ours - despite being full of civilian-possessed guns;
guess why.
ghost-sniper
"Allan Lindsay-O'Neal" <akl...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:F0qY7.3398$dK4.51909@rwcrnsc52...
>
> "An Armed Citizen" wrote ...
> > "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:07:50 -0500, in article
> > <a0sfvv$m93$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
>
> > >You might want to read about the chances that another person living in
a
> > >house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house.
Especially
> > >children.
> >
> > Would you care to quote about the chances of being shot or are you just
> > blowing smoke?
>
> You know that any time you ask these people for evidence, all they do is
> glaze over and start chanting "43 times more likely ... 43 times more
> likely...".
See? TV really does damage the viewers ability to think on their own.
The people that quote the *43* thing saw it on TV and it became etched to
their remaining synapse.
When you ask them to quote their source, you have fried their only circuit,
thus the blank stare.
AntisDoLie
That "statistic" comes from the FBI UCR which counts ONLY DGU deemed
justifiable at the scene, not those later ruled justifiable.
And I agree, I find it fasinating that the gun grabbing monkeys only
count DGUs where the perp is shot dead. A blood-thirsty lot they are
- that is why they are against Eddie Eagle.
Jim
Mary Rosh
1) This 250 refers to justifiable homicides reported to the FBI.
2) If you read the Uniform Crime Reports that show the number of
justifiable homicides (excluding police), you will see that they have
a note that says that this number is based upon on only a subset of
nation because most jurisdictions do not report this number. In fact,
only about 10 percent of jurisdictions report this number to the FBI.
Most just lump these homicides in with nonjustified homicides.
3) Assuming that the rate of justifiable homicides is the same across
all counties, you will end up with over 2,000 justifiable homicides.
As Lott notes there are 2 million defensive gun uses and fewer than 1
in a thousand results in the death of the criminal. 1/1000 out of 2
million is 2,000. So these numbers seem like they are in the ball
park.
Mary Rosh
> in article eddv2us79udubbf9v...@4ax.com, bogle at
> bug...@wahoo.com wrote on 12/30/01 4:46 PM:
>
> >
> > Armed citizens can make it more difficult for attackers
> >
> > By John R. Lott Jr. / Special to The Detroit News
> >
> > http://www.detnews.com/2001/editorial/0112/30/a17-378433.htm
> >
> > With the FBI issuing alerts, what should American's do to protect
> > themselves? We have all heard that we should be observant and report
> > strange events to the police. In the last weeks, other things have
> > been added to the list, such as be careful of letters with powdery
> > substances. Yet, one option has not been encouraged. News articles
> > mention the large increase in gun sales that have taken place since
> > Sept. 11, but fail to mention the benefits and belittle those who
> > buy the guns. We could learn something about responding to terrorism
> > from Israel, and encourage more ordinary, responsible citizens to
> > carry guns.
> >
> > Israelis realize that the police and military simply can't be there
> > all the time to protect people when terrorists attack. And even when
> > the police or military are nearby, terrorists wait until the police
> > and military leave the area before attacking. If attacks still go
> > forward, those who are openly carrying a gun for protection become
> > the first targets that the terrorists try to take out.
> >
> > What Israel has found helpful in thwarting terrorist attacks is
> > allowing law-abiding, trained citizens to carry concealed handguns.
> > Today, about 10 percent of Jewish adults have permits to carry
> > concealed handguns. Concealed handguns put terrorists at a
> > disadvantage because they don't know which citizens carry guns.
> > During waves of terror attacks Israel's national police chief will
> > call on all concealed handgun permit holders to make sure they carry
> > firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where
> > concealed permit holders have saved lives.
> >
> > Americans only carry concealed handguns at a fraction of the rate of
> > Israelis, and to reach Israel's rate of permit holding, Americans
> > would have to increase the number of permits from 3.5 million to
> > almost 21 million. Thirty-three states currently have so-called
> > "right to carry" laws, which allow law-abiding citizens to obtain a
> > permit if they are above a certain age and pay a fee, with about
> > half these states requiring some training. Encouraging more states
> > to pass such laws, and possibly lowering fees could greatly expand
> > the number of law-abiding citizens carrying guns.
> >
> > States that pass concealed handgun laws not only experience drops in
> > murder and other violent crime, but the types of attacks most
> > similar to terrorist attacks, multiple victim public killings,
> > experience particularly dramatic declines. Studying all these
> > attacks in the United States from 1977 to 1999, Bill Landes at the
> > University of Chicago and I found that deaths and injuries from
> > multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80 percent after states
> > passed so-called "right-to-carry" laws that allow citizens to carry
> > concealed handguns.
> >
> > In their warped minds, both terrorists and the murderers we studied
> > are kamikaze-like killers, who value maximizing the carnage they can
> > create. Even if the killers expect to die anyway, having guns at the
> > scene can help deter these crimes in the first place by reducing the
> > expected return on their "investment."
> >
> > Just as in Israel, the type of person who is willing to go through
> > the process to get a permit has proven to be extremely responsible.
> > Permits are rarely revoked for any reason, usually very trivial
> > violations, with permit holders losing their permits at only tenths
> > or hundredths of one percent.
> >
> > Nor are permit holders vigilantes. Up to 98 percent of defensive gun
> > uses simply involve people brandishing their weapon. It is only as a
> > last resort that people fire their weapon and even most of firings
> > are merely warning shots.
> >
> > The mantra that people should behave passively when confronted by
> > criminals seems impervious to all the scholarly research that
> > indicates that passivity is definitely not the safest course of
> > action. For terrorists whose only goal is to inflict as much carnage
> > as possible, the passivity makes even less sense. Before we give up
> > yet more freedoms, let us make the terrorists worry about who might
> > be armed.
