| |
Main
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:08:37
From: The_Professor
Subject: Do guns protect you?
|
If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 06:16:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 24, 11:10 pm, BAR <scre...@you.com > wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 10:01 pm, Head Shot <HeadS...@pinkmist.gov> wrote:
> >> On 23 Apr 2007 01:41:19 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>
> >>> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
> >> Yes. It has been proven to be true. Google Kennesaw, Georgia. They
> >> require all homeowners in that city to own a firearm. The drop in
> >> crime was drastic.
>
> >> "An armed society is a polite society."
>
> > A polite society because people are scared of getting shot if they're
> > impolite? No, thanks.
>
> Are you afraid to go into certain neighborhoods after dark?
Yes I am. So I don't go there. What are you suggesting - that I go
into dangerous neighborhoods after dark while strapped? What would be
the point of that?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:12:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 26 Apr 2007 06:16:47 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Are you afraid to go into certain neighborhoods after dark?
>
>Yes I am. So I don't go there. What are you suggesting - that I go
>into dangerous neighborhoods after dark while strapped? What would be
>the point of that?
See Charles Bronson and Death Wish.
|
| |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 18:20:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 24, 1:44 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2007 10:19:41 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 22, 10:30 am, High_Colo...@webtv.net (Miss Anne Thrope) wrote:
> >> In the time I've spent on this planet, there are 2 incidences where I
> >> wished I had a gun.
>
> >> 1.) In 1999, when my college educated son said, "I think George Bush Jr.
> >> can really turn things around for America."
>
> >He turned out to be right, though, didn't he?
>
> Define turning things around.
I meant it in the opposite way from Anne's college-educated son.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 00:32:29
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:05:48 -0500, the Moderator wrote:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:km8t23pnikobgjhiefr97ftbdne9nr25lt@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:00:39 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>>
>> >History will show that the ONLY reason we have not been hit several
>> >more times with 9/11 style attacks and much worse-- is GW Bush
>> >sacrificing his popularity to protect your butt.
>>
>> How will it do that?
>>
>> Has history ever shown anything similar in the past?
>
> Ronald Reagan's leadership as a factor in winning the Cold War. Soviet
> leaders have commented that this was a decided factor.
Right place at the right time. Long enough for the doomed invasion of
Afghanistan to bleed the country dry. Kind of like we're doing in Iraq
right now.
Good thing the Soviets didn't invade earlier. The mere thought of
crediting Carter with winning the cold war would have made your head
explode.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 18:04:28
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:44:06 +0000, Bobby Knight wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2007 10:19:41 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Apr 22, 10:30 am, High_Colo...@webtv.net (Miss Anne Thrope) wrote:
>>
>>> In the time I've spent on this planet, there are 2 incidences where I
>>> wished I had a gun.
>>>
>>> 1.) In 1999, when my college educated son said, "I think George Bush
>>> Jr. can really turn things around for America."
>>
>>He turned out to be right, though, didn't he?
>>
> Define turning things around.
Top of the world to the dumpster, all in six short years. That's turning
things around by any standard.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 18:11:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 24 Apr 2007 18:04:28 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com >
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:44:06 +0000, Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2007 10:19:41 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Apr 22, 10:30 am, High_Colo...@webtv.net (Miss Anne Thrope) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the time I've spent on this planet, there are 2 incidences where I
>>>> wished I had a gun.
>>>>
>>>> 1.) In 1999, when my college educated son said, "I think George Bush
>>>> Jr. can really turn things around for America."
>>>
>>>He turned out to be right, though, didn't he?
>>>
>> Define turning things around.
>
>Top of the world to the dumpster, all in six short years. That's turning
>things around by any standard.
Just wanted it to be clear. It took less than six years though. What
happened to "Mission Accomplished"?
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 10:19:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 22, 10:30 am, High_Colo...@webtv.net (Miss Anne Thrope) wrote:
> In the time I've spent on this planet, there are 2 incidences where I
> wished I had a gun.
>
> 1.) In 1999, when my college educated son said, "I think George Bush Jr.
> can really turn things around for America."
He turned out to be right, though, didn't he?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 11:00:39
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 24 Apr 2007 10:19:41 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Apr 22, 10:30 am, High_Colo...@webtv.net (Miss Anne Thrope) wrote:
>> In the time I've spent on this planet, there are 2 incidences where I
>> wished I had a gun.
>>
>> 1.) In 1999, when my college educated son said, "I think George Bush Jr.
>> can really turn things around for America."
>
>He turned out to be right, though, didn't he?
History will show that the ONLY reason we have not been hit several
more times with 9/11 style attacks and much worse-- is GW Bush
sacrificing his popularity to protect your butt.
He could have done what Clinton did, just enjoy riding around on AF
One-- smoozing with heads of state, etc. while ignoring Ben Ladin and
the dozen attacks on America that went unanswered-- and which ignoring
embolded Al Queda to do 9/11.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 00:38:38
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:00:39 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>History will show that the ONLY reason we have not been hit several
>more times with 9/11 style attacks and much worse-- is GW Bush
>sacrificing his popularity to protect your butt.
How will it do that?
Has history ever shown anything similar in the past?
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 23:32:04
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:00:39 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
>> History will show that the ONLY reason we have not been hit several
>> more times with 9/11 style attacks and much worse-- is GW Bush
>> sacrificing his popularity to protect your butt.
>
> How will it do that?
>
> Has history ever shown anything similar in the past?
We could start with Abe Lincoln. Leadership sometimes means hard and
unpopular decisions and has hurt the careers of many. Some examples
might be Sherman during the civil war, General George Patton or his
German counterpart Erwin Rommel during WWII.
Certainly Washington and the other revolutionists were not generally
popular with great majority of the population at the outset. History
will be the arbiter, today we are too close and the final outcome has
not been recorded yet.
Joe
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:01:44
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:32:04 -0400, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org >
wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:00:39 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> History will show that the ONLY reason we have not been hit several
>>> more times with 9/11 style attacks and much worse-- is GW Bush
>>> sacrificing his popularity to protect your butt.
>>
>> How will it do that?
>>
>> Has history ever shown anything similar in the past?
