The Holdup Man Pleads: ŒCall the Police¹
Earl Evleth
--
This happy ending is a consequence of the holdup man not having
a real gun, which are hard to get in France. One can buy
"self-defense" hand guns which shoot birdshot. These are a bit
too dangerous at close range for my taste but they can be bought.
Some punks get them and simulate them as real guns.
But basically, don`t hold up a small restaurant in a semi-rural area in
France, the peasants don`t like it. You ask these people to "lie down"
and they won`t do it, they get mad.
I call this part of our "keystone criminals" sequence, we published
an earlier case of two "successful" holdup men who were pursued
by a man with a cell phone, who kept the police up to date one where
the thieves were.
The article was translated by another member of my immediate
family (not Gaston).
Earl
************************************************
LE PARISIEN, 26 February 2002
łThe Holdup Man Pleads: ŚCall the Policeą,˛ by Thomas Ségissement
The two holdup men thought it would be easier in the country, far from the
suburbs where the police patrols are far too frequent for their taste. So,
on Sunday, they chose the cafe-tobacconist at Cerny, a village of about 3000
inhabitants in the south of the department of the Essonne. Attractive on
paper, the plan turned to nightmare for one of the two toughs. Struck then
chased by the customers, the 30-year-old man ended his race bogged down in
the nearby swamps.
Sunday, around 1 PM, Nanar, Dodo and his pals were having an aperitif at
the bar of the Cernoise when two masked, gloved and armed individuals burst
into the cafe. They shouted: łLie down on the floor, we want the dough,˛
says Florence, 61, owner of the cafe. łI was so mad that I said no. The
customers didnąt want to so it either. They remained standing and one of
them even said to the gangsters that it wasnąt nap time. Then one of the
guys grabbed a girl by the hair to force her to the floor, threatening her
with his weapon. Her father, who was at the bar, threw a salad bowl right
at his head and then everybody started in on him.˛
A moment later, a stool hit the face of the holdup man, who lost his mask.
łThe one who had the weapon fired, but it was obviously a BB gun,˛ adds
Jacqueline, 77, who was seated at a table with her daughter at the time of
the attack. łIt made the same noise as a toy. We felt then that they were
afraid. They rushed out the door and the men ran after them.˛ After a half
hour chase through the deserted streets, one of the holdup men found himself
bogged down in the stream that runs through the village.
Exhausted, he was brought back to the bar by force. łAt the beginning he
was so afraid that he wanted the police called,˛ remembers Florence.
łAfterward he cried and pleaded to be let go. He said it was the first
time, that he had been dragged into it and that he had come to the region by
train.˛
His face bloody, soaked to the skin, the young man, a homeless drug addict
(he was taken to court in Evry yesterday, and charged) was picked up by the
gendarmes. An impressive force was sent to find his accomplice who is still
on the loose. As to the indomitable customers of the cafe-tobacconist, they
recovered from their emotions over a good meal given them by the cafeąs
owner.
***
Typical French ended, they ended up eating and (unreported) half-drunk.
Earl and Donna
EndlsRayne
If he had a samurai sword a just a little training he could have easily owned
everyone in that building and there would have been nothing anyone could do
about it because the law abiding people are not allowed to own guns. Other than
that ,all this proves is that the French still have a little fight left in them
- if there are 10 or 20 to 1 odds, that is.....
ER
--------
"I hate (expletive) loaded guns and I will blow this building up!" - Johnny Ray
Gobin
LMac
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
news:20020226120234...@mb-fn.aol.com...
>
> If he had a samurai sword a just a little training he could have easily
owned
> everyone in that building and there would have been nothing anyone could
do
> about it because the law abiding people are not allowed to own guns. Other
than
> that ,all this proves is that the French still have a little fight left in
them
> - if there are 10 or 20 to 1 odds, that is.....
>
They could have hit them with their copper pots...
Mac ;-)
EndlsRayne
>Other
>than
>> that ,all this proves is that the French still have a little fight left in
>them
>> - if there are 10 or 20 to 1 odds, that is.....
>>
>
>They could have hit them with their copper pots...
>
>Mac ;-)
>
O Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho zat jeest laughs me up!
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <20020226120234...@mb-fn.aol.com>,
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
> ,all this proves is that the French still have a little fight left in them
> - if there are 10 or 20 to 1 odds, that is.....
When there's nothing else to trash,
It's always fun to froggy bash.
That said, I will remind you that it was an unarmed 61-year-old French
woman who told the holdup man "no" when he told her to lie down on the
floor. She was the catalyst. One to one. Or rather, one to two, since
there were two holdup men. After she said no, everyone else joined in. I
admire her immensely, and hope that in a similar situation I, an American,
would act just like her.
Donna Evleth
LMac
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5gl89$1p4$1...@neon.noos.net...
I hate to break it to you Donna, but in America the bad guys use real guns
and have little or no qualms about using them. Unfortunately, she probably
would have been shot had that occurred here.
Mac
LMac
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna7nnhq.5t8.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:00:13 -0600, LMac <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> That said, I will remind you that it was an unarmed 61-year-old French
> >> woman who told the holdup man "no" when he told her to lie down on the
> >> floor. She was the catalyst. One to one. Or rather, one to two,
since
> >> there were two holdup men. After she said no, everyone else joined in.
I
> >> admire her immensely, and hope that in a similar situation I, an
American,
> >> would act just like her.
>
> > I hate to break it to you Donna, but in America the bad guys use real
guns
> > and have little or no qualms about using them. Unfortunately, she
probably
> > would have been shot had that occurred here.
>
> lax handgun laws that the United States do.
Now Des, you know I meant the US (or should have done, since I used 'here'
later in the paragraph); and our handgun laws are not lax. Comparitively
liberal, yes - but not lax. The existing ones are regularly enforced.
Mac
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
John Rennie
> Le 26 Feb 2002 17:02:34 GMT, EndlsRayne <endls...@aol.combustion> a
écrit :
>
> > If he had a samurai sword a just a little training he could have
easily owned
> > everyone in that building and there would have been nothing anyone could
do
> > about it because the law abiding people are not allowed to own guns.
Other than
> > that ,all this proves is that the French still have a little fight left
in them
> > - if there are 10 or 20 to 1 odds, that is.....
>
> September, who allowed (in three out of four cases) four men to terrorise
> them into submission ...
Just as the passengers of at least a hundred aeroplanes
had done previously in the past 30 years or so. I do
not know of any case of hostages taking back control
of a plane prior to 11th September. What a silly
twit you are, Desmond. (Twit was the last of a list
of words that started off with c***.)
John Rennie
> Le Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:18:42 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Yeah, perhaps one day, they'll be as brave as the passengers on 11
> >> September, who allowed (in three out of four cases) four men to
terrorise
> >> them into submission ...
>
> > Just as the passengers of at least a hundred aeroplanes
> > had done previously in the past 30 years or so. I do
> > not know of any case of hostages taking back control
> > of a plane prior to 11th September. What a silly
> > twit you are, Desmond. (Twit was the last of a list
> > of words that started off with c***.)
>
> point of my post, as you appear to have done, is quite unlike you.
>
> My point wasn't that the Americans (and other nationalities) who died in
> the aircraft on 11 September, were 'cowards' (I daresay that if I had been
> in one of those planes, I'd have been cowering down in my seat, too). It
> was in response to a rather pathetic troll by (IIRC) 'endlsyane' (or
> whatever), that the French only have some fight left in them, when the
> odds are 20:1.
>
> Someone gets a gun pointed at their head, and whether they be French,
> British, American, or whatever ... nine times out of ten, they'll do as
> they're told. I know I would.
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
Point taken, Desmond. You shouldn't have snipped so
drastically. I don't tend to read 'endlsyane' drivel.
LMac
laughably
> >> lax handgun laws that the United States do.
>
> > Now Des, you know I meant the US
>
> synonyms.
That's a matter of perspective (most of my British friends and family freely
refer to the US as 'America'), but I will concede the point as accurate in
fact - though not in colloquial practice.
Mac
EndlsRayne
>That said, I will remind you that it was an unarmed 61-year-old French
>woman who told the holdup man "no" when he told her to lie down on the
>floor.
She still had an entire building of peopel with her, who as far as I know
could have been full of 'liquid courage'.
>She was the catalyst. One to one. Or rather, one to two, since
>there were two holdup men. After she said no, everyone else joined in. I
>admire her immensely, and hope that in a similar situation I, an American,
>would act just like her.
I hope so too, even tho I am critical of your position, I do not like to see
people be victims.
I will say this much though, crime rates in our countries have alot more to
them than simply 'can people own guns' . Anyone who really believes that is all
there is to it, rather than just trying to troll, is a fool.