> >
> > John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
> > Institute. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of
> > Chicago press, 2000)
>
> terrorism in the past few years! What a sick joke.
> book...@lightspeed.net
The point is that they have. Five of the public school shootings were
stopped by citizens with guns before the police were able to arrive.
Take the first public school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi in October
1997, where the assistant principal stopped the attacker five minutes
before the police arrived. Or the attack in Edinboro, PA. during the
spring of 1998 where a nearby store owner stopped the attack 11
minutes before police arrived. The Santee School Attack near San
Diego earlier this year was also stopped.
Lott's book has examples in the US from bombings to other cases where
multiple people would have been killed, but they were stopped by
concealed handgun permit holders.
For Israel, again see:
Armed Israeli civilian stops terrorist attacker
Originally ran here as:
"Gunman Ambushes Bus in Jerusalem, Killing Two"
by Staff Writer
Fox News Channel
November 04, 2001
JERUSALEM, ISRAEL — A Palestinian gunman killed two people and injured
more than 40 when he opened fire on a bus at a crowded Jerusalem
intersection Sunday, prompting the Israeli government to reconsider a
planned withdrawal from the West Bank.
The attacker, identified by police as a member of the militant group
Islamic Jihad, was shot and killed at the scene.
Coming only hours after the Israeli cabinet decided to withdraw from
Qalqilya and three other West Bank towns, the attack could mean the
Israeli troops who entered the areas two weeks ago to pursue
Palestinian militants will stay after all. But Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres said he thought the withdrawal would go ahead.
Witnesses said the gunman opened fire on the No. 25 city bus at an
intersection in the French Hill section of northeastern Jerusalem,
which is near several Palestinian villages and neighborhoods.
He in turn was shot by a civilian, a border guard and a soldier,
police said.
"He was standing there and shooting [into the right side of the bus],"
the civilian shooter, who identified himself only as Marcus, told
Israeli radio. "I got out of the car. I fired. I emptied an entire
clip. He fell. Then two soldiers came and I showed them where he was
and they shot him with their M-16s," he said.
Marcus said he himself was a civilian living in a West Bank
settlement.
Jerusalem Police Chief Mickey Levy confirmed that a border guard and a
soldier fired on the attacker.
"The response was very quick and they prevented further wounding of
innocent people," he said.
Two other men were seen running from the scene, but were not believed
to be carrying weapons and may be innocent, Levy said. A police
helicopter was searching the area anyway, and Israeli forces sealed
off the Palestinian village of Anata and other nearby Palestinian
villages, Levy said.
Two people died at different area hospitals, which were treating more
than 40 people, hospital officials said. At least five of the injured
had serious injuries.
Levy told reporters at the scene the attacker was a known, 34-year-old
member of Islamic Jihad and had lived in the West Bank town of Hebron.
The intersection, which had a trail of blood running through it, was
cordoned off at the start of the busy afternoon rush-hour as police
swarmed the area. Some teenage girls sobbed nearby as medical
officials attended to them. Backpacks were strewn on the ground near
the shattered glass from the bus windows.
Dore Gold, an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said the pullout
would have to be reassessed.
"Israeli intelligence has warned if it precipitously redeploys, a wave
of terrorism will hit Israel proper," Gold told Israel radio. "Today
it has begun to seep in already."
But Peres said he believed that if calm was maintained in the West
Bank areas, the pullout would go ahead, starting with Qalqilya.
"If the Palestinians can control security there, we have no reason to
sit there," he told Israel Channel 2.
Israel pulled out of Bethlehem and Beit Jalla on Oct. 28, even after
Palestinian gunmen killed an Israeli soldier in a drive-by shooting
and sprayed a northern Israeli bus stop with gunfire, killing four
people.
Cabinet Secretary Gideon Saar said that Sharon concluded the
incursions had been very successful and could be ended, Saar said. He
said the army had been ordered to prepare a plan to withdraw in
stages.
He stressed that Israel's demands that the Palestinians arrest
militants remain, and that the withdrawals wouldn't take place if
Israel received any specific warnings of attacks from the areas.
Israel launched incursions into six West Bank towns following the Oct.
17 assassination of Israel's ultranationalist tourism minister,
Rehavam Zeevi, by Palestinian militants.
Also Sunday, Israeli forces shot surface-to-surface missiles toward
three factories in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian security
officials and witnesses said.
The Israeli army said the plants produced mortar shells and that 30
mortar shells had been fired toward Jewish settlements in the area in
recent days.
Palestinian witnesses denied shells were produced at the factories,
saying that machines to cut wood and marble were made at the
facilities.
Jerusalem Post
10 Tevet 5762 22:00 Monday December 24, 2001
(16:15) Terrorists seriously wound Israeli in Samaria shooting
Palestinian terrorists shot and wounded an Israeli motorist in Samaria
a few minutes ago.
The Karnei Shomron resident sustained very serious chest wounds in the
terrorists opened fire from close range.
He told medical personnel on the scene he managed to shoot and kill
one of his three attackers and causing the others to flee.
Palestinian sources said Tanzim activist and al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades
member Jamil Abu Adwan, 30, was killed in the incident, Israel Radio
reported.
An armored Magen David Adom ambulance evacuated the casualty to Hillel
Yaffe Hospital in Hadera where he is undergoing surgery, Army Radio
said.
The attack took place near the village of Ramin, located adjacent to
Palestinian Authority-controlled Nablus.
Bert Hyman
(Mary Rosh) wrote:
But he didn't say "250 justifiable homicides", he said "the number of times
guns are used to try to stop crimes (about 250)", which is quite a different
claim altogether.