>
>
>We could start with Abe Lincoln. Leadership sometimes means hard and
>unpopular decisions and has hurt the careers of many. Some examples
>might be Sherman during the civil war, General George Patton or his
>German counterpart Erwin Rommel during WWII.
>
>Certainly Washington and the other revolutionists were not generally
>popular with great majority of the population at the outset. History
>will be the arbiter, today we are too close and the final outcome has
>not been recorded yet.
>
>Joe
Yep, and Clinton did the opposite. Instead of making the decision to
take out Ben Ladin, he equivocated-- vascillated until the target was
gone. He hoped history would not learn what he did (Hence Sandy
Burglar's theft of National Archives documents). But history will
accurately credit Bush for courage in the face of certain
unpopularity-- and Clinton's cowardice-- the Cowardice that Ben Ladin
wrote was his primary motivation to do the 9/11 attack.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 10:05:48
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:km8t23pnikobgjhiefr97ftbdne9nr25lt@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:00:39 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >History will show that the ONLY reason we have not been hit several
> >more times with 9/11 style attacks and much worse-- is GW Bush
> >sacrificing his popularity to protect your butt.
>
> How will it do that?
>
> Has history ever shown anything similar in the past?
Ronald Reagan's leadership as a factor in winning the Cold War. Soviet
leaders have commented that this was a decided factor.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 03:00:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:05:48 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>> >History will show that the ONLY reason we have not been hit several
>> >more times with 9/11 style attacks and much worse-- is GW Bush
>> >sacrificing his popularity to protect your butt.
>>
>> How will it do that?
>>
>> Has history ever shown anything similar in the past?
>
>Ronald Reagan's leadership as a factor in winning the Cold War. Soviet
>leaders have commented that this was a decided factor.
History has shown that Reagan sacrificed his popularity to protect our
butts by doing this?
Funny thing, I remember him being extremely popular.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:10:41
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:00:46 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>Funny thing, I remember him being extremely popular.
He is now but during his Presidency his approval rating fell to 42% at
one point.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_reagan010806.html
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 17:44:06
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 24 Apr 2007 10:19:41 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Apr 22, 10:30 am, High_Colo...@webtv.net (Miss Anne Thrope) wrote:
>> In the time I've spent on this planet, there are 2 incidences where I
>> wished I had a gun.
>>
>> 1.) In 1999, when my college educated son said, "I think George Bush Jr.
>> can really turn things around for America."
>
>He turned out to be right, though, didn't he?
>
>
Define turning things around.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:53:42
From:
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
> FWIW, gun control would have had no effect on the VA Tech incident. If
> he couldn't have used guns he would have used something else. The
> senseless slaughter in the inner cities because every 16 year old kid
> who wants to show the world what a man he is can get a handgun for 50
> bucks.-
You obviously haven't bought a hand gun lately. I will buy all the $50
hand guns you can get. A cheap piece is $300-400. The more illegal,
the more the price.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 08:52:40
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 23, 10:01 pm, Head Shot <HeadS...@pinkmist.gov > wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 01:41:19 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>
> >Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>
> Yes. It has been proven to be true. Google Kennesaw, Georgia. They
> require all homeowners in that city to own a firearm. The drop in
> crime was drastic.
>
> "An armed society is a polite society."
A polite society because people are scared of getting shot if they're
impolite? No, thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 23:10:44
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
John B. wrote:
> On Apr 23, 10:01 pm, Head Shot <HeadS...@pinkmist.gov> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 01:41:19 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>>
>>> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>> Yes. It has been proven to be true. Google Kennesaw, Georgia. They
>> require all homeowners in that city to own a firearm. The drop in
>> crime was drastic.
>>
>> "An armed society is a polite society."
>
> A polite society because people are scared of getting shot if they're
> impolite? No, thanks.
>
Are you afraid to go into certain neighborhoods after dark?
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 17:12:46
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:10:44 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:
>Are you afraid to go into certain neighborhoods after dark?
Nope. But I am well armed. Anti CCW folks ought to be afraid of bad
neighborhoods though.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:46:34
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 24 Apr 2007 08:52:40 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Apr 23, 10:01 pm, Head Shot <HeadS...@pinkmist.gov> wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2007 01:41:19 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>>
>> >Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>>
>> Yes. It has been proven to be true. Google Kennesaw, Georgia. They
>> require all homeowners in that city to own a firearm. The drop in
>> crime was drastic.
>>
>> "An armed society is a polite society."
>
>A polite society because people are scared of getting shot if they're
>impolite? No, thanks.
Polite is a good thing; irrespective of why. And frankly, if all
law abiding Americans were CCW and carried; crime would drop to
nothing.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 00:54:19
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:21:05 -0700, larry wrote:
> D.C. has LARGE areas in which it is MORE dangerous than Baghdad to be
> white and walking around at night. Whites would have NO CHANCE of not
> being attacked, certainly robbed, possibly killed, and raped if you were
> a woman. Duh. The cops don't even go into those areas unless in
> groups and carrying assault rifles--and wearing body armor. What is the
> difference between that and Baghdad? The difference is that Baghdad may
> be safe someday....
You're a joke.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 17:42:45
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 23, 3:35 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "Robert Hamilton" <D...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:462D0128.68E0FC43@att.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > MnMikew wrote:
>
> >> "Robert Hamilton" <D...@att.net> wrote in message
> >>news:462B6B35.8782D276@att.net...
>
> >> > BAR wrote:
>
> >> >> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> >> >> > Steve wrote:
>
> >> >> >> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own
> >> >> >>> guns,
> >> >> >>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have
> >> >> >>> any
> >> >> >>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> >> >> >>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any
> >> >> >>> event,
> >> >> >>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> >> >> >>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there
> >> >> >>> is
> >> >> >>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> >> >> >>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun
> >> >> >>> does
> >> >> >>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> >> >> >> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe
> >> >> >> gun
> >> >> >> laws in
> >> >> >> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased
> >> >> >> prior to
> >> >> >> 1976.
> >> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
> >> >> >> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the
> >> >> >> District of
> >> >> >> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents
> >> >> >> from
> >> >> >> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity
> >> >> >> semi-automatic
> >> >> >> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered
> >> >> >> firearms.