EndlsRayne
>I hate to break it to you Donna, but in America the bad guys use real guns
>and have little or no qualms about using them. Unfortunately, she probably
>would have been shot had that occurred here.
this is true but there is one quirky factor : a criminal that uses a weapon
other than a gun , like a knife, is more likely to attack the victim. The guys
who use guns are 'professionals' ,if there is such a term for criminals ,and
know how to rob people and leave without piling up several life sentences.
EndlsRayne
> It
>was in response to a rather pathetic troll by (IIRC) 'endlsyane' (or
>whatever)
Well if I had been trying to troll, I think getting 11 replies in less than 2
hours from making my post would indicate success.
EndlsRayne
>> Point taken, Desmond. You shouldn't have snipped so
>> drastically. I don't tend to read 'endlsyane' drivel.
>
>I have to confess that he's moving closer and closer to having 'killfile
>the dense little fucker' status ...
Despond will 'killfile' me and not read my posts anymore, awww that's just
horrible, and not much of a threat considering it's coming from someone who
makes 90% of his posts to either try to insult PV, or comment on being in some
state of inebriation, or simply to make sure that the negative stereotype of
the French still exists into the 21st century.
So go ahead Despond, killfile me. It simply means you will be unable to make
some inane vulgarity as a reply to my posts, which I simply take as another
form of saying "curses! folied again".
dirtdog
wrote:
<of Desmond>
>it's coming from someone who
>makes 90% of his posts to either try to insult PV, or comment on being in some
>state of inebriation, or simply to make sure that the negative stereotype of
>the French still exists into the 21st century.
>
Not one of those aims is anything but honourable.
w00f
William Robert
This simply isn't worthy of the old Dirt Dog. Perhaps you can find a book on
trolling?
Beter check your scotum again!
William Robert
Exador
Bwwwaaaaahhhhhahhhhhhaaaaaa. Go and have a talk to PV, I beleive he's
got some extra-strangth Prozac he's not using, perhaps he'll sell it to you.
Cheers,
Craig
William Robert
>Le 26 Feb 2002 23:42:18 GMT, EndlsRayne <endls...@aol.combustion> a écrit :
>
>>>> Point taken, Desmond. You shouldn't have snipped so
>>>> drastically. I don't tend to read 'endlsyane' drivel.
>
>>>I have to confess that he's moving closer and closer to having 'killfile
>>>the dense little fucker' status ...
>
>> Despond will 'killfile' me and not read my posts anymore, awww that's
just
>> horrible, and not much of a threat considering it's coming from someone who
>> makes 90% of his posts to either try to insult PV, or comment on being in
some
>> state of inebriation, or simply to make sure that the negative stereotype of
>> the French still exists into the 21st century.
>
>*guffaw*
>
>PV thinks I insult Drewl, you think I insult PV ... fuck, is it any wonder
>that the 'retentionist' movement is regarded worldwide as an
>ever-dwindling band of bloodthirsty fuckers who get their rocks off
>imagining the deaths of other human beings ..?
I'd be more concerned about someone who sees McDonald everywhere. You know who
you are, right Desi?
William Robert
A Planet Visitor
> Le 26 Feb 2002 23:42:18 GMT, EndlsRayne <endls...@aol.combustion> a écrit :
>
> >>> drastically. I don't tend to read 'endlsyane' drivel.
>
> >>I have to confess that he's moving closer and closer to having 'killfile
>
> > Despond will 'killfile' me and not read my posts anymore, awww that's
just
> > horrible, and not much of a threat considering it's coming from someone who
> > makes 90% of his posts to either try to insult PV, or comment on being in
some
> > state of inebriation, or simply to make sure that the negative stereotype of
> > the French still exists into the 21st century.
>
>
> PV thinks I insult Drewl, you think I insult PV ... ****, is it any wonder
> that the 'retentionist' movement is regarded worldwide as an
> imagining the deaths of other human beings ..?
>
Truth be told, I find much in you that demonstrates you insult
our species. And of course, the same can be said for your
'joined at the hip' twin --- ol' dirt.
PV
> { snip uniltateral declarations of 'victory' ... }
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:18:42 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> September, who allowed (in three out of four cases) four men to terrorise
> >> them into submission ...
>
> > Just as the passengers of at least a hundred aeroplanes
> > had done previously in the past 30 years or so. I do
> > not know of any case of hostages taking back control
> > of a plane prior to 11th September. What a silly
> > twit you are, Desmond. (Twit was the last of a list
> > of words that started off with c***.)
>
> point of my post, as you appear to have done, is quite unlike you.
>
> My point wasn't that the Americans (and other nationalities) who died in
> the aircraft on 11 September, were 'cowards' (I daresay that if I had been
> was in response to a rather pathetic troll by (IIRC) 'endlsyane' (or
> odds are 20:1.
>
> Someone gets a gun pointed at their head, and whether they be French,
> British, American, or whatever ... nine times out of ten, they'll do as
> they're told. I know I would.
>
reputation for bravery in this century and the last (before that
it was quite a different story). There are taverns and small
restaurants close to the border with Germany that still carry
commemorative plaques on their walls claiming that 'On this
spot the first surrender of the French to the Boche occurred.'
Each wishing to claim that rather dubious distinction.
It is all the more amazing that the recent actions against
a holdup man actually happened.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> >> lax handgun laws that the United States do.
>
> > Now Des, you know I meant the US
>
> synonyms.
>
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=America
and
http://yourdictionary.com/cgi-bin/mw.cgi
Now apologize, like the good sport I know you are. That'll
be the day. ROTFLMAO.
PV
> { snip }
A Planet Visitor
> >> woman who told the holdup man "no" when he told her to lie down on the
> >> floor. She was the catalyst. One to one. Or rather, one to two, since
> >> there were two holdup men. After she said no, everyone else joined in. I
> >> admire her immensely, and hope that in a similar situation I, an American,
> >> would act just like her.
>
> > I hate to break it to you Donna, but in America the bad guys use real guns
> > and have little or no qualms about using them. Unfortunately, she probably
> > would have been shot had that occurred here.
>
> lax handgun laws that the United States do.
>
was not actually IN Europe since they were not members
of the EU. Geography is not actually one of your strong points,
Desmond... stick to insults.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:3c7be...@newsa.ev1.net...
since he would NEVER, regardless of how mistaken,
concede anything to you. It is a generalized hypotheses...
a rule... that Desmond is mistaken REGARDLESS of what
he claims. When he is right, it only provides meaning to
the phrase 'An exception to the rule.'
PV
> Mac
>
>
>
>
JIGSAW1695
From: endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne)
Date: 2/26/2002 3:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <20020226181430...@mb-cf.aol.com>
"LMac" lmck...@ev1.net writes:
>I hate to break it to you Donna, but in America the bad guys use real guns
>and have little or no qualms about using them. Unfortunately, she probably
>would have been shot had that occurred here.
this is true but there is one quirky factor : a criminal that uses a weapon
other than a gun , like a knife, is more likely to attack the victim. The guys
who use guns are 'professionals' ,if there is such a term for criminals ,and
know how to rob people and leave without piling up several life sentences.
===============================
ROTFLMAO..... Is that you, Dezi?
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:47:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > You need not concede ANYTHING to that arrogant prick,
>
>
> { snip remainder of off-topic gobshite }
>
Your rejoinders become more pathetic by the moment.
You need a break, Desmond. :-)
PV
William Robert
<goatboy_pas...@noos.fr> wrote:
>Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:47:05 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> You need not concede ANYTHING to that arrogant prick,
>
>Oh dear, old PV doesn't like me ... boo hoo ... not.
Desi, other than Dirt & QZD, I don't think anyone actually likes you. Then
again, they may only be after you for your body.
William Robert
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:3v8o7uopfp6erdq89...@4ax.com...
dirt attempting to define honorable.... ROTFLMAO. If
he does the same job on it, that he did on defense, we
can expect him to claim 'honorable' is 'to Murder.'
PV
>
> w00f
>
>
Earl Evleth
> all this proves is that the French still have a little fight left in them
> - if there are 10 or 20 to 1 odds, that is.....
In statistical fact you are generally wrong, the response is general and
occurs in may cultures.
The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics has a couple of interesting
tables. In the 1999 edition Table 3.16 shows that around 70% of the victims
of violent crimes reacted in a self-protective manner, whether their
agressor was known to them or not.
This is the average for all types of agressions. For some crimes like
robbery, self-defense drops to around 50% with strangers. As for
aggravated assault, even if threatened with a weapon and injury has
occurred, the figure is over 70%.