Ronald Lawrence
Unknown writes:
"They are for shooting FELONS. Don't make yourself one - and I won't shoot
you. The habitual burglar who stalked my mother and me was WHITE - but, had
he
done what would have been just another breakin here, believe me I would have
shot him."
OK Rambo - whatever!
Unknown also writes:
"I am just telling you that you cannot compare the U.S. crime experience
to
that of nations whose urban areas are almost-all-white. Proof of the fact
that
demographics matter a whole lot more than gun policies in determining a
nation's crime experience is that neither Switzerland nor Israel have felony
crime rates as high as ours - despite being full of civilian-possessed guns;
guess why."
You can tell me - but you can't tell me much <g>
Ask some doctors and they will tell you smoking doesn't cause lung cancer
despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Ask some doctors and they will tell you smoking pot doesn't harm your health
nor lead to the use of harder drugs despite the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
Ask some environmental scientists and they will tell you man made CO2 hasn't
caused global warming despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Ask the NRA and they will tell you guns in the community reduce crime
despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
If it is in the interests of the so called experts to construe the data and
distort the statistics they will, despite the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary - particularly when paid to do so - many of these quacks are for
hire. Despite all of this rubbish, ordinary common sense (AKA CDF) and the
truth will prevail in the end and the citizens will act and this is what you
are afraid of - you are afraid your toys will be taken from you.
More cigarettes = more deaths from lung cancer. More cars on the road = more
road deaths. More guns in the community = more gun deaths. It is very
simple logic - defy simple logic and you look stupid.
GLC1173
>But he didn't say "250 justifiable >homicides", he said "the number of times
>guns are used to try to stop crimes (about >250)", which is quite a different
>claim altogether.
All of which is as irrelevant to the TOTAL number of potential crimes
stopped by guns as is the number of burglars arrested after silent alarms alert
police is to the total number DETERRED by seeing that sticker saying "Protected
By ADT Security System."
Troy
Comparing apples with oranges and calling it simple logic makes you look stupid.
I know you aren't stupid, but your logic is.
Mary Rosh
I agree completely. I was trying to interpret what he meant if he
knew what he was talking about.
Ronald Lawrence
Troy writes:
OK, let's look at my logic:
I said:
More cigarettes = more deaths from lung cancer. More cars on the road = more
road deaths. More guns in the community = more gun deaths. It is very
simple logic - defy simple logic and you look stupid.
In this, I am saying the more lethal things you have in the community the
more deaths you will have.
cigarettes/motor cars/guns are all lethal. That IS comparing apples with
apples and IS based on simple logic. You are right I am not stupid.
robobt
news:Y9NY7.58828$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> Ask some doctors and they will tell you smoking doesn't cause lung cancer
> despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
>
this comment and some of those following require, at least, some
qualification.
First, the "evidence" is statistical. Statistics do not and cannot PROVE
causality. Yes, there is a statistically significant greater number of
smokers who develop lung cancer. Living in a city, with it's air pollution
also increases one's probability.
Your statement implies that the connection/result of smoking is inevitable.
It is not. They ask the wrong question.....how many people with lung cancer
smoke.... A better question would be....how many/what percentage of smokers
develop lung cancer. The same wrong question is made about the connection
between pot and hard drugs.
OTH, I wouldn't try to convince you that smoking's good for you.
> Ask some doctors and they will tell you smoking pot doesn't harm your
health
> nor lead to the use of harder drugs despite the overwhelming evidence to
the
> contrary.
>
The "evidence" that pot leads to harder drugs is based upon a fallacy in
logic that even has a name, Ad Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, AND from asking the
wrong question. Yes, it appears to be very true that almost all hard drug
users started with pot. The significant question would be, "How many pot
users go on to hard drugs?"
At this point I think it appropriate to point out that I can statistically
support a contention that there is a direct, positive correllation between
the increase in violent crime and the increase in the use of elastic in
underwear.
> Ask some environmental scientists and they will tell you man made CO2
hasn't
> caused global warming despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
>
That "overwhelming evidence" is circumstantial at best. Yes, studies
indicate that past increases in world temperatures were accompanied by
increases in CO2. Again, causality isn't proven. Perhaps global warming
causes CO2 to increase. I'm not impressed by the modelling. How much more
intensive is weather modelling? How accurate is it, especially over periods
over 24 hours??
> Ask the NRA and they will tell you guns in the community reduce crime
> despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
>
I suspect that guns have little to do with it. The "causes" of crime are
not, I think, affected by guns. Some crimes, especially crimes of impulse,
are made somewhat easier by the presence of guns.
The societal pressures that contribute to crime, I think, make comparisons
of different cultures/countries invalid. America isn't Israel, nor is it
Australia. We are, unfortunately, a society that's more prone to violence,
with a John Wayne mistique and far too many films about lone avengers with
guns. In addition, the millions of guns already in the hands of Americans
are simply not going to be easily done away with.
> If it is in the interests of the so called experts to construe the data
and
> distort the statistics they will, despite the overwhelming evidence to the
> contrary - particularly when paid to do so - many of these quacks are for
> hire. Despite all of this rubbish, ordinary common sense (AKA CDF) and
the
> truth will prevail in the end and the citizens will act and this is what
you
> are afraid of - you are afraid your toys will be taken from you.
>
This works both ways. Your opinions, as expressed in the above, are proof
that "experts" produce "overwhelming evidence" as necessary to support the
views of the interests they represent.
> More cigarettes = more deaths from lung cancer.