> >> >> >> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns
> >> >> >> registered
> >> >> >> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
> >> >> >> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar
> >> >> >> device."[
>
> >> >> >> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the
> >> >> >> strictest
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of
> >> >> >> constitutionality.
> >> >> >> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on
> >> >> >> personal
> >> >> >> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
> >> >> >> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
> >> >> >> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put
> >> >> >> fundamental
> >> >> >> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was
> >> >> >> overturned
> >> >> >> by a
> >> >> >> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
> >> >> >> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> case,
> >> >> >> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>
> >> >> >> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and
> >> >> >> murder?
> >> >> >> Wait
> >> >> >> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
> >> >> >>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>
> >> >> >> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents
> >> >> >> almost
> >> >> >> double
> >> >> >> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had
> >> >> >> 753,
> >> >> >> Florida
> >> >> >> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times
> >> >> >> 2nd
> >> >> >> place,
> >> >> >> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>
> >> >> > When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some
> >> >> > long
> >> >> > diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns
> >> >> > more
> >> >> > likely to
> >> >> > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question!
> >> >> > Funny no
> >> >> > one has bothered to collect the data.
>
> >> >> Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
> >> >> cars and reduce crime.
>
> >> > Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people
> >> > who
> >> > own cars
> >> > more likely to be killed by a car?
>
> >> Talk about silly. Cars kill far more people than guns.
>
> > Exactly, so what do you need a gun for?
>
> Protection, target shooting, hunting just to name a few.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Given that the protection issue is pretty much meaningless. You are in
fact far more likely to be killed drving your car, for example. No
point to the risk associated with owning a gun for such a small
threat. I have no problem with target shooting and hunting. Of course
there is no use for a semi auto Glock for those purposes. My main
problem with guns is the strong desire by the gun lobby to have laarge
numbers of cheap guns available to criminals. IMHO it would be easy to
make it tough for criminals to buy guns, but that would cut big time
into overall gun sales. So we don't see it.
FWIW, gun control would have had no effect on the VA Tech incident. If
he couldn't have used guns he would have used something else. The
senseless slaughter in the inner cities because every 16 year old kid
who wants to show the world what a man he is can get a handgun for 50
bucks.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 13:52:15
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1177375365.395488.75280@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I have no problem with target shooting and hunting. Of course
> there is no use for a semi auto Glock for those purposes.
Somebody better tell Team Glock that they are out of the IPSC competition.
My main
> problem with guns is the strong desire by the gun lobby to have laarge
> numbers of cheap guns available to criminals.
False.
IMHO it would be easy to
> make it tough for criminals to buy guns, but that would cut big time
> into overall gun sales. So we don't see it.
>
> FWIW, gun control would have had no effect on the VA Tech incident. If
> he couldn't have used guns he would have used something else. The
> senseless slaughter in the inner cities because every 16 year old kid
> who wants to show the world what a man he is can get a handgun for 50
> bucks.
>
Your lack of knowledge of firearms is astounding.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 09:02:00
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1177375365.395488.75280@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Given that the protection issue is pretty much meaningless. You are in
> fact far more likely to be killed drving your car, for example. No
> point to the risk associated with owning a gun for such a small
> threat. I have no problem with target shooting and hunting. Of course
> there is no use for a semi auto Glock for those purposes. My main
> problem with guns is the strong desire by the gun lobby to have laarge
> numbers of cheap guns available to criminals. IMHO it would be easy to
> make it tough for criminals to buy guns, but that would cut big time
> into overall gun sales. So we don't see it.
>
> FWIW, gun control would have had no effect on the VA Tech incident. If
> he couldn't have used guns he would have used something else. The
> senseless slaughter in the inner cities because every 16 year old kid
> who wants to show the world what a man he is can get a handgun for 50
> bucks.
The gun lobby does not want any criminal to have a gun.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 00:40:16
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:27:51 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> In the US, where there has been no legal restrictions on gun ownership
> in the pat 25 years, the homicide rate is down to almost half of what it
> was over that period.
I won't comment on the rest because Robert answered it so well. However
there could be many reasons for the drop in the homicide rate. For
example:
Statisically the population is getting older. Violent crimes tend to be
committed by the young and disenfranchised. 50 and 60 year olds, not so
much.
Another interesting argument from Freakonomics: after Roe v Wade abortions
were more accessible to the poor. If there aren't as many young and
disenfranchised to start with then the violent crime rate is going to
drop.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 21:55:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 24 Apr 2007 00:40:16 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com >
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:27:51 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> In the US, where there has been no legal restrictions on gun ownership
>> in the pat 25 years, the homicide rate is down to almost half of what it
>> was over that period.
>
>I won't comment on the rest because Robert answered it so well. However
>there could be many reasons for the drop in the homicide rate. For
>example:
>
>Statisically the population is getting older. Violent crimes tend to be
>committed by the young and disenfranchised. 50 and 60 year olds, not so
>much.
>
>Another interesting argument from Freakonomics: after Roe v Wade abortions
>were more accessible to the poor. If there aren't as many young and
>disenfranchised to start with then the violent crime rate is going to
>drop.
These are all possibilities and you could include a few more like
welfare reform.
However, homicide rate has been cut almost in half without restricting
guns. If guns were such a major factor you wouldn't be able to do
that.
The big issue that stands out is that blacks have a 7 to 8 times
higher homicide rate than whites. Solve this problem and the homicide
rate will be cut in half again.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 21:39:11
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:27:51 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> In the US, where there has been no legal restrictions on gun ownership
>> in the pat 25 years, the homicide rate is down to almost half of what it
>> was over that period.
>
> I won't comment on the rest because Robert answered it so well. However
> there could be many reasons for the drop in the homicide rate. For
> example:
>
> Statisically the population is getting older. Violent crimes tend to be
> committed by the young and disenfranchised. 50 and 60 year olds, not so
> much.
>
> Another interesting argument from Freakonomics: after Roe v Wade abortions
> were more accessible to the poor. If there aren't as many young and
> disenfranchised to start with then the violent crime rate is going to
> drop.