Table 3.17 shows the self-protective measures taken. Contrary to
American gun lover claims, the use of a weapon in self-defense is
rare, only in around 2% of the cases. In 11% of the cases counterattack
was accomplished without a weapon. Running off is possible (13%)
or talking with the aggressor (11%), or simple yelling and screarming
(2%). I have been threatened twice with firearms in the USA and in
both times I ran off without consequence. So it does work.
Although firearms are involved in most murders in the US (around 70%)
their use in other crimes is much less (below 30%).
Lastly, how to people feel when they have resisted?
In about two thirds of the case people felt that it helped their
situation (table 3.18), around 9% felt it hurt. Donna herself, was
burgled at night in an American motel room, woke up and actually chased the
burglar. She did not recover the stolen items but the hurt of their loss
was less since she felt good with herself in having chased the guy. The
American response to her resistance was invariably "you were foolish
because he might have had a gun". The facts are that nobody knows how
they are going to react at a time like that. These statistics show that
people resist a lot more often than one might have thought.
Not discussed in the tables is the fact that an resistance reaction of
a single person in a crowd will sometimes mobilize others. This occurred
in the case posted. This technique works. One brave person creates
others. After 911, those of us who travel by air are confident that
no future hijackers will have a free ride to death.
We posted two article recently involving citizens who responded.
One man followed the thieves with his portable phone and the police
eventually caught them. The story of the people in the cafe resisting
and capturing a couple of thieves also gives heart to those of us who
believe that resistance to crime is everybody's responsibility.
Earl
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <20020226181205...@mb-cf.aol.com>,
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
> >She was the catalyst. One to one. Or rather, one to two, since
>>there were two holdup men. After she said no, everyone else joined in. I
>>admire her immensely, and hope that in a similar situation I, an American,
>>would act just like her.
>
> I hope so too, even tho I am critical of your position, I do not like to see
> people be victims.
You state that you are critical of my position. I assume you mean the fact
that I am an abolitionist. In this regard I shall state clearly that the
death penalty does not make me feel safer. An ugly little ritual, carried
out behind high walls and steel bars on someone strapped to a table, can
never make me feel more secure. And I have little confidence in those who
tell me it will, although I know they firmly believe it themselves.
What does make me feel safer is the idea that people do not have to be
victims. Even if one is a 61-year-old woman. Or a passenger on an
airplane. A couple of the passengers who subdued Richard Reed, the shoe
bomber, were, by the way, those "cowardly" Frenchmen.
I celebrate every time I see somebody stand up to criminals in this fashion.
Always will.
>
> I will say this much though, crime rates in our countries have alot more to
> them than simply 'can people own guns' . Anyone who really believes that is
all
> there is to it, rather than just trying to troll, is a fool.
I don't believe I said anything about the gun issue. There is no need to
fight back when you aren't even attacked.
Donna Evleth
>
A Planet Visitor
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5i6qt$li7$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
> Dans l'article <20020226120234...@mb-fn.aol.com>,
> endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
>
> > all this proves is that the French still have a little fight left in them
> > - if there are 10 or 20 to 1 odds, that is.....
>
> In statistical fact you are generally wrong, the response is general and
> occurs in may cultures.
>
> The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics has a couple of interesting
> tables. In the 1999 edition Table 3.16 shows that around 70% of the victims
> of violent crimes reacted in a self-protective manner, whether their
> agressor was known to them or not.
>
> This is the average for all types of agressions. For some crimes like
> robbery, self-defense drops to around 50% with strangers. As for
> aggravated assault, even if threatened with a weapon and injury has
> occurred, the figure is over 70%.
>
> Table 3.17 shows the self-protective measures taken. Contrary to
> American gun lover claims, the use of a weapon in self-defense is
> rare, only in around 2% of the cases.
What a load... Try reading 'More guns, less crime - Understanding
crime and gun-control laws,' John R. Lott Jr. For example, it
shows that 'If national surveys are correct, 98% of the time that
people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon.'
There are studies after studies that show most defensive use of
weapons are not even REPORTED until members of the group
being surveyed are specifically asked if they HAVE used a weapon
defensively, but not reported such use. In the period of 5 years
before adoption of concealed handgun laws until the enactment of
such laws, the robbery rate, excluding Maine rose from 114 to 130
per 100,000. From the date of enactment of those laws, the rate
dropped dramatically in EVERY subsequent year to 124, 120, to
118. And that rate in respect to ALL violent crime, which had
stabilized at about 325 per 100,000 in every year from 7 years
before enactment of concealed handgun laws, suddenly dropped
dramatically in every subsequent year from enactment of those
laws by more than 100 to a level of 225 per 100,000 in the next 7
years.
<rest of crap clipped>
PV
> Earl
EndlsRayne
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
>news:a5i6qt$li7$1...@neon.noos.net...
>> Table 3.17 shows the self-protective measures taken. Contrary to
>> American gun lover claims, the use of a weapon in self-defense is
>> rare, only in around 2% of the cases.
>
>
Yep and that means 2% *reported* , I've seen varying numbers for DGU's by
civillians , the LOWEST number I could find came from an anti-gun group that
claimed 40,000 DGU's a year! There are other studies that claim even higher
numbers. See in some places where guns are illegal , if someone is risking
breaking the law to defend themselves from a criminal then it's not likely that
DGU will get reported, because it would put the victim in jepardy of arrest.
Again, I'll state that I do not believe that crime rates hinge on gun
ownership, but if an area has a high crime rate you are probably better off
with one than without one.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 06:04:17 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> >> > You need not concede ANYTHING to that arrogant prick,
>
> >> Oh dear, old PV doesn't like me ... boo hoo ... not.
> >>
> >> { snip remainder of off-topic gobshite }
>
> > Your rejoinders become more pathetic by the moment.
>
>
Once again -- since it is Sooo descriptive of your posts --
Jesus, Desmond... your counter-arguments are just getting
SOOOOOO pathetic. Is that the best you can do? Obviously
your arguments are desperately in need of balloons, party
hats, noise makers, a huge buffet line, Luciano Pavarotti live,
and a giant loudspeaker, because as they now stand, they're
absolutely pitiful.
PV
> { snip }
John Rennie
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:25:39 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Your rejoinders become more pathetic by the moment.
>
> >> Whereas yours have already reached the bottom of the barrel.
>
> > Once again -- since it is Sooo descriptive of your posts --
>
>
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
My word, these a.a.d.p.discussions are stimulating, aren't they?
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <20020227144658...@mb-fn.aol.com>,
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
> Yep and that means 2% *reported* , I've seen varying numbers for DGU's by
> civillians , the LOWEST number I could find came from an anti-gun group that
> claimed 40,000 DGU's a year! There are other studies that claim even higher
> numbers.
This is from a US government web site. I gave the book reference already,
citing year, table number. I gave you the reference, so you can go and
study them yourself. Maybe you`ll learn something.
Other studies, where? What? By the NRA? So don`t play games unless you
can come up with a specific citations. I have read of a couple of other
book referenced studies but I have found nothing as reliable as the
Government's own victimization statistics. Criminologists usually
use these figures, it is too expensive to do private victimization studies.
The US Government also uses a much large sampling that a private
scholar could afford to pay for, and they do these studies yearly.
The data is obtained from crime survey statistics. One can roughly calculate
120,000 incidents of "weapon "use for self defense. (2% of some 5.6 million
violent crime incidents obtained by the survey. If you are familiar with
the crime survey statistics you will know that violent crime rates are
higher that the actually police reported incidents. Usually one can
multiply the FBI crime index rates by two to three to get actual
incidents, except for homicide which is well reported (and for which
the victims are silent).
Any statistics of this type are estimates but it is the only way of getting
them.
Next, the important part of the tables shows that weapon use in self defense
is MINOR compared to other reactions. The gun lovers just HAVE to have guns
play an role, but there is nothing in these numbers which support your
emotions. The contrary.
Earl
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <Zhaf8.1668$1p6.2...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
> More guns, less crime - Understanding
> crime and gun-control laws,' John R. Lott Jr.
For others, Lott`s work has been already dealt with in later studies
and shown to be faulty methodologically. This is dealt with in Cook and
Ludwig`s book on "Gun Violence" (Oxford University Press, 2000) and in
journal articles.
The conclusion of other researchers is that his premise, more guns,
less crime, is not supported statistically.
The reader should go to the Government's crime survey studies at least for
statistics on weapon use for self-defense. Lott is unreliable. Those who
cite him are also.
Earl
EndlsRayne
>Dans l'article <20020227144658...@mb-fn.aol.com>,
>endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
>> Yep and that means 2% *reported* , I've seen varying numbers for DGU's by
>> civillians , the LOWEST number I could find came from an anti-gun group
>that
>> claimed 40,000 DGU's a year! There are other studies that claim even higher
>This is from a US government web site.