There is little doubt that this is true. But, this doesn't mean that a
thousand people who start smoking today will develop lung cancer. TWO
groups of a thousand each, one group smoking, and one group not, will BOTH
have a number that develop it. The smoking group will have, yes, more. But
how many? Five? Six?
More cars on the road = more
> road deaths.
This is certainly true. So, do you want to eliminate cars?
More guns in the community = more gun deaths.
More importantly, more people in the community = more violent deaths. Let's
do away with people.
It is very
> simple logic - defy simple logic and you look stupid.
>
Well, to say the least, I think that swallowing the illogic that statistical
descriptions of co-incidence are proof of causality, let alone the only or
major factor, don't make one look especially bright either.
grin
bob
Troy
An armed citizen wrote:
> "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:12:10 -0500, in article
> <a0sg3f$2t0$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> >
> >
> >glc...@aol.com (GLC1173) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Indeed, federal Centers for Disease Control and (nonprofit) National Safety
> >>Council statistics make clear that no more than 1 in 3 U.S. counties have ANY
> >>child under 15 die by gunfire in any given year - accidentally, suicidally, or
> >>homicidally.
> >
> >Selective statistics intended to deceive. Just give us the number of people
> >killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000 wounded),
> >compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop crimes (about
> >250)
>
> Your statistics seem selective to me. Would you please cite their source
> in support of your claims.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!blackbush.xlink.net!blackbush.de.kpnqwest.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: Troy <anann...@aou.ne>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C31E967...@aou.ne>
Control: cancel <3C31E967...@aou.ne>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 05:05:47 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C31E...@aou.ne>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009949011 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:23:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:23:31 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40289008
autocancel
MJ
An armed citizen wrote:
>
> "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:12:10 -0500, in article
> <a0sg3f$2t0$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> >
> >
> >glc...@aol.com (GLC1173) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Indeed, federal Centers for Disease Control and (nonprofit) National Safety
> >>Council statistics make clear that no more than 1 in 3 U.S. counties have ANY
> >>child under 15 die by gunfire in any given year - accidentally, suicidally, or
> >>homicidally.
> >
> >Selective statistics intended to deceive. Just give us the number of people
> >killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000 wounded),
> >compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop crimes (about
> >250)
>
> Your statistics seem selective to me. Would you please cite their source
> in support of your claims.
Jim cite a reference? He is his reference....
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: MJ <mja...@home.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C31E1AD...@home.com>
Control: cancel <3C31E1AD...@home.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:10:15 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C31E...@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009949077 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:24:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:24:37 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
autocancel
James Mayer
> glc...@aol.com (GLC1173) wrote:
>
>
> > Indeed, federal Centers for Disease Control and (nonprofit) National Safety
> >Council statistics make clear that no more than 1 in 3 U.S. counties have ANY
> >child under 15 die by gunfire in any given year - accidentally, suicidally, or
> >homicidally.
>
> Selective statistics intended to deceive. Just give us the number of people
> killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000 wounded),
> compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop crimes (about
> 250)
That 250 number is only the number of perpetrators killed. Is a defensive
gun use only successfull if the attacker is killed? What about when the
attacker is wounded or decides to leave of his own hasty volition with
the gun only being presented?
How many of the estimated eighty thousand to two and a half million
persons that have used a gun per year in defense of themselves as reported
by the NCVS and others are you willing to sacrifice to those that would
have done them grievous bodily harm? Would you tolerate the increase in
violent crimes and deaths as long as the potential victim couldn't defend
themselves with a gun? How many elderly and weak are you willing to
sacrifice to the strong and young? Would you be satisfied that the increase
in deaths caused by violent criminals will justify making guns illegal?
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!blackbush.xlink.net!blackbush.de.kpnqwest.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: James Mayer <jf...@mindnospamspring.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <a0sp2f$g5h$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
Control: cancel <a0sp2f$g5h$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:44:12 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.a0sp2f$g5h$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009949025 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:23:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:23:45 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40289032
autocancel
James Mayer
> (Mary Rosh) wrote:
>
>
> >You might want to read Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime if you want
> >to read stories about bombings and other attacks that have been
> >stopped by citizens with concealed handgun permits.
>
> When I want to read fiction, I go to the fiction section of the Bookmobile.
Where should be found most of the gun control advocacy studies
especially Michael A. Bellesiles' book ''Arming America: The Origins of
a National Gun Culture''.
> You might want to read about the chances that another person living in a
> house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house. Especially
> children.
You mean the study done by Dr. Arthur Kellermann? Read what he has
to say about his own wife having a gun:
"If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more
lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a
.38 Special in her hand?
Yeah." Dr. Arthur Kellerman: Health Magazine (March/April 1994) and
the author of the infamous "43 times more likely to kill an acquaintance"
study.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!news2.euro.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: James Mayer <jf...@mindnospamspring.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <a0sprv$pja$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
Control: cancel <a0sprv$pja$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:58:28 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.a0sprv$pja$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009949017 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:23:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:23:37 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40289018
autocancel
MJ
An Armed Citizen wrote:
>
> "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:07:50 -0500, in article
> <a0sfvv$m93$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> >
> >
> >(Mary Rosh) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You might want to read Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime if you want
> >>to read stories about bombings and other attacks that have been
> >>stopped by citizens with concealed handgun permits.
> >
> >When I want to read fiction, I go to the fiction section of the Bookmobile.
> >
> >You might want to read about the chances that another person living in a
> >house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house. Especially
> >children.
>
> Would you care to quote about the chances of being shot or are you just
> blowing smoke?
Probably inhaling smoke....
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!osa.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: MJ <mja...@home.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C31E1D1...@home.com>
Control: cancel <3C31E1D1...@home.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:29:57 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.3C31E...@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009949133 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:25:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:25:33 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40289287
autocancel
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
"An Armed Citizen" wrote ...