Boy are you going to catch some sh*t for that last statement. Even
though it is true it certainly isn't PC.
:)
Joe
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:34:00
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 23, 1:21 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2007 21:31:15 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 21, 12:58 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >> > John B. wrote:
> >> > > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> >> > >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> >> > >>>> DC!!!!
> >> > >>>> Larry
> >> > >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> >> > >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> >> > >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> >> > >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> >> > >>> To say that
> >> > >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
> >> > >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> >> > >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> >> > >> said the opposite.
>
> >> > > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> >> > > crime." That is still outrageously false.
>
> >> > Do you have any proof?
>
> >> You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
> >> the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>
> >Well, he said violent crimes... not just murder...
> >In another post, someone lists DC as having 7716 violent crimes for
> >2005... that's almost 650 per day?
>
> D.C. has LARGE areas in which it is MORE dangerous than Baghdad to be
> white and walking around at night. Whites would have NO CHANCE of
> not being attacked, certainly robbed, possibly killed, and raped if
> you were a woman. Duh. The cops don't even go into those areas
> unless in groups and carrying assault rifles--and wearing body armor.
> What is the difference between that and Baghdad? The difference is
> that Baghdad may be safe someday....
>
> Larry-
DC maybe safe someday, too. In fact it's a lot safer than it used to
be. You can rationalize it all you want, but you started this argument
by saying DC "ranks just behind Baghdad" in terms of violence and
murder. That is absolutely preposterous as anyone with a minimum of
analytical skills (this excludes you) can discern.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 08:52:58
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 23 Apr, 16:27, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 07:37:55 -0700, Simon <hancock_si...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gun homicides per 100,000 of population
>
> >US 4.08
> >Canada 0.54
> >Switzerland 0.54
> >UK 0.12
> >Japan 0.04
>
> >These are figures from about 2002. There are about 60 million people
> >in the UK, so the original figure is in the right ballpark. I guess
> >Canada and Switzerland are in there as they both have high levels of
> >gun ownership
>
> This is irrelevant. The issue is overall homicide rate and there is
> no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Fact is, the
> per capita homicide rate is higher in the UK than in Switzerland.
>
> In Britain, after that unfortunate mass killing of school children in
> Scotland, the government passed more restrictions on gun ownership,
> but it has not reduced homicide rates.
>
> In the US, where there has been no legal restrictions on gun ownership
> in the pat 25 years, the homicide rate is down to almost half of what
> it was over that period.
>
> There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Why
> is that so difficult to understand?
>
> The problem is that people think that because there are liberal gun
> laws in the US and the US has a high homicide rate that the two must
> be connected and that is simply not the case.
The percentage of people who obtain weapons with a criminal intent is
probably similar in both countries. IMO what liberal gun ownership
adds to the mix is the chance that incidents such as neighbourly or
domestic disputes, drunken fights or lesser crimes like burglary can
escalate into fatal shootings. An argument that seems to be forward by
some people here is that, if everyone was armed, there would be less
crime in total. Against, you'd have to accept that any incident that
does occur is likely to end up with someone getting shot.
The restrictions after Dunblane were an overreaction. I don't believe
we had any real problem with crimes committed by people with legally
held guns.
Switzerland is a bit of a red herring in this. Once they have served
their national service, people are given rifles to keep at home in
case they are needed as a sort of National Guard force.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 07:37:55
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 23 Apr, 14:08, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:
> Simon wrote:
> > On 23 Apr, 02:41, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
> >>> On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
> >>> And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
> >>> harm?
> >> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>
> > I read in my newspaper this morning that the number of gun related
> > deaths in the US was over 30,000 last year compared to less than 60 in
> > the UK. Is that US figure correct? It sounds ridiculously high
>
> I don't have the 2005 or 2006 numbers handy but:
>
> 2001, the number was 29,573 57% (16,869) were suicide and 39% were
> homicides (11,671) plus some misc, unclassified unintentional etc.
>
> (Bureau of Justice Statistics) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
>
> So, yes, that number is probably pretty good. However I doubt the UK
> number.
>
> Joe
Just did a quick google and found a site that gave the following
stats:
Gun homicides per 100,000 of population
US 4.08
Canada 0.54
Switzerland 0.54
UK 0.12
Japan 0.04
These are figures from about 2002. There are about 60 million people
in the UK, so the original figure is in the right ballpark. I guess
Canada and Switzerland are in there as they both have high levels of
gun ownership
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:27:51
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 23 Apr 2007 07:37:55 -0700, Simon <hancock_simon@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>Gun homicides per 100,000 of population
>
>US 4.08
>Canada 0.54
>Switzerland 0.54
>UK 0.12
>Japan 0.04
>
>These are figures from about 2002. There are about 60 million people
>in the UK, so the original figure is in the right ballpark. I guess
>Canada and Switzerland are in there as they both have high levels of
>gun ownership
This is irrelevant. The issue is overall homicide rate and there is
no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Fact is, the
per capita homicide rate is higher in the UK than in Switzerland.
In Britain, after that unfortunate mass killing of school children in
Scotland, the government passed more restrictions on gun ownership,
but it has not reduced homicide rates.
In the US, where there has been no legal restrictions on gun ownership
in the pat 25 years, the homicide rate is down to almost half of what
it was over that period.
There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Why
is that so difficult to understand?
The problem is that people think that because there are liberal gun
laws in the US and the US has a high homicide rate that the two must
be connected and that is simply not the case.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:52:49
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>
> There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate. Why
> is that so difficult to understand?
>
If you say it enough it will make it so, or you feel you *HAVE* to be
right? The only data out there that I could find say it is so, althrough
rather weakly. There are no data; none, to support the view it isn't so.
There is lots of blather though on both sides of the issue.
There is a simple fact underlying this though. If you don't have a gun you
cannot shoot someone to death with a gun. A basic correlation *HAS* to be
there, and this cold hard fact cannot be denied.
Finally, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that owning a gun
protects you from gun violence. So why own a gun? Because it's fun? Some
fun.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:06:12
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Simon wrote:
> On 23 Apr, 14:08, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>> Simon wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr, 02:41, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
>>>>> On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
>>>>> And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
>>>>> harm?