> I gave the book reference already,
>citing year, table number. I gave you the reference, so you can go and
>study them yourself. Maybe you`ll learn something.
>
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states,
"Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have
consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating
DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a
branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers
identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even
displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge.
Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal
government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization
experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full
names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In
short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking
to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know
exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and
how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold
information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly
asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general
questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short,
respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that
they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a
DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may
be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS
interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a
location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a
gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is
asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R
has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place
before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually
could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing
to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to
estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily
to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a
few self-protection questions which include response categories covering
resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and
evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to
report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact
opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to
get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs
themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on
the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for
estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard
this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way,
how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence
and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
A Planet Visitor
A choice that I'm sure Earl would claim is unnecessary,
since he can tell you what to think of it, even before you
read it. But thinking for yourself is not something Earl
recommends. While I feel, it would serve no purpose to
accept the word of either Earl or myself. I feel the book
contains data which can hardly be refuted in respect to
before and after data regarding enactment of conceal-carry
laws. In fact, the author, Dr. John R. Lott Jr., teaches
Criminal Deterrence, Law, and Economics at the University
of Chicago, where he is a Law and Economics fellow. He
was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing
Commission during 1988, and 1989, and has published over
seventy articles in academic journals. While Earl spent his
time hunched over a microscope.
Statistical data Dr. Lott presented showed dramatic declines
in violent crimes, murder, rapes and robbery, following enactment
of those concealed-handgun laws. The data was developed
under a fully acceptable statistical process. Those opposed
to the finding obviously have an agenda. Mainly we have
"The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research."
An organization that is dedicated to reducing gun
violence. Which it sees can be achieved by disarming the
entire civilian population. And then we have Earl, who
believe in that Gospel. In fact, at the time of publication,
there was a firestorm of protest from many elitist, presumed
intellectual, liberal, Bourgeois, which obviously defines the
persona of Earl. It's a most terrible sight when they see
their sacred ox being gored.
Most of the criticism aimed at the data compiled by Dr.
Lott came from those organizations having a clear agenda
being dedicated to more gun-control as a principle.
Liberal sponsored 'think-tanks' which obviously have very
little 'thinking' associated with their lobby.
For Dr. Lott's response to those various criticisms
see -http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott2.pdf
One can also find some rather unbiased, and balanced
examination of the work of Dr. Lott at
http://reason.com/9808/bk.polsby.shtml
This is the web page of
Daniel D. Polsby who is Kirkland & Ellis Professor of
Law at Northwestern University.
One can also find a plethora of web sites, with an obvious
liberal agenda hysterically claiming 'foul.' I would only ask the
reader to form an opinion based upon the evidence, rather than
the obvious agenda of Earl and his gang, or the presumed
agenda one might believe that I have.
I would also ask that the reader ask himself this question --
1) If you were in a State which had a criminal penalty for
carrying a concealed weapon, and
2)you carried one anyway for protection, and
3) It became necessary for you to brandish or even fire that
weapon in self-defense, and
4) Your act deterred the one intent on harming you, but
did not cause him harm, but rather chased him away --
Would you REPORT that incident and risk being prosecuted
for carrying a weapon which was a violation of the law?
I would answer for myself, that I would NOT report such an
incident. Thus I fully believe that the reports of deterrence
of criminal attempts with the use of handguns is VASTLY
underestimated.
PV
Earl
Gaston
> "Earl Evleth" dev...@noos.fr writes:
>
>
>
> >Dans l'article <20020227144658...@mb-fn.aol.com>,
> >endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
>
>
> and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
> 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
Latter publications in peer reviewed journals, cited in "Gun Violence"
take apart Kleck's study because of the "false positive" problem.
Tell me, to you read anything put progun propaganda?
Note that Kleck study is already outdated, the figures I cited postdate
his 1995 publication, in the late 1990s.
Polls are funny things. The US Governments Crime Survey polls are
considered the best by criminologists since they have large polling
samples.
If they are done wrong they give funndy results. For instance, 1% of
the people actually state that they have met extraterristerials.
1% is too small a figure to take seriously in any study. That is
about the figure Kleck comes up with for his gun protection use.
In another study only 3% of those at home when a burglary occured
used a weapon to defend themselves or drive off the intruder. Yet
40% of the households have guns. The reason is clear. People don't
have rapid access to weapons.
This gun protection thing is just part of the myths Americans live
with, need in some cases. There are a lot of you Walter Mittys around.
Earl
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 3:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <87cf7cf7.02022...@posting.google.com>
===============================
Yes, but if individual gun ownership saves one innocent life, isnt it worth
it??
John Rennie
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020228080216...@mb-ci.aol.com...
Crap, Jiggy. Consider the scores if not hundreds of innocent lives lost by
accidental gun fire every year. Americans think of all sorts of excuses to
protect their dangerous toys. The fact is that gun ownership accounts for
the huge amount of homicides (not necessarily murders) that America suffers
compared with most western countries.
Here is pie chart that is quiet up-to-date 1998 .
http://www.psr.org/vfacts/piechart.pdf
(I hope Jiggy that you have downloaded Adobe - as PV is always saying, you
really need it to get the full benefit of the internet.)
EndlsRayne
>Tell me, to you read anything put progun propaganda?
I could ask you the same thing. Historically, the anti-gun / gun control
people are the Klu Klux Klan. You read anything that isn't backed by racists?
Basically, all Ludwig is doing is justifiying his results by attacking Kleck.
That argument easily works both ways.
>In another study only 3% of those at home when a burglary occured
>used a weapon to defend themselves or drive off the intruder. Yet
>40% of the households have guns. The reason is clear. People don't
>have rapid access to weapons.
So the truth is you don't know either, and you simply pick a survey that
agrees with you, then call names at anyone who dissents.
>This gun protection thing is just part of the myths Americans live
>with, need in some cases. There are a lot of you Walter Mittys around.
There are even more people who are like you, bigots who cannot stand it when
someone else makes different choice.
BTW Earl, I think it is hilarious that you continually slam the US and our
government then suddenly you are lionizing this study as the gospel truth.
EndlsRayne
>Yes, but if individual gun ownership saves one innocent life, isnt it worth
>it??
Yeah but if people start killing criminals while their crimes are in
progress, Earl won't be able to go visit them in jail.
John Rennie
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
news:20020228084114...@mb-cn.aol.com...
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) writes:
>
> >Yes, but if individual gun ownership saves one innocent life, isnt it
worth
> >it??
>
> Yeah but if people start killing criminals while their crimes are in
> progress, Earl won't be able to go visit them in jail.
>
>
> ER
> --------
If wit was shit, you'd be constipated, Rayne.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 5:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <20020228084114...@mb-cn.aol.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) writes:
>Yes, but if individual gun ownership saves one innocent life, isnt it worth
>it??
Yeah but if people start killing criminals while their crimes are in
progress, Earl won't be able to go visit them in jail.
=============================
LOL.... and think of all the liberal feelings of guilt he would miss out on!
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 5:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <qHqf8.65302$Ah1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
==============================
Now, now John...dont get your pantyhose wadded up in your crotch. I think he
made a very good point.
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <20020228083714...@mb-cn.aol.com>,
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
> You read anything that isn't backed by racists?
Not by choice in book form. Just the opposite, the books I have
read on the subject of racism in recent years are :
"The Racist Mind" Raphael Ezekiel, Penquin, 1995
"Blood in the Face", James Ridgeway, Thunder Mouth Press 1990
about the Klu Klux Klan and extreme right
³The Slave Community², J. W; Blassingame, 1979, Oxford University Press,
"Search and Destroy", Jerome E. Miller, Cambridge, 1996 (about the
hyperincarceration of young Blacks.
D. M. Oshinsky, ³Worse than Slavery , Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim
Crow Justice² New York `Free Press 1996.
etc
And you, what have you read recently on the subject???
>
> Basically, all Ludwig is doing is justifiying his results by attacking Kleck.
> That argument easily works both ways.
Except the Cook and Ludwig are two people and cite others, and have written
on the subject more recently.
> In another study only 3% of those at home when a burglary occured
>>used a weapon to defend themselves or drive off the intruder. Yet
>>40% of the households have guns. The reason is clear. People don't
>>have rapid access to weapons.
> So the truth is you don't know either, and you simply pick a survey that
> agrees with you, then call names at anyone who dissents.
You gun nuts have made demigods out of Kleck and Lott. You don`t
read the other literature because as one right winger said,
"we are looking for intellectual ammunition to support our arguments"
Meaning "our minds are made up, don`t confuse us".
Basically, if you look at Kleck and Lott, Kleck is a legitimate
criminologist, Lott is a trained in economics and not in the academic
system. He was housed a few years at the Yale Law school but had not
faculty position there, and has since moved to a right wing think tank.