> <a0sfvv$m93$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
> >You might want to read about the chances that another person living in a
> >house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house. Especially
> >children.
>
> Would you care to quote about the chances of being shot or are you just
> blowing smoke?
You know that any time you ask these people for evidence, all they do is
glaze over and start chanting "43 times more likely ... 43 times more
likely...".
They really believe that all they have to do is say something, and it's
automatically true.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: "Allan Lindsay-O'Neal" <akl...@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <F0qY7.3398$dK4.51909@rwcrnsc52>
Control: cancel <F0qY7.3398$dK4.51909@rwcrnsc52>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 01:53:22 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.F0qY7.3398$dK4.51909@rwcrnsc52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009948301 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:11:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:11:41 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
autocancel
ghost-sniper
> > "On Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:07:50 -0500, in article
> > <a0sfvv$m93$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, James Chamblee stated..."
>
> > >You might want to read about the chances that another person living in
a
> > >house has of being shot when a gun is present in the house.
Especially
> > >children.
> >
> > Would you care to quote about the chances of being shot or are you just
> > blowing smoke?
>
> You know that any time you ask these people for evidence, all they do is
> glaze over and start chanting "43 times more likely ... 43 times more
> likely...".
See? TV really does damage the viewers ability to think on their own.
The people that quote the *43* thing saw it on TV and it became etched to
their remaining synapse.
When you ask them to quote their source, you have fried their only circuit,
thus the blank stare.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!uni-erlangen.de!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!news2.euro.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: "ghost-sniper" <10-...@deadcenter.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <KWvY7.240882$oj3.42...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
Control: cancel <KWvY7.240882$oj3.42...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:01:48 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.KWvY7.240882$oj3.42...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009946715 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 04:45:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 04:45:15 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40283727
autocancel
Bert Hyman
>
> Selective statistics intended to deceive.
Well, thanks for labeling what was to follow in your post.
> ... Just give us the number of
> people killed by firearms in a year (about 12,000, with another 150,000
> wounded), compared to the number of times guns are used to try to stop
> crimes (about 250)
Killed "by" firearms? That's interesting. Autonomous killing machines,
huh?
And, from what alternate reality did you pluck that last figure? Only 250
defensive uses of firearms? If you're going to lie, you should at least
->try to make your lies convincing.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: news.sol.net!spool0-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!news.navix.net!u.n.a.c.4.n.c.3.l.l.e.r
From: Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship,alt.test,talk.politics.guns
Subject: cmsg cancel <Xns91897E37621...@209.98.98.13>
Control: cancel <Xns91897E37621...@209.98.98.13>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 05:08:59 GMT
Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <cancel.Xns91897E3...@209.98.98.13>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34
X-Trace: iac5.navix.net 1009948900 27046 166.102.15.34 (2 Jan 2002 05:21:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@navix.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jan 2002 05:21:40 GMT
X-No-Archive: yes
Comment: Dude, where's my NewsAgent?
autocancel
Troy
But let's look at you simple logic of more guns = more gun deaths.
More guns in the community where most all guns are in the possession of law
abiding citizens, including the police will have far fewer gun deaths when this
community is compared to one where the majority of guns are in the possession of
criminals. The demographics kills your logic every time, it's apples and
oranges.
Using your logic, you could say more children = more forest fires.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/01/03/waus03.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/03/ixworld.html
Ronald Lawrence
Troy wrote:
"Using your logic, you could say more children = more forest fires."
No ... that would not be logical.
If you had said more kids with matches I would agree. Just as I agree more
kids with guns equals more kids dead.
But more kids doesn't necessarily mean more bushfires.
BTW, not all the fires have been lit by kids - firebugs can be adults too.
Ronald Lawrence
Bob writes:
"More cigarettes = more deaths from lung cancer.
There is little doubt that this is true"
More cars on the road = more road deaths.
This is certainly true. So, do you want to eliminate cars?
More guns in the community = more gun deaths.
More importantly, more people in the community = more violent deaths. Let's
do away with people."
You have tried to use an impractical solution to discredit the logical
assessment of the problem - this won't win the debate - not with me anyway.
The logic is: more lethal objects in the community = more deaths. What we
choose to do about it is up to the community in which we live - there will
be practical solutions and impractical solutions - solutions are a case of
practicalities and risk management. You can make the absurd choice of doing
away with people to manage the risk of death caused by guns, cars and
cigarettes if you want but my choice would be far more practical and
sensible. Doing away with guns/cigarettes in the hands of the general
populace has no down side and huge benefits, IMHO. It WILL reduce deaths
caused these lethal objects. Reducing the numbers of cars on the road will
do the same - particularly in the cities. Unpopular solutions aren't the
same as impractical solutions. Unpopular solutions must be chosen from time
to time - it takes courageous leaders to do so. It takes great leaders to do
the right thing rather than the popular thing.
Troy wrote: "more children = more forest fires." True but doing away with
children is not what the community would choose to do - it is one of the
solutions but not a practical or common sense one. The real sequence in the
logical argument I am making is more children with the wherewithal to light
fires will result in more bushfires. Take the matches (wherewithal) away
from the kids (even where there is more kids) = less bushfires. It is the
matches in the hands of kids that light fires - if the kids didn't have
matches we'd have less fires lit by kids.