>>>> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>>> I read in my newspaper this morning that the number of gun related
>>> deaths in the US was over 30,000 last year compared to less than 60 in
>>> the UK. Is that US figure correct? It sounds ridiculously high
>> I don't have the 2005 or 2006 numbers handy but:
>>
>> 2001, the number was 29,573 57% (16,869) were suicide and 39% were
>> homicides (11,671) plus some misc, unclassified unintentional etc.
>>
>> (Bureau of Justice Statistics) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
>>
>> So, yes, that number is probably pretty good. However I doubt the UK
>> number.
>>
>> Joe
>
> Just did a quick google and found a site that gave the following
> stats:
>
> Gun homicides per 100,000 of population
>
> US 4.08
> Canada 0.54
> Switzerland 0.54
> UK 0.12
> Japan 0.04
>
> These are figures from about 2002. There are about 60 million people
> in the UK, so the original figure is in the right ballpark. I guess
> Canada and Switzerland are in there as they both have high levels of
> gun ownership
>
Your original question was gun related deaths and the 30K is correct in
the US. The UK number cited above seems wrong in terms of gun related
death. Also note that the US and UK record homicide differently. The
UK only uses convictions for homicide, plea bargains, lesser charges etc
are not counted in that number. Nevertheless, both numbers are ballpark
correct. We certainly are a blood thirsty culture.
In the UK it should also be noted, that some of the slack in homicide is
taken up by edged weapons and blunt force weapons. Just making the
point that where there is a will, there is a way. Its not the arrow,
its the Indian. (OGC)
How does NZ and Australia look. I am just curious, because I truly
believe that this a cultural / sociological discussion, not a tool question.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 14:25:49
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:08:03 -0400, Joe wrote:
> Simon wrote:
>> I read in my newspaper this morning that the number of gun related
>> deaths in the US was over 30,000 last year compared to less than 60 in
>> the UK. Is that US figure correct? It sounds ridiculously high
>>
> I don't have the 2005 or 2006 numbers handy but:
>
> 2001, the number was 29,573 57% (16,869) were suicide and 39% were
> homicides (11,671) plus some misc, unclassified unintentional etc.
>
> (Bureau of Justice Statistics) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
>
> So, yes, that number is probably pretty good. However I doubt the UK
> number.
I took a psychology course in college which examined the rates of violence
and incarceration in various countries. At least back then (15-ish years
ago), the murder rate in the UK was many times lower than in the US. It
was also much lower in Japan, Canada, and nearly every other first world
country. The same was true of the incarceration rate.
If you've never been to another country or seen another culture up close,
I think there is a natural tendency to believe your own nation is the best
of all possible worlds. Obviously, this is not the case.
I think it would be a good thing if people had the time and resources to
travel more, to see other cultures. Americans could see the benefits of
other countries; foreigners could see the many great things about America.
Just a thought anyway.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:41:35
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:08:03 -0400, Joe wrote:
>> Simon wrote:
>
>>> I read in my newspaper this morning that the number of gun related
>>> deaths in the US was over 30,000 last year compared to less than 60 in
>>> the UK. Is that US figure correct? It sounds ridiculously high
>>>
>> I don't have the 2005 or 2006 numbers handy but:
>>
>> 2001, the number was 29,573 57% (16,869) were suicide and 39% were
>> homicides (11,671) plus some misc, unclassified unintentional etc.
>>
>> (Bureau of Justice Statistics) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
>>
>> So, yes, that number is probably pretty good. However I doubt the UK
>> number.
>
> I took a psychology course in college which examined the rates of violence
> and incarceration in various countries. At least back then (15-ish years
> ago), the murder rate in the UK was many times lower than in the US. It
> was also much lower in Japan, Canada, and nearly every other first world
> country. The same was true of the incarceration rate.
Nothing much has changed, the numbers move around a little bit, due to
demographic shifts but stay relatively the same.
> If you've never been to another country or seen another culture up close,
> I think there is a natural tendency to believe your own nation is the best
> of all possible worlds. Obviously, this is not the case.
I tend to agree with you about personal perception and your roots. I
have traveled a bit over the years and I have yet to visit a place I
would want to live more than here in the US. Admittedly, my travel has
been to Europe (England, France, Spain and Greece), north Africa (Turkey
and Libya), the Caribbean and Mexico (Both coasts, up and down). I
would like to see the Anzus nations because I suspect that they may come
closest to the mix that I personally would want.
> I think it would be a good thing if people had the time and resources to
> travel more, to see other cultures. Americans could see the benefits of
> other countries; foreigners could see the many great things about America.
Agreed.
>
> Just a thought anyway.
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 05:36:36
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 23 Apr, 02:41, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
> > On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
>
> > And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
> > harm?
>
> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
I read in my newspaper this morning that the number of gun related
deaths in the US was over 30,000 last year compared to less than 60 in
the UK. Is that US figure correct? It sounds ridiculously high
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:08:03
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Simon wrote:
> On 23 Apr, 02:41, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
>>> On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
>>> And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
>>> harm?
>> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>
> I read in my newspaper this morning that the number of gun related
> deaths in the US was over 30,000 last year compared to less than 60 in
> the UK. Is that US figure correct? It sounds ridiculously high
>
I don't have the 2005 or 2006 numbers handy but:
2001, the number was 29,573 57% (16,869) were suicide and 39% were
homicides (11,671) plus some misc, unclassified unintentional etc.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
So, yes, that number is probably pretty good. However I doubt the UK
number.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 01:41:19
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
> On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
>
> And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
> harm?
Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 22:01:53
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 23 Apr 2007 01:41:19 GMT, Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com >
>Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
Yes. It has been proven to be true. Google Kennesaw, Georgia. They
require all homeowners in that city to own a firearm. The drop in
crime was drastic.
"An armed society is a polite society."
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 12:00:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:01:53 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@pinkmist.gov >
wrote:
>
>"An armed society is a polite society."
That's what Heinlein said. But check out the armed U.S. ghetto gangs
and see whether their society is polite.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 21:45:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:00:08 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:01:53 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@pinkmist.gov>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"An armed society is a polite society."