He is a libertarian, so has an ideological bias which shows up in his
publications.
With Kleck, the argument is over the accuracy of any gun use for protection
statistics. He does a sample of 5,000 and comes up with a very high
estimated of use, over 2 million, and the Government`s victimization
survey, using sample sizes well over 10 times more, comes up with
something around 100,000. Given the scatter in the estimates it is
probable that everybody is wrong. Cook, the co-authored of the "Gun
Violence" book along with Ludwig says as much in a ABC interview last year.
I quote: (from
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_damage.html)
"Gun control advocates say firearms are used 108,000 times a year for
self-defense.
Gun control opponents say the figure is as high as 2.5 million times a
year.
Whom do you believe?
The 108,000 figure comes from the Justice Department¹s National Crime
Victimization Survey, the nation¹s most comprehensive survey of victims. But
gun control opponents discount the number, arguing that many people who used
guns to protect themselves successfully don¹t consider themselves victims
and thus are not counted by the study.
They prefer the 2.5 million estimate from Florida State University
criminologist Gary Kleck, who surveyed 5,000 households and examined other
studies. Gun control advocates reject Kleck¹s conclusions because, they say,
his sample size was too small to be accurate.
Studying Studies
The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been
done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director
of Duke University¹s public policy institute, has examined the data behind
the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies
somewhere in between.
³Many of the basic statistics about guns are in wide disagreement with
each other depending on which source you go to,² says Cook, a member of the
apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research. ³That¹s been a real
puzzle to people who are trying to understand what¹s going on.²
With this in mind, we¹ve compiled a guide through the labyrinth of data
about guns. Click on the image above to see some of the essential ‹ and most
reliable ‹ facts about gun violence. And find out what your chances are of
dying at gunpoint.
****
Next, if you surf the Kleck cited Google pages you find, besides NRA
propaganda, some information.
Like in an interview he says---
KLECK: Well, as a percentage it's 1.33 percent of the respondents. When you
extrapolate that to the general population, it works out to be 2.4 million
defensive uses of guns of some kind -- not just handguns but any kind of a
gun -- within that previous year, which would have been roughly from Spring
of 1992 through Spring of 1993.
The 1.33% of what population is one question? He took the population
of the USA! A big statistical leap from 5000 to 270,000,000!
Next, no poll of 5,000 people is accurate to 3 significant figures. One
real question is what is the standard deviation error on this poll for a
small sampling results. Remember the kind of errors reported Presidential
polls, 50% plus or minus 2% units! If you follow year to year
fluctuations in the much larger victim survey poll you`ll find very large
fluctuation for small % units. If he had said 1% of the population plus or
minus 0.3% he could have been more statistically believable.
NEXT, from another web site
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kleck.study.html
publishes two tables from the Kleck study.
My reading of these tables sasy that in the robbery statistics
guns were used 89,009 times for self defense in a total
of 7,290,631 incidents (1.2%) and 386,083 times
in 27,956,719 incidents (1.4%). The figure precision
is absurd if gathered from a projection of the 5,000 polled.
The statistican will round off the figure of 27,956,719
to perhaps 28,000,000. Whatever, these percentages are
not really different than the figures I quoted from the
Government Crime Survey; WHAT IS DIFFERENT IS THE
NUMBER OF ESTIMATED VICTIMS. Moreover, the combined
numbers of 89,000 and 386,000 come nowhere near the
famous 2 million plus?
Whatever, the Kleck figures are subject to question and they have
been. He has a little too far to the celerity stage and needs to clean
up his statistical act. As for Lott, he is too far gone to be recoverable,
he stayed out of the academic pit bull arena and has gone hiding in
a think tank.
Earl
******
Criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck, of the University of Florida, has compiled
extensive data from polls and crime statistics. He published the following:
Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Robbery Incidents
Method of % Completed % Attacked % Injured Num Times
Self Protection Used(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Used gun 30.9 25.2 17.4 89,009
Used Knife 35.2 55.6 40.3 59,813
Used other weapon 28.9 41.5 22.0 104,700
Used physical force 50.1 75.6 50.8 1,653,880
Tried to get help
or frighten offender 63.9 73.5 48.9 1,516,141
Threatened or reasoned
with offender 53.7 48.1 30.7 955,398
Nonviolent resistance,
including evasion 50.8 54.7 34.9 1,539,895
Other measures 48.5 47.3 26.5 284,423
Any self-protection 52.1 60.8 38.2 4,603,671
No self-protection 88.5 41.5 24.7 2,686,960
Total 65.4 53.7 33.2 7,290,631
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attack, Injury and Crime Completion Rates in Assault Incidents
Method of % Attacked % Injured Estimated
Self Protection Num Times Used(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Used gun 23.2 12.1 386,083
Used Knife 46.4 29.5 123,062
Used other weapon 41.4 25.1 454,570
Used physical force 82.8 52.1 6,638,823
Tried to get help
or frighten offender 55.2 40.1 4,383,117
Threatened or reasoned
with offender 40.0 24.7 5,743,008
Nonviolent resistance,
including evasion 40.0 25.5 8,935,738
Other measures 36.1 20.7 1,451,103
Any self-protection 49.5 30.7 21,801,957
No self-protection 39.9 27.3 6,154,763
Total 47.3 29.9 27,956,719
*****
John Rennie
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <20020228080216...@mb-ci.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
> Yes, but if individual gun ownership saves one innocent life, isnt it worth
> it??
Not too brilliant! Jiggy, back to school.
One does a total accounting of theose killed and injured who are innocent.
One can not adequately estimate those innocent "not killed", so just
guess. (example: tell me how many people don`t die in auto accidents
in the USA each year?).
It is like accounting, one adds up the good with the bad and comes out with
a total net results, so many innocent saved over those killed, or the
reverse.
The book, "Gun Violence" does this kind of accounting moneywise and places
the yearly gun cost use in America at 100 billion dollars. This takes
into account the use of other weapons in murders. Guns are deadlier.
Now you can argue with that estimate but you`ll have to buy the book
and understand the accounting before rejecting that estimate. The book
is published by Cook and Ludwig, Oxford University Press, the year 2000.
We thank our British cousins for supporting the Oxford University Press
in order that the truth will be published for Americans to read.
Earl
JIGSAW1695
>Message-id: <C8sf8.65912$Ah1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Chart? What chart? I dont see no freakin' chart.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 8:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <a5lj0g$35$1...@quark.noos.net>
Earl
==============================
Yo, Earl...do yoou see that curved little thingy at the end of my sentence? Its
called a question mark. It means that I am asking a question and giving other
the opportunity to reply with an argument or with statements in support.
JIGSAW1695
From: "Earl Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 2/28/2002 8:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <a5lj0g$35$1...@quark.noos.net>
Dans l'article <20020228080216...@mb-ci.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
> Yes, but if individual gun ownership saves one innocent life, isnt it worth
> it??
Not too brilliant! Jiggy, back to school.
One does a total accounting of theose killed and injured who are innocent.
One can not adequately estimate those innocent "not killed", so just
guess. (example: tell me how many people don`t die in auto accidents
in the USA each year?).
Earl
==============================
Sure thing Earl, as soon as you tell me how many innocent victims dont die
because they were armed.
Then try telling me how many innocent people are not killed because a killer is
executed.
When your finished with those, tell me how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin? Why is the clapping sound of a one armed man louder thant the clapping
sound of someone with no arms. (hmmm.. gotta rethink this last one a bit)
Jigsaw
LMac
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:C8sf8.65912$Ah1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
I did, John. Impressive numbers. I'd like to see it broken down per capita,
too.
Mac
EndlsRayne
JR:
>If wit was shit, you'd be constipated, Rayne.
>
>
>==============================
>
Jigsaw:
>Now, now John...dont get your pantyhose wadded up in your crotch. I think he
>made a very good point.
>
I am playing a Jedi mind trick and John fell for it - notice someone
'constipated' would be full of wit.
A Planet Visitor
DOJ data shows 9,257 hand-gun homicides in 1998,
2,000 less than the site reported having occurred.
Nevertheless, it's a horrendous number, presented by
a well-respected site, although it can hardly claim to
not be biased. But I do not believe you understand what
I feel Jigsaw is implying.
There are those who support abolishing the DP because
it can save an innocent life. Regardless of any pragmatic
benefit which ANYONE might offer. They are against
the DP dogmatically (as Desmond), because it CAN
save one innocent life, REGARDLESS of other considerations.