Troy
possession of law abiding citizens, including the police will have far fewer gun
deaths when this community is compared to one where the majority of guns are in
the possession of criminals. The demographics kills your logic every time, it's
Doing away with their guns is not what the community would choose to do - it is
one of the solutions but not a practical or common sense one. The real sequence
in the logical argument I am making is more criminals with the wherewithal to
commit crimes will result in more crimes. Take the guns (wherewithal) away from
the criminal you still have the criminal - if the criminal didn't have guns, he
will use an alternate wherewithal. More criminals = more deaths.
GLC1173
>>"Using your logic, you could say more >>children = more forest fires."
and replied:
>No ... that would not be logical.
>If you had said more kids with matches I >would agree.
Just tell us why - here in redneck North Carolina, where seemingly every
home has matches (if only for the grill on the patio or for the fireplace) - we
don't have hundreds of intentionally-set brushfires around our biggest cities
burning at once.
Could it have something to do with HOW Australia brings up its children?
Last night, listening to the BBC News, I laughed my head off at your constant
moralizing to us!
MJ
Ronald Lawrence wrote:
>
> >
> More cars on the road = more road deaths.
>
> This is certainly true. So, do you want to eliminate cars?
>
Actually, this may not be true. According to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, rural areas contributed to the highest
death rate (58.4 percent), as compared to urban areas - primarily due to
greater road mileage, typically higher rates of speed, and longer
amounts of time elapsed between the time of crash and the arrival of
victims at hospitals in rural areas.
I'm thinking there are many more cars in urban vs. rural areas, so more
cars does not necessarily lead to more road deaths.
Ronald Lawrence
Nobody wrote:
"Just tell us why - here in redneck North Carolina, where seemingly every
home has matches (if only for the grill on the patio or for the fireplace) -
we
don't have hundreds of intentionally-set brushfires around our biggest
cities
burning at once. "
Every home in Australia has matches for the grill or mantelpiece too and you
do have hundreds of intentionally set fires and you do have intentionally
lit forest fires. Do you think I do not watch the news too!
"Could it have something to do with HOW Australia brings up its children?
Last night, listening to the BBC News, I laughed my head off at your
constant
moralizing to us!"
Who is moralizing? I am merely offering one solution that will work. I
know many others in the States offer the same solution and eventually, when
the rest of the community says "enough!", like ours did, there will be
action taken. Not "if" but "when"!
For your information the BBC news is British!
Ronald Lawrence
Troy wrote:
"Doing away with their guns is not what the community would choose to do -
it is
one of the solutions but not a practical or common sense one. The real
sequence
in the logical argument I am making is more criminals with the wherewithal
to
commit crimes will result in more crimes."
You lost the first part of the argument so now you are moving on to limit
the gun debate to criminals and talk about crime in general, ie you changing
the subject of the logic. It has the same flaw you used in your argument
about kids lighting fires - not only kids light fires. Criminals and crime
are a red herring in this debate.
One of the solutions to every human problem is to get rid of all humans or,
at least, all humans with the problem. That is what we are doing with the
Taleban, Al Qaeda and bin Laden. It ain't very practical in every case but
it is a solution. The fact is that criminals with guns don't kill all the
people who die by the bullet. In fact, the criminals kill far fewer people
with their guns than those who do who are not criminals - well they were not
criminals before they killed someone anyway.
"Take the guns (wherewithal) away from
the criminal you still have the criminal - if the criminal didn't have guns,
he
will use an alternate wherewithal. More criminals = more deaths."
Doesn't this contradict your first paragraph and doesn't it dismiss the
stupid argument about having guns to ward off criminals? Oh give me a break
... do you think we are all fools. My argument is to take the guns away
from the "whole community" and we shall have less gun deaths. Criminals and
crime is another argument altogether and irrelevant to this debate here
about guns. You can go off and argue with school kids if you like but some
of us here are adults who can see through this crocked, twisted thinking.
48% of households in the US have guns - what are the other 52% doing to ward
off criminals. Oh I forgot ... they don't live in "black" areas.
Of course some, when losing an argument badly, pull out their guns. It is
called the "Make My Day ...Punk! argument!" and it doesn't make much sense.
"No body" has already offered that solution in this NG.
Ronald Lawrence
MJ wrote:
"Actually, this may not be true. According to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, rural areas contributed to the highest
death rate (58.4 percent), as compared to urban areas - primarily due to
greater road mileage, typically higher rates of speed, and longer
amounts of time elapsed between the time of crash and the arrival of
victims at hospitals in rural areas.
I'm thinking there are many more cars in urban vs. rural areas, so more
cars does not necessarily lead to more road deaths."
It is the same here. The point I made about the cities was a footnote to the
overall debate because cars are more important in the rural areas where
there is no public transport but less important in the cities where there
is. I realise that less cars in the cities will not make as big a
difference to the road toll as less cars in the community as a whole would
but the argument still holds: "More cars on the road = more road deaths."
and visa versa.
robobt
> G'day,
>
> Bob writes:
>
> "More cigarettes = more deaths from lung cancer.
>
> There is little doubt that this is true"
>
> More cars on the road = more road deaths.
>
> This is certainly true. So, do you want to eliminate cars?
>
> More guns in the community = more gun deaths.
>
> More importantly, more people in the community = more violent deaths.
Let's
> do away with people."
>
> You have tried to use an impractical solution to discredit the logical
> assessment of the problem - this won't win the debate - not with me
anyway.
>
the problem" is flawed, as I pointed out, and you ignored. Logic is often
merely a way to err with confidence, and that is what you're doing here.
> The logic is: more lethal objects in the community = more deaths.
This presupposes people with lethal ends in mind. In Switzerland, for
instance, there is an automatic assault rifle in practically every house.
Yet, there is very little in the way of deaths from that. Your logic is
flawed.
What we
> choose to do about it is up to the community in which we live - there will
> be practical solutions and impractical solutions - solutions are a case of
> practicalities and risk management.