>
>That's what Heinlein said. But check out the armed U.S. ghetto gangs
>and see whether their society is polite.
The gangs would be if the people they wanted to prey upon were as
armed as the gangs were. As it turns out, most societies have a
minimal group of armed citizens. What percentage of our non-criminal
society are CCW?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 02:48:41
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:30 -0400, Head Shot <HeadShot@pinkmist.gov >
wrote:
>>>"An armed society is a polite society."
>>
>>That's what Heinlein said. But check out the armed U.S. ghetto gangs
>>and see whether their society is polite.
>
>
>The gangs would be if the people they wanted to prey upon were as
>armed as the gangs were. As it turns out, most societies have a
>minimal group of armed citizens. What percentage of our non-criminal
>society are CCW?
The people they shoot are mostly themselves. Occasionally they will
fire into a limo the way they did with Denver Broncos this new year's.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Apr 2007 17:11:42
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:48:41 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>The people they shoot are mostly themselves.
I prefer if gangstas *only* shot each other. Well, and stayed away
from the rest of society.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 21:57:32
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:462c0ebf$0$9890$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
Yes. I am assuming "had guns" means that they can carry
them--concealed--with all the responsibilities that come with that
privilege.
Responsibilities and privilege entail proper screening, initial training,
and recurrent training.
I seperate it from basic rights. You need to prove that you can fulfill the
responsibilites in order to deserve the privilege.
It's called a license.
Otto
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 21:48:15
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
>> On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
>> And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
>> harm?
>
>
> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
Yes.
Would you break into a house where the occupants may have a pistol and
would use it?
Would you car-jack someone who may have a pistol and would use it?
Would you mug someone on the street who may have a pistol and would use it?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:19:41
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"BAR" <screwed@you.com > wrote in message
news:j_GdnS0GLvnCjbHbnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Carbon wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
>>> On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
>>> And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
>>> harm?
>>
>>
>> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>
> Yes.
>
> Would you break into a house where the occupants may have a pistol and
> would use it?
People can have guns now. Are you going to mandate that people have guns in
their homes?
> Would you car-jack someone who may have a pistol and would use it?
No
> Would you mug someone on the street who may have a pistol and would use
> it?
Yes, it would be an easy way to get another gun. Muggers aren't at the same
risk as car jackers, imo.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:30:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:48:15 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:
>Carbon wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16 +0000, bill-o wrote:
>>> On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At worst, they are good for nothing more than killing people.
>>> And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else
>>> harm?
>>
>>
>> Do you believe the violent crime rate would go down if everyone had guns?
>
>Yes.
>
>Would you break into a house where the occupants may have a pistol and
>would use it?
>
>Would you car-jack someone who may have a pistol and would use it?
>
>Would you mug someone on the street who may have a pistol and would use it?
The news this weekend had a story about an 80+ year old lady who uses
a walker-- protecting her farm with a big pistol. She caught some
guys trying to steal her old machinery. She stopped the crime with
the gun, and then shot their car tires to hold them for the police.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 15:45:09
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 22, 9:32 am, BigPurdueFan <bigpu...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:31 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 12:58 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > > > John B. wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> > > > >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> > > > >>>> DC!!!!
> > > > >>>> Larry
> > > > >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> > > > >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> > > > >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> > > > >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> > > > >>> To say that
> > > > >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
> > > > >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> > > > >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> > > > >> said the opposite.
>
> > > > > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> > > > > crime." That is still outrageously false.
>
> > > > Do you have any proof?
>
> > > You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
> > > the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>
> > Well, he said violent crimes... not just murder...
> > In another post, someone lists DC as having 7716 violent crimes for
> > 2005... that's almost 650 per day?-
>
> You might want to try that one again.
>
> 7716 divided by 365......is 21.
Um... okay... must have a bad calculator... :) Bad part is I did it 2
times because it didn't look right. :) Just goes to show you... you
can't rust technology. :)
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 12:03:46
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 22, 12:31 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:58 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > > John B. wrote:
> > > > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> > > >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> > > >>>> DC!!!!
> > > >>>> Larry
> > > >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> > > >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> > > >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> > > >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> > > >>> To say that
> > > >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
> > > >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> > > >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> > > >> said the opposite.
>
> > > > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> > > > crime." That is still outrageously false.
>
> > > Do you have any proof?
>
> > You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
> > the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>
> Well, he said violent crimes... not just murder...
> In another post, someone lists DC as having 7716 violent crimes for
> 2005... that's almost 650 per day?
This sub-thread started with Larry claiming that Wash DC was almost as
violent as Baghdad, which is absurd no matter how you measure it. In
the US, if two schoolkids get in a scrap, and the mother of one of
them has the other arrested for assault, that kid has committed a
"violent crime." In Baghdad, people are murdered, tortured and
otherwise assualted by the dozens or even hundreds every day.
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 10:30:28
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
In the time I've spent on this planet, there are 2 incidences where I
wished I had a gun.
1.) In 1999, when my college educated son said, "I think George Bush Jr.
can really turn things around for America."
2.) The first time I heard Celine Dion sing.
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 06:32:54
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 22, 12:31 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:58 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
>
> > > John B. wrote:
> > > > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> > > >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> > > >>>> DC!!!!
> > > >>>> Larry
> > > >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> > > >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> > > >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> > > >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> > > >>> To say that
> > > >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
> > > >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> > > >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> > > >> said the opposite.
>
> > > > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> > > > crime." That is still outrageously false.
>
> > > Do you have any proof?
>
> > You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
> > the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>
> Well, he said violent crimes... not just murder...
> In another post, someone lists DC as having 7716 violent crimes for
> 2005... that's almost 650 per day?-
You might want to try that one again.
7716 divided by 365......is 21.
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 21:31:15
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 21, 12:58 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > John B. wrote:
> > > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> > >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> > >>>> DC!!!!
> > >>>> Larry
> > >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> > >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> > >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> > >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> > >>> To say that
> > >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
> > >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> > >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> > >> said the opposite.
>
> > > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> > > crime." That is still outrageously false.
>
> > Do you have any proof?