They will not even ARGUE in pragmatic terms. However,
these same people support gun-control, but now offer
the pragmatic benefits of that control without regard
to the fact that having a weapon for self-defense can
ALSO save one innocent life. The life of the carrier of
that weapon. A refusal to argue one concept in pragmatic
terms, but a staunch refusal to argue another concept
in ANYTHING BUT pragmatic terms (no argument
acceptable in respect to an understood 'right' between
men to self-defense), strikes me as hypocrisy.
Don't take this personally, because it's not directed
toward you. You have argued in pragmatic terms in both
concepts. I speak about those who REFUSE to do
so in one case, but INSIST on ONLY doing so in the
other.
PV
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 9:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <20020228121501...@mb-cn.aol.com>
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) writes:
Jigsaw:
=============================
LOL!!!
A Planet Visitor
>
>
> Dans l'article <20020228080216...@mb-ci.aol.com>,
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
>
>
> > Yes, but if individual gun ownership saves one innocent life, isnt it worth
> > it??
>
> Not too brilliant! Jiggy, back to school.
>
saves lives, even those of murderers, irrespective of any pragmatic
BENEFITS. Then you argue FOR gun-control ONLY in terms
of pragmatic BENEFITS. What a hypocrite. What about the
'rights' which you so freely toss about as your argument of
choice? What about the 'right to life' of an INNOCENT to defend
himself, irrespective of a pragmatic downside?
Since you argue abolition of the DP, because of that same
'right to life' you believe a murderer has, irrespective of a
pragmatic downside with THAT concept; what about the
life of an innocent saved by using a handgun to defend
himself, irrespective of a pragmatic downside with THAT
concept? As I said -- What a hypocrite.
PV
A Planet Visitor
>
>
> Dans l'article <20020228083714...@mb-cn.aol.com>,
> endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
>
>
> > You read anything that isn't backed by racists?
>
> Not by choice in book form. Just the opposite, the books I have
> read on the subject of racism in recent years are :
>
racist implications.
<rest clipped>
PV
EndlsRayne
>> You read anything that isn't backed by racists?
>
>Not by choice in book form. Just the opposite, the books I have
>read on the subject of racism in recent years are :
Then you should know all about the source of the name "saturday night special"
and early resrictions on weapons. The laws we have today are continuances of
those,extended to make sure that it is hard for the poor to be legally armed as
well.,which in turn cycles people through the penal system be it on probation
or actual jail time.
this can really be summed up very simply in 1 line of the 150 k or so posted
by Earl.
"Whom do you believe?"
They all come up with different numbers.There are many reasons for this, some
good , some bad. Where we differ is that I really want to leave this up to the
individual to decide, rather than have one-size-fits-all laws passed to make
the decision.
And Earl, you might want to consider that the table you posted shows that any
resistance with a weapon is probably the best choice, with guns marginally
being the best if you look at all the numbers.
Someone using a gun has the lowest chance of being attacked, injured, and the
chance of the crime actually being completed is similar to "used other weapon"
(which is the lowest 28.9 % complete vs 30.9 % complete)
and the second one : Used Gun 23.2% attacked 12.1% injured
the estimated averages are 47.3% chance of being attacked overall, and 29.9%
of being injured.
So out of all the means of defense, a gun is probably the best,and one of
it's advantages being that it does not always have to be fired to stop an
attack. Also there are the times when the attempted crime might not be
reported, because the victim was carrying a weapon in a place where it is
illegal to own a weapon at all. (many of the cities that won't let people own
guns will not let people own pepper spray or tasers either.)
Anyway, I'll repost Earls chart ,and I suppose I'm willing to leave this at
'agreeing to disagree' unless Earl has other information that he would like to
present.
Exador
Using the OECD population figures for 1998, the figures per 100,000
population are set out below. I haven't included the UK, as the chart
provided by Jihn is for England and Wales, while the OECD only has a
total UK population figure.
US 4.361407569
NZ 0.105485232
Japan 0.015021425
Australia 0.304324613
Switzerland 0.928270042
Canada 0.499206559
Germany 0.454717234
As you can easily see, the figure for the US is 10 times that of any
other country except Switzerland, where the rate of gun ownership is
also high. Of course, it's still 5 times Switzerland's rate largely, I
suspect, because the Swiss see their guns as a tool for protecting the
State, rather than as a legitimate means of expression of individual power.
Cheers,
Craig
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:JItf8.4014$lX4.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
It would be a miracle if Jiggy understood what
he was implying.
John Rennie
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c7e54fd$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
How do you mean, Mac? Types of offences?
Exador
PV, in all seriousness, how can you make a statement such as you have in
the second sentence of your first paragraph above, and then defend
ownership of guns on the basis of "self-defence"? The truly
"self-defensive" action is to get rid of the firearms. It seems to me
that the desire for firearm ownership in the US is largely a desire for
an illusion of protection from a bogeyman created by that very act of
gun ownership. In other words, get rid of the guns and you have no need
to own guns. The relevance to the death penalty is of course that most
of those executed for murder used the guns you hold so dear to do it.
This strikes me as stupidity.
Cheers,
Craig
LMac
No, just how the numbers play out against total populations. I realize the
US will still be way on top but I think the ratios will come down a tad.
Personally I like the idea of _handgun_ control, but draw the line on long
guns. I also wonder what the comparison is between the types of weapons
(Hand vs. Long) and if that would bring the numbers per capita closer
together for the gun-toting countries (mind you, I'm not rabid about this
subject one way or another, just curious).
Mac
LMac
"Exador" <mister...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C7E7FD6...@hotmail.com...
> A Planet Visitor wrote:
{snipped for brevity}
>
> PV, in all seriousness, how can you make a statement such as you have in
> the second sentence of your first paragraph above, and then defend
> ownership of guns on the basis of "self-defence"? The truly
> "self-defensive" action is to get rid of the firearms. It seems to me
> that the desire for firearm ownership in the US is largely a desire for
> an illusion of protection from a bogeyman created by that very act of
> gun ownership. In other words, get rid of the guns and you have no need
> to own guns. The relevance to the death penalty is of course that most
> of those executed for murder used the guns you hold so dear to do it.
> This strikes me as stupidity.
Maybe, but the genie is already out of the bottle. It would be a near
impossible task to collect all the firearms in the US, even if we wanted to
do that. Personally I like the idea of us having long guns (I could see
handguns disappear without a whimper) because an armed populace is less
readily cowed by an oppressive government, or an invading force. Secondly,
hunting is a HUGE pastime here and is a legitimate reason for owning a
weapon. The reality is that the US populace is armed based on events that
occurred over 200 years ago and it hardly falls to PV to correct it (if, in
fact, it even needs correcting). Under the circumstances, I agree with both
of you. Yes the boogeyman is of our own creation, but it does not make him
any less real, and there is certainly reason to arm against him. One other
point, can you tell me how many houses are _not_ burglarized in the US
because the burglar is afraid of being shot? I think not, and I couldn't
begin to guess. I do know for a fact that it does deter some of them.
Mac
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3C7E7DF9...@hotmail.com>
LMac wrote:
=============================
Guns are part of our heritage. If we didnt have them we would have have never
thrown of the yoke of British oppression.
They are part of our mindset.
John Rennie
Well Craig they are not going to get rid of their guns. Not because of a
lot of old nonsense about an ill written 2nd Amendment some 200 years old
and meant only for that age but because there is no way they can now ban
them. As the gun nutters say only the law abiding would hand them in; the
others would be laughing. Stronger controls are the only thing that the
anti-gun lobby can fight for and even the thought of these raises fury from
the NRA and allies. Two factors make for America's huge murder rate, the
proliferation of guns and the out of proportion amount of violent deaths in
the black population. There is a much better chance of solving the latter
problem than the former.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 11:20 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <3c7e7...@newsa.ev1.net>
============================
From experience, I can tell you that handguns are used in most homicides, with
the occasional sawed-off shotgun being used. Long rifles are seldom used.
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 11:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <9avf8.67260$Ah1.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
========================
John....John...John.... Im so disappointed in you. You showed so much promise,
so much potential. Then you go and blow it.
LMac
Yes, I know. In fact, most long gun/shotgun incidents are either accidental
or suicide. That is why I was curious about the comparison.
Mac
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <20020228084114...@mb-cn.aol.com>,
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) a écrit :
>
> Yeah but if people start killing criminals while their crimes are in
> progress, Earl won't be able to go visit them in jail.
>
>
> ER
This is why I never get into arguments with gun people. They are champions
of the cheap shot.
Donna Evleth
>
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <20020228105000...@mb-fh.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
> ure thing Earl, as soon as you tell me how many innocent victims dont die
> because they were armed.
Why don't you tell us, Jiggy? I am sure you have the exact statistics on
this, and I am waiting for them with bated breath.
>
> Then try telling me how many innocent people are not killed because a killer
is
> executed.