It is a good idea, however, to adequately define the problem. You have
defined the problem as "there are too many guns". The problem is that there
is too much violence. Guns are merely the means....of some of the deaths.
You can make the absurd choice of doing
> away with people
I expected you to recognize the irony. But.....too many people is, indeed,
part of the real problem. Ever heard of the studies of rat populations that
have been allowed to become too overcrowded? Not pretty. A society that
allows such things as crowded ghettos of people with inadequate resources is
a guaranteed breakdown in the mores. Let us address that problem.
to manage the risk of death caused by guns, cars and
> cigarettes if you want but my choice would be far more practical and
> sensible. Doing away with guns/cigarettes in the hands of the general
> populace has no down side and huge benefits, IMHO.
First, by what right? Second, there are so many unregistered guns in the
hands of Americans that you will never get them. Trying to ban guns in
America is NOT practical.
It WILL reduce deaths
> caused these lethal objects.
These "lethal objects" are not the cause of any deaths. People are. And,
if people want to kill, there're ample means.
Reducing the numbers of cars on the road will
> do the same - particularly in the cities.
This presupposes that the majority of car deaths are in the
cities....excepting freeways going thru. Is this the case?
Unpopular solutions aren't the
> same as impractical solutions. Unpopular solutions must be chosen from
time
> to time - it takes courageous leaders to do so. It takes great leaders to
do
> the right thing rather than the popular thing.
>
What is the "right thing", and who decides? After we banish guns, what's
next. Tobacco? How about hamburgers because they clog arteries? How about
sweets because they cause tooth decay? Oh, alcohol for certain because a
majority of car deaths, I think, have alcohol involved. We tried that
once....didn't work.
Lord, preserve us from those that want to control every facet of my life,
for my own good.
cheers
bob
Troy
Ronald Lawrence wrote:
> G'day,
>
> Troy wrote:
>
> "Doing away with their guns is not what the community would choose to do -
> it is
> one of the solutions but not a practical or common sense one. The real
> sequence
> in the logical argument I am making is more criminals with the wherewithal
> to
> commit crimes will result in more crimes."
>
> You lost the first part of the argument so now you are moving on to limit
> the gun debate to criminals and talk about crime in general, ie you changing
> the subject of the logic. It has the same flaw you used in your argument
> about kids lighting fires - not only kids light fires. Criminals and crime
> are a red herring in this debate.
Do tell how criminals and crime are red herrings. I thought they were why you
don't have guns in your homes there.
For some reason you continue to delete or not reply to this:
"More guns in the community where most all guns are in the possession of law
abiding citizens, including the police will have far fewer gun deaths when this
community is compared to one where the majority of guns are in the possession of
criminals. The demographics kills your logic every time, it's apples and
oranges." Or do you think you have replied?
>
>
> One of the solutions to every human problem is to get rid of all humans or,
> at least, all humans with the problem. That is what we are doing with the
> Taleban, Al Qaeda and bin Laden.
Correct, get rid of the criminal, not the gun, knife, rope, match etc., etc.
> It ain't very practical in every case but
> it is a solution. The fact is that criminals with guns don't kill all the
> people who die by the bullet. In fact, the criminals kill far fewer people
> with their guns than those who do who are not criminals - well they were not
> criminals before they killed someone anyway.
>
> "Take the guns (wherewithal) away from
> the criminal you still have the criminal - if the criminal didn't have guns,
> he
> will use an alternate wherewithal. More criminals = more deaths."
>
> Doesn't this contradict your first paragraph and doesn't it dismiss the
> stupid argument about having guns to ward off criminals?
Not at all.
> Oh give me a break
> ... do you think we are all fools.
I'm beginning to think you are.
> My argument is to take the guns away
> from the "whole community" and we shall have less gun deaths. Criminals and
> crime is another argument altogether and irrelevant to this debate here
> about guns. You can go off and argue with school kids if you like but some
> of us here are adults who can see through this crocked, twisted thinking.
> 48% of households in the US have guns - what are the other 52% doing to ward
> off criminals. Oh I forgot ... they don't live in "black" areas.
Don't let the rest of the world know after your "whole country" has totally
removed all guns because a small island could take over. If you do, I'll know
that you're a fool.
>
>
> Of course some, when losing an argument badly, pull out their guns. It is
> called the "Make My Day ...Punk! argument!" and it doesn't make much sense.
> "No body" has already offered that solution in this NG.
What now, you'll wave a kangaroo tail!
Ronald Lawrence
Bob wrote:
"Lord, preserve us from those that want to control every facet of my life,
for my own good."
I can partly agree with that - in so far as we shouldn't control anything
that doesn't impact adversely on others - like guns do, like sending anthrax
through the mail does, like irresponsible and dangerous driving does, etc.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, my case rests - now it is for
the jury to decide and the jury is still out on the matter - I think the
jury is smart enough to make the right decision in the end.
Troy
robobt
> G'day,
>
> Bob wrote:
>
> "Lord, preserve us from those that want to control every facet of my life,
> for my own good."
>
> I can partly agree with that - in so far as we shouldn't control anything
> that doesn't impact adversely on others - like guns do,
My guns impact no one. I've had my rifle for 50 years and it's incidious
influence hasn't killed anybody yet.
like sending anthrax
> through the mail does,
controlling somebody's behavior by keeping him from mailing anthrax isn't
for his own good, unless of course we find out who it is. That DOES harm
others.
like irresponsible and dangerous driving does,
Again, it isn't the cars that are the problem, are they? Neither are guns.
The people are.
etc.