>
> You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
> the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
Well, he said violent crimes... not just murder...
In another post, someone lists DC as having 7716 violent crimes for
2005... that's almost 650 per day?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:21:05
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 21 Apr 2007 21:31:15 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>On Apr 21, 12:58 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > John B. wrote:
>> > > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
>> > >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
>> > >>>> DC!!!!
>> > >>>> Larry
>> > >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
>> > >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
>> > >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
>> > >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
>> > >>> To say that
>> > >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
>> > >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
>> > >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
>> > >> said the opposite.
>>
>> > > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
>> > > crime." That is still outrageously false.
>>
>> > Do you have any proof?
>>
>> You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
>> the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>
>Well, he said violent crimes... not just murder...
>In another post, someone lists DC as having 7716 violent crimes for
>2005... that's almost 650 per day?
D.C. has LARGE areas in which it is MORE dangerous than Baghdad to be
white and walking around at night. Whites would have NO CHANCE of
not being attacked, certainly robbed, possibly killed, and raped if
you were a woman. Duh. The cops don't even go into those areas
unless in groups and carrying assault rifles--and wearing body armor.
What is the difference between that and Baghdad? The difference is
that Baghdad may be safe someday....
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 22:03:19
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
In article <1177216274.987252.38040@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:58 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > John B. wrote:
> > > > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> > > >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> > > >>>> DC!!!!
> > > >>>> Larry
> > > >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> > > >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> > > >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> > > >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> > > >>> To say that
> > > >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
> > > >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> > > >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> > > >> said the opposite.
> >
> > > > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> > > > crime." That is still outrageously false.
> >
> > > Do you have any proof?
> >
> > You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
> > the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>
> Well, he said violent crimes... not just murder...
> In another post, someone lists DC as having 7716 violent crimes for
> 2005... that's almost 650 per day?
That would have to be a really really bad day.
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 09:58:27
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com > wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> >>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> >>>> DC!!!!
> >>>> Larry
> >>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> >>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> >>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> >>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> >>> To say that
> >>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
> >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> >> said the opposite.
>
> > You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> > crime." That is still outrageously false.
>
> Do you have any proof?
You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 15:01:41
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
John B. wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:00 am, BAR <scre...@you.com> wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
>>>>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
>>>>>> DC!!!!
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
>>>>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
>>>>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
>>>>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
>>>>> To say that
>>>>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
>>>> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
>>>> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
>>>> said the opposite.
>>> You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
>>> crime." That is still outrageously false.
>> Do you have any proof?
>
>
> You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
> the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
FBI Data 2005
Washington DC
Population 550,521
Violent crime 7,716
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter 195 35.4 /100K
Forcible rape 165
Robbery 3,502
Aggravated assault 3,854
Property crime 25,200
Burglary 3,571
Larceny-theft 14,162
Motor vehicle theft 7,467
Top Murder rate cities
City Pop Murder Rate/100K
City of Compton 96,874 65 67
City of Richmond 195,271 84 43
City of Baltimore 641,097 269 42
City of Camden, NJ 80,125 33 41
City of Flint1 119,814 48 40
City of Detroit 900,932 354 39
City of St. Louis, MO 346,005 131 38
City of Trenton 85,566 31 36
City of Washington,D.C 550,521 195 35
City of Newark, NJ 281,063 97 35
City of York 40,118 13 32
City of Conway 13,474 4 30
City of Pine Bluff 53,934 16 30
City of San Bernardino 199,723 58 29
City of Saginaw 59,093 17 29
City of Kansas City, MO 447,915 126 28
City of Spartanburg 39,123 11 28
City of Reading 80,879 22 27
City of Fort Pierce 38,816 10 26
City of Philadelphia 1,472,915 377 26
City of Kansas City, KS 145,491 37 25
City of Harrisburg 47,725 12 25
City of Cincinnati, OH 314,292 79 25
City of Rochester 212,785 53 25
City of Norfolk, VA 241,267 59 24
City of Fort Myers 54,095 13 24
City of Kokomo 46,324 11 24
City of Oakland 400,619 93 23
City of West Palm Beach 97,496 22 23
City of Atlantic City 40,669 9 22
City of Little Rock 185,855 41 22
City of Huntington, WV 49,932 11 22
City of Bridgeton 22,777 5 22
City of Portsmouth, VA 100,724 22 22
City of Baton Rouge 224,487 49 22
City of Opelika 23,626 5 21
City of Jackson 180,417 38 21
City of Atlanta 430,666 90 21
City of Milwaukee1 586,500 121 21
City of Jefferson City 38,978 8 21
City of Macon 97,606 20 20
City of Memphis 678,988 137 20
City of Hartford 125,086 25 20
City of Dayton 160,363 32 20
City of Racine 80,503 16 20
City of Buffalo 283,269 56 20
City of Allentown, PA 106,933 21 20
City of Shreveport 199,021 39 20
City of Alexandria 46,051 9 20
City of Port Arthur 57,660 11 19
City of Pittsburgh 330,780 63 19
City of Houma 32,078 6 19
City of Goldsboro 39,419 7 18
City of Paramount 57,277 10 17
City of Roanoke 93,685 16 17
City of Durham 205,080 35 17
City of Nashville 557,034 95 17
City of Danville 47,040 8 17
City of Dallas 1,230,303 202 16
City of Houston 2,045,732 334 16
City of Wilmington, DE 73,938 12 16
City of Gadsden 37,870 6 16
City of Valdosta 46,623 7 15
City of Tulsa 386,414 58 15
City of Phoenix 1,466,296 220 15
City North Myrtle Beach 13,339 2 15
City of Chattanooga, TN 156,480 23 15
City of Stockton 281,747 41 15
City of Victorville 83,340 12 14
City of Montgomery 202,209 29 14
City Savannah-Chatham 213,587 30 14
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 19:17:13
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:01:41 -0400, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org >
wrote:
>John B. wrote:
>>>> You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
>>>> crime." That is still outrageously false.
>>> Do you have any proof?