Again, you tell us. Again, I am sure you have the exact statistics, and
that you will be most happy to provide them to us, with your source.
>
> When your finished with those, tell me how many angels can dance on the head
of
> a pin? Why is the clapping sound of a one armed man louder thant the clapping
> sound of someone with no arms. (hmmm.. gotta rethink this last one a bit)
You gotta rethink the whole thing, maybe, Jiggy.
Donna Evleth
>
>
> Jigsaw
>
LMac
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5m3cs$el2$1...@neon.noos.net...
>
>
> Dans l'article <20020228105000...@mb-fh.aol.com>,
> jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
>
>
> > ure thing Earl, as soon as you tell me how many innocent victims dont
die
> > because they were armed.
>
> Why don't you tell us, Jiggy? I am sure you have the exact statistics on
> this, and I am waiting for them with bated breath.
No one has exact stats on this, but I can prove a few cases - including some
of my own. One should be enough.
> > Then try telling me how many innocent people are not killed because a
killer
> is
> > executed.
>
> Again, you tell us. Again, I am sure you have the exact statistics, and
> that you will be most happy to provide them to us, with your source.
No reliable stats exist for this, either. The only way to even extrapolate
would be to base it on the behavior of released criminals. Based on my
personal observations of repetitive criminal behavior, I'm betting Jigsaw
would come out on top here.
Mac
EndlsRayne
> In other words, get rid of the guns and you have no need
>to own guns.
/Sarcazm:on
in other words, when a rapist breaks into a woman's house late at night, all
she really needs is a condom for protection.
/Sarcazam:off
ER
--------
"I hate (expletive) loaded guns and I will blow this building up!" - Johnny Ray
Gobin
JIGSAW1695
From: "Donna Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 2/28/2002 1:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <a5m3cs$el2$1...@neon.noos.net>
===============================
No...only the last one. I was never very good at Zenish questions.
EndlsRayne
> One other
>point, can you tell me how many houses are _not_ burglarized in the US
>because the burglar is afraid of being shot? I think not, and I couldn't
>begin to guess. I do know for a fact that it does deter some of them
First of all, this was a good post, and I'm glad someone brought this up. I
think in Europe there are many more robberies of this type that occur, because
the bad guys have little fear of retribution from the occupants.
LMac
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
> "LMac" lmck...@ev1.net writes:
>
> > One other
> >point, can you tell me how many houses are _not_ burglarized in the US
> >because the burglar is afraid of being shot? I think not, and I couldn't
> >begin to guess. I do know for a fact that it does deter some of them
>
> First of all, this was a good post, and I'm glad someone brought this up.
I
> think in Europe there are many more robberies of this type that occur,
because
> the bad guys have little fear of retribution from the occupants.
The only burglars I've dealt with that do not take this into consideration
are the crackheads who don't even remember where they were, much less
whether they were afraid. These are the ones who usually end up at the
hospital with gunshot wounds, or at the morgue in a body bag.
Mac
EndlsRayne
>No, just how the numbers play out against total populations. I realize the
>US will still be way on top but I think the ratios will come down a tad.
Population wise (I had to look this up recently) From memory I think it was
something like Aust. pop = 19 million, Canada 39 million , UK maybe 60
million. United States around 255 million.
I'd like to see the total US vs total Europe. After all , some of those places
listed are tiny islands that can (and do) control their immigration very
strictly, whereas in the USA we have streams of people coming in from Mexico,
Central America and some of the South American countries that seem to be
intermittent zones of combat.
Also you might want to consider that countries like England and Australia (and
the US) had low crime rates long before any gun ban.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Guns are part of our heritage. If we didnt have them we would have have
> never
> thrown of the yoke of British oppression.
> They are part of our mindset.
They are also, as John points out, a contributor to your frighteningly
high murder rate.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
A Planet Visitor
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:3c7e8...@newsa.ev1.net...
DOJ FBI statistics for 1998 reported 9,257 homicides as
a total from firearms. 7,430 were from handguns, 548 from
rifles, 633 from shotguns, 16 from other guns, and 630 from
firearms, not stated.
In 1999 those figures declined to 8,259 total, 6,498 from
handguns, 387 from rifles, 503 from shotguns, 90 from other
guns, and 781 from firearms, not stated.
PV
> Mac
>
>
>
>
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/28/2002 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <diablo-5BC1EE....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
In article <20020228144352...@mb-ca.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
> Guns are part of our heritage. If we didnt have them we would have have
> never
> thrown of the yoke of British oppression.
> They are part of our mindset.
They are also, as John points out, a contributor to your frighteningly
high murder rate.
===============================
There is probably a grain of truth in that statement, but please cinsider that
drugs and drug sales are the root of most violent crime in America.
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <3c7ea...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit
:
Europe has a problem with burglaries in general, the incident may even
be higher than the American rates in some countries.
The victimization surveys (US or the Leiden group in Holland) show that it
is a underreported crime, also. Minor burglaries are not reported. Our
cellar area in our appartment building in Paris has been visited several
times, since the building had an easy access. But since that access has
been block, no more burglaries. Most Parisians appartements have
various door configurations which make it difficult for the run of the mill
druggie to get into. The configurations are more complex than those dead
bolt locks used in NY city, for instance. We have sliding bars and a 5
point set of bolds which block the entry). And a dog.
The best protection is these kinds of devices. One is not worried about
entry while one is there, but when one is absent. Since
the French take long vacations, a typical appartment or home might
be vacant over 30 days a year. It is easier to burglar proof an
apparement than a home since if one is on an upper floor the only
entry point is the door. So ii protecting general entry to the building
and to the appartment one has double protection. Homes are more
difficult.
Next, burglars don`t want anybody around, they are not looking only
not to be shot (unlikely in France) but a confrontation with the occupant.
Next, with guns used so infrequently in the US for home defense, a gun
is much more likely to be stolen in a burglary than used by the home
owner. So those stolen guns add to those which might use illegally.
The best home defense is making if difficult for the burglar to gain
easy access when you are not around.
Earl
>
>
JIGSAW1695
From: "Earl Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 3/1/2002 12:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <a5nbv4$ht3$1...@neon.noos.net>
Earl
==============================
Gaston!! the dachshund?? Protector of the home and hearth?
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <20020301031251...@mb-ca.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
> Gaston!! the dachshund?? Protector of the home and hearth?
Gaston is our 3rd dachs. The first, Otto, was born in California and
guarded our home in Los Gatos, California. It was never burgled. This was
in the period from 1963-1974, although two of those years we lived in
France. Houses around us were hit, but for some reason nevers ours. We
never even used to lock it up when going out for the day. Yet many summers
we were gone since we came to France for a month or two, after spending our
first year here in 1965-66. The Los Gatos was empty and still not burgled.
Otto was a snarly dachs with a big set of teeth for strangers. Our home was
isolated, sitting on an acre of land overlooking Santa Clara Valley, so in
principle easy to break into while we were gone. We were just lucky.
Otto died here around 1979 and was replace by a wire haired dachs named
Prof. Prof would bark at people coming up the stairs, but Gaston does that
too now. Prof died arund 1992 and Gaston took his place. Gaston is by far
the most intelligent of the three.
Gaston particularly hates the vacuum cleaner the concierge uses to
clean up the stair well, the hall carpet. Whatever, we are still gone
a portio of the sumer (usually three weeks in August in the south of
France and another three weeks in Greece). However, in one way or another
the whole appartment building remains under "guard" by the concierge or her
replacement. She daily to pop into our place to water the plants and leave
the mail. So we have not suffered from an appartment burglary here, or the
USA. Our "cave" or celler in the underground area has been broken into but
nothing is there so we lost nothing. We store the wine upstairs, to be near
it! Now that the security for entering the building has improved
(interphone, special key to entering) the "visits" to the cave have ended.
As a kid in the 1940s, Donna suffered from a burglarly in the house
she lived in, some "guy" smashed down the door with an axe and stole her ---
Piggy bank. As an adult, visiting California with a French friend, both
lost their handbags to a thief who came into their motel room during the
night. Donna chased the guy but he made off in his car. She is still proud
of that moment and also the time as a teenage girl she clobbered a
potential date rapist with an uppercut (not me, although we started going
together when she was 17!).
Otherwise she has been pickpocketed several times in Paris, which is hard to
avoid. Years ago our car was broken into while parked on a Parisian street,
but this kind of crime has diminished in recent years since the major
stealable item, car radios, are now demountable. Pickpocketing is up a lot
righ now due to an influx of Yugo kids. This is essentially a repetition of
a similar crime wave about 10 years ago, which took the police about
1-2 years to fully supress. The big theft now is portable radios,
snatched from the hands of chatters. I have the temptation to steal
these sometimes myself, but stump'em to death.