> As far as the rest of your post is concerned, my case rests
You do not care to defend your acceptance of statistical measures of
co-incidence as proof of causality. That's wise...grin.
- now it is for
> the jury to decide and the jury is still out on the matter
Well, if you agree there, I guess we don't differ that much. I never
catagorically denied that statistical significance proved NO connection
either. I guess the origingal post to which I responded didn't mean you
accept direct causality...
- I think the
> jury is smart enough to make the right decision in the end.
>
Oh, I dunno..... Elitist that I am, I'm convinced that the majority doesn't
have enuf sense to come in out of the rain.
cheers
bob
Ed Hatcher
Okay, I've got my .22 for the varmints.
Now, who do I kill?
Should I advertise my .22? If I do,thieves will know I have something
they want.
On the other hand, if they don't know I've got it, they won't be
deterred.
If I have a gun, a family member or guest can use it to poor advantage.
Say, my grandson will shoot his mother. If I don't have a gun, he just
have to point his finger and go bang bang. Which he won't do, because
his mother will clock him good.
At age 75, I have yet to experience an occasion to shoot someone. So far
as I know, I am not on anyone's list of people to kill.
Gun ownership is, as one can see, very complicated, and best left, I
believe, to those who have a very empty life and plenty of time to
ponder such things.
--
EAH
Otium cum dignitate
GLC1173
>At age 75, I have yet to experience an >occasion to shoot someone. So far
>as I know, I am not on anyone's list of >people to kill.
Do you have a smoke detector or home burglar alarm or car burglar alarm?
Have you ever had a house fire, burglary, or theft of or from your car?
Gary James
<win...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>G'day,
>
>Nobody wrote:
>
> "You cannot compare the U.S. crime experience to that of all-white or
>nearly-all-white nations - nor to nations in which their big cities are
>nearly-all-white. "
>
>So your guns are for shooting blacks - as a part nigger
Ah, ha ! And which of our liberal ladies lovely daughters did you wed
?
Ronald Lawrence
Gary wrote:
Ah, ha ! And which of our liberal ladies lovely daughters did you wed
?
One that is beautiful, tolerant, intelligent, non racist and a hard working
moderate conservative like me. You might note that I have not said whether
she is white, black or yellow or any colour in between because that doesn't
make a spit of difference but I don't think you would understand this
notion.
Ed Hatcher
>
> Ed wrote:
> >At age 75, I have yet to experience an >occasion to shoot someone. So far
> >as I know, I am not on anyone's list of >people to kill.
>
> Do you have a smoke detector or home burglar alarm or car burglar alarm?
> Have you ever had a house fire, burglary, or theft of or from your car?
smoke yes, burglar ... that's for me to know. Car burglar, no.
Smoke alarms are very good about not killing people.
Bill Vojak
>Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> And, from what alternate reality did you pluck that last figure? Only
>> 250 defensive uses of firearms? If you're going to lie, you should at
>> least ->try to make your lies convincing.
>
>
>That "statistic" comes from the FBI UCR which counts ONLY DGU deemed
>justifiable at the scene, not those later ruled justifiable.
>
>And I agree, I find it fasinating that the gun grabbing monkeys only
>count DGUs where the perp is shot dead. A blood-thirsty lot they are
>- that is why they are against Eddie Eagle.
>
>Jim
I have "used" a firearm twice to prevent my family and
myself from becoming victims of a crime. Once was an
attempted hotel room invasion, and once an attack by
some street thugs.
Never fired a shot. Ony drew the weapon in the first
situation. Didn't kill anyone, didn't hurt anyone.
Didn't even call the cops either time.
Counting the number of bad guys killed Vs total crimes
committed is a STUPID metrics.
Bill Vojak
James Chamblee
(Bill Vojak) wrote:
>I have "used" a firearm twice to prevent my family and
>myself from becoming victims of a crime. Once was an
>attempted hotel room invasion, and once an attack by
>some street thugs.
You seem to be a magnet for criminals.
I'd suggest dressing down a little bit - get rid of the Rolex and the
Bentley.
AntisDoLie
> Counting the number of bad guys killed Vs total crimes
> committed is a STUPID metrics.
Yes, but it is the only statistic that gun grabbing monkeys can cling
to with the hopes of convincing the dirty masses that guns don't stop
crime.
Remember a few months back, the female-married-with-children targeted
HCI website ran the full-page graphic with the "statistic" that "The
person most likely to kill you with a gun already has a key to your
house."
Obviously this was an attempt to scare their targeted audience to get
their husbands to give up their guns, drumming up fear that their
husband could get mad at them and shoot them. The REAL statistic is
that over 50% of all firearms related deaths are suicidal, therefore
the person most likely to kill you with a gun is you, and surely you
have a key to your own house.
Of course, if HCI were to put that on their website, the reader would
say "That doesn't apply to me, I'm not suicidal."
Jim
Jos.Carman
"James Chamblee" <jim-ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a1c6v5$cas$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Carman wrote:
So being attacked is "really" the fault of the victim? So the women who get raped
"were asking for it"? So the criminals are "really" performing a useful social function
in punishing people who somehow "deserve it"?
I've always loved the moral economy of this kind of "blame the victim for the crime"
attitude. It's so easy and cheap. No need to go after the perpetrator of the crime,
(that might be work!), just sleaze on over, kick the victim a few times, and proclaim
your moral superiority.
Glenn Pooler
>Thank you for bringing some wisdom to this subject.....
From what I've seen of boogie's writing, I'm sure he's just being
coy; he knows very well how to adapt to local circumstances. If
anyone thinks they can stretch prudence into baiting, they
deserve the forthcoming lessons in humility.
Glenn....@att.net
Rochester Minnesota USA