Anyway, except with being threatened twice with guns in the USA in my
life, our life has been relatively crime free Even though we pass
10 or so hours a month in prison! Perhaps we have been protected
by our dachshunds, never the less.
Earl
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
The "o" that you were looking for in "consider" is usually struck with
the third finger of your right hand. ;)
Seriously, though, there are two issues concerning drugs and drug sales:
1. When a government clampdown on prohibited substance is so extreme
that it pushes market prices up to astronomical levels, the money makes
killing worthwhile for those who would. Money is, of course, the root
of most evil.
2. Ready access to firearms makes these murders altogether easier to
commit.
EndlsRayne
>There is probably a grain of truth in that statement, but please cinsider
>that
>drugs and drug sales are the root of most violent crime in America.
this is true and chances are it will never be changed , though it should be .
Prohibition movements (like moves to ban guns) only open up black markets and
make crime rates rise
JIGSAW1695
From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au
Message-id: <diablo-9C7BE1....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
===============================
Actually, the more stuff on the street, the lower the price and the greater the
competition. Its a market driven product.
Besides, dealers have been stabbed, hit with tire irons, cut with knifes,
etc.etc. toe either steal their goods or eliminate competition. The problem is
drugs, not guns.
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <3c7e9...@newsa.ev1.net>, "LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> a écrit
:
> No reliable stats exist for this, either.
If I understand it, the argument is that guns save innocent lives, which is
sometimes true but they are also used to kill innocent people. We know
the numbers for the latter but not the former, and can not.
As for why people purchase firearms, the chapter on "Firearm Abuse and
Regulation" in the recent published "Global Report on Crime and Justice"
Oxford University Press, 1999, has an inset on page 165 which deals with
that issue, internationally.
The short table gives the gun ownship percentage and the percentage obtained
for "crime prevention" purposes.
The table it devided up into regions
Europe New World Africa Asia Latin
% owned 18 37 7 4 16
CP purpose 9 22 79 35 66
New World means US + Canada. A specific poll in the US
said 57% owned for hunting, 39 for self protection.
In Switzerland, 64% said they had a gun (if they had one)
because they belong to the army. Service is obligatory for males
up to the age of 55, they are subject to periodic training.
Crime prevention was mentioned as 7% of the reason for
gun possession. Actual overall gun possession in Switzerland
is not given in this table but i have run into a 35% figure in
other statistical reports. The overall figure in Europe is
given above at around 20%, but some countries are in the
high 20% region. Finland and Switzerland seem to be the
highest.
As for burglar and gun ownship for crime prevention, the
study said there was a strong correlation between both
(correlation coefficient above 0.9). Those who owned
a gun for cp purpose also have a high expectation
for a burglarly in the next 12 months.
Parts of Africa are perceived as dangerous places and even
though gun ownship is low (7%) people who do get them
do this for self-protection. But, it is obvious that
Europeans generally don`t get guns for self-protection.
Part of this is due to and imposed restriction. But hunting
guns are quite prevalent in France. Generally there is little
perception in Europe for the need of a gun, even though, as
has been pointed out, burglary rates are as higher or higher
as in the USA. The risk of personal attacked by a person armed
with a gun is perceived, however, as low There is no hysteria
along these lines.
Finally, on page 167 of this report is a graph showing
"Total firearm deaths per 100,000 as ploted against
firearm ownship rates.
The plot shows low death rates at low firearm ownship rates.
The US rate is nearly off scale, Japan and the UK are nearly zero
in both catagories. If the US was left off the plot it would be
reasonably linear for a "social science" statistic. The US
firearm death rate (includes accidental and suicide in addition
to homicide) which is around 14/100,000 should be around
6 if it followed the other countries. That difference, 14 vs 6,
is not due to black homicide rates influencing the statistics,
something else is operative.
Earl
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <a5nuvi$d6s$1...@quark.noos.net>
===========================
My apologies. I salute Gaston for his eternal vigilance against evil doers.
LMac
Thanks for the info PV. The DOJ report is quite accurate, as UCR
requirements for law enforcement here are fairly strict. However, I can
guarantee you they are under-reported.
Mac
LMac
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5o17e$asi$1...@hadron.noos.net...
Interesting numbers Earl.
I want to caution you about something because you seem to rely heavily on
books and statistics. People write books to make money and gain recognition,
and they use statistics to further that end. Having done statistical
analysis on a number of crime related issues, I can definitively say that
skewing statistical data is one of the simplest dodges in the world. I am
not saying that your information is flawed, but I doubt an Oxford professor
has had much contact with the US criminal element, guns in general, victims,
or much of anything else - other than a full pipe and some sherry.
Mac
EndlsRayne
> As a kid in the 1940s, Donna suffered from a burglarly in the house
>she lived in, some "guy" smashed down the door with an axe and stole her ---
>Piggy bank. As an adult, visiting California with a French friend, both
>lost their handbags to a thief
I wish that's all that ever happened to me, when I was 15, one night I got
chased by a stalker and when I got to my house , I chased him off with a
katana.
And about 5 or so years ago, there was a small riot across the street. Riot
, or perhaps lynching but all the people involved were the same race. Basically
a fight where there was 20 or more vs 2 people. If the police had taken 2 or 3
more minutes showing up it is a good chance the 2 guys that were getting
attacked would be dead. I had cut a tree down earlier that day and stacked some
of the wood at the curb so it could be hauled off. Some of the large ones
,about the size of a computer monitor had been taken across the street and were
lying in the yard. I think the police literally showed up in the nick of
time,and the guys who were attacked were carried off to the hospital.
EndlsRayne
>1. When a government clampdown on prohibited substance is so extreme
>that it pushes market prices up to astronomical levels, the money makes
>killing worthwhile for those who would. Money is, of course, the root
>of most evil.
>2. Ready access to firearms makes these murders altogether easier to
>commit.
>1. When a government clampdown on **FIREARMS** are so extreme
>that it pushes market prices up to astronomical levels, the money makes
>killing worthwhile for those who would. Money is, of course, the root
>of most evil.
so what happens is the criminals still have guns, and those gun defenses drop
off the chart and perhaps become completed crimes.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
endls...@aol.combustion (EndlsRayne) wrote:
Gun nut. This has been show, quite simply, to be untrue wherever strict
firearm controls have been implemented. 1996 was when controls were
imposed on firearms here and there has not been a single mass shooting
since.
EndlsRayne
>Gun nut.
Hoplophobe.
> This has been show, quite simply, to be untrue wherever strict
>firearm controls have been implemented. 1996 was when controls were
>imposed on firearms here and there has not been a single mass shooting
>since.
You might want to consider that you are attacking your own logic and
conclusions from a previous post.
Donna Evleth
> Gaston!! the dachshund?? Protector of the home and hearth?
Don't laugh, Jiggy. We have always had dachshunds. And when we lived in
California, in a suburban house, in a nice area which, because it was a nice
area, was plagued by burglary, we always left the dachshund we had then -
his name was Otto - shut up in the house when we went out. Otto was a small
dog, but had a big bark. Dachshunds do. We were never burgled. Three of
our four closest neighbors were burgled. Either they had no dogs, or they
left the dogs outside in the yard where they were no use at all. One of
these neighbors was burgled twice.
Donna Evleth
JIGSAW1695
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au writes:
>Gun nut.
Hoplophobe.
> This has been show, quite simply, to be untrue wherever strict
>firearm controls have been implemented. 1996 was when controls were
>imposed on firearms here and there has not been a single mass shooting
>since.
==============================
Whew! < wiping his forhead> what a relief. Only singular homicides!
A Planet Visitor
"EndlsRayne" <endls...@aol.combustion> wrote in message
> Exador mister...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > In other words, get rid of the guns and you have no need
> >to own guns.
>
> /Sarcazm:on
>
> in other words, when a rapist breaks into a woman's house late at night, all
> she really needs is a condom for protection.
>
> /Sarcazam:off
>
No... all she needs is her trusty copy of the "Brady Bill." You
can't imagine how many rapists have been frightened off at
the sight of that. Holding it up at arm's length toward the
potential rapist is comparable to the crucifix and a vampire.
PV
A Planet Visitor
we wish to know???
PV
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a5nuvi$d6s$1...@quark.noos.net...
A Planet Visitor
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:3c7f9625$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
use of handguns is probably VASTLY underreported. Especially
in those districts where carrying or having such weapons is
a criminal act itself.
PV
> Mac
>
>
>
>
>
LMac
Agreed. That has been my experience as well. There is also the deterrent
effect of criminals 'believing the victim _might_ have a gun', in states
that have a concealed carry permit laws (unquantifiable via statistics
maybe, but I believe it exists).
Mac