>>
>>
>> You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
>> the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>
>FBI Data 2005
>City Pop Murder Rate/100K
>City of Washington,D.C 550,521 195 35
Isn't that all that you needed for a stat? Looks like about 1.9 per
day, a long way from dozens, not to mention hundreds per day.
bk
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 17:26:47
From: multi
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:17:13 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>>City of Washington,D.C 550,521 195 35
>
>Isn't that all that you needed for a stat? Looks like about 1.9 per
>day, a long way from dozens, not to mention hundreds per day.
I demand a recount. The rate he posted was about 0.53 per day.
But it's ridiculous to talk about how well gun control laws work in US
cities, because they are not closed systems. Anybody who lives in DC,
with its tough gun laws, can take a ten-minute drive and buy a gun in
Virginia, with its lax gun laws. You might as well try to stop a
flood by drawing a line around your house.
A true closed system is a *country* that has uniform tough gun laws,
and enforces them at its borders. Japan, for example, with a
population of 127 million, has less violent crime than most major US
cities. Of the few violent gun crimes committed, almost all of them
are done by members of the Japanese equivalent of the Mafia. You will
not see a Columbine or Va Tech incident in Japan.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 15:49:18
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:01:41 -0400, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org>
> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>
>>>>> You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
>>>>> crime." That is still outrageously false.
>>>> Do you have any proof?
>>>
>>> You''re kidding, right? You need proof that people aren't murdered by
>>> the dozens or even hundreds nearly every single day in Washington DC?
>> FBI Data 2005
>> City Pop Murder Rate/100K
>
>> City of Washington,D.C 550,521 195 35
>
> Isn't that all that you needed for a stat? Looks like about 1.9 per
> day, a long way from dozens, not to mention hundreds per day.
> bk
:)
I wanted to make sure that there was a little context to this argument
Besides, there is always the Obligatory Golf Content requirement RTJ
trail Grand National three miles from Opelika, AL Number 36 on the list
J
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 07:27:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> >> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> >> DC!!!!
>
> >> Larry
>
> >Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> >have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> >In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> >since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> >To say that
> >Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
>
> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> said the opposite.
You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
crime." That is still outrageously false.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 11:00:03
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
John B. wrote:
> On Apr 20, 11:02 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
>>>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
>>>> DC!!!!
>>>> Larry
>>> Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
>>> have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
>>> In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
>>> since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
>>> To say that
>>> Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
>> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
>> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
>> said the opposite.
>
>
> You're half right. He said DC "runs just behind Baghdad in violent
> crime." That is still outrageously false.
>
Do you have any proof?
|
| |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 07:19:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 7:44 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 20, 1:21 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:49:39 -0700, "Steve" <s...@bs-s.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> >> >> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> >> >> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> >> >> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> >> >> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> >> >> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> >> >> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> >> >> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> >> >> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> >> >Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
> >> >the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
> >> >1976.
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
> >> >The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
> >> >Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
> >> >owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
> >> >firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
> >> >Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
> >> >before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
> >> >"unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>
> >> >Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
> >> >the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
> >> >Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
> >> >liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
> >> >Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
> >> >objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
> >> >values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
> >> >three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
> >> >ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
> >> >and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>
> >> >For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
> >> >for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
> >> >http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>
> >> > For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
> >> >2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
> >> >708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
> >> >Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>
> >> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> >> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> >> DC!!!!
>
> >> Larry
>
> >Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> >have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> >In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> >since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> >To say that
> >Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
>
> You are not a statistic now ONLY because you have very wisely not gone
> to major areas of that city at night. I lived there for several
> years-- and I know that no white person had better go near MAJOR areas
> of that city at night-- and some areas even during the day! You
> have no hope of coming out alive--just like Baghdad! The cops have
> given up on patrolling certain areas--and you know where they are!
>
> I know you know that is the truth. The cops would simply warn you
> not to go there--just like certain areas of Baghdad. Other areas of
> Iraq are totally safe--like Bethesda, Chevy Chase, etc.
>
> Larry
Your claim was that DC "runs just behind Baghdad in unrban violence."
That is absolute horseshit, although I know you are mentally
incompetent to uinderstand it.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:05:42
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 21 Apr 2007 07:19:47 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>Your claim was that DC "runs just behind Baghdad in unrban violence."
>That is absolute horseshit, although I know you are mentally
>incompetent to uinderstand it.
Ok, lets meet tonight near the Washington Navy Yard. You walk, I will
be in an APC (armed personnel carrier) ha. Post here tomorrow if
you live. Tell us how much safer that town is than Baghdad.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:48:14
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
> And the reason he could do that was because he KNEW that even the
> campus police are unarmed.
Our campus police are most definitely armed... our cadets are not...
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:39:32
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 12:12 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177080055.174095.54790@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Are people who own guns more likely to
> > > > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question!
> Funny no
> > > > one has bothered to collect the data
>
> Guns are fun.
>
> Seems like everyone has missed the real point of gun ownership. I don't
> know why people have a safe full of guns they never use.
I bought all the guns when I live at home on the farm and could walk
out my door and use them anytime I wanted. I now live where it's just
not that easy. When I lived on the farm, there was hardly a day that
went by when I didn't fire a gun... either at targets, varmits or
game.
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 1:21 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:49:39 -0700, "Steve" <s...@bs-s.com> wrote:
>
> >"The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> >> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> >> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> >> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> >> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> >> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> >> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> >> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> >> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> >Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
> >the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
> >1976.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
> >The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
> >Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
> >owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
> >firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
> >Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
> >before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
> >"unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>
> >Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
> >the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
> >Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
> >liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
> >Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
> >objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
> >values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
> >three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
> >ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
> >and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>
> >For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
> >for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
> >http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>
> > For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
> >2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
> >708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
> >Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>
> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> DC!!!!
>
> Larry
Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
To say that
Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 23:02:19
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
>> DC!!!!
>>
>> Larry
>
>Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
>have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
>In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
>since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
>To say that
>Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
said the opposite.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 16:30:59
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
In article <8jvi2390shbao1ltovhdmqsu9tjpii0ufp@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
> >> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
> >> DC!!!!
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
> >have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
> >In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
> >since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
> >To say that
> >Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
>
> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> said the opposite.
He said "D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence", which is an
outrageous statement, as you well know.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 06:45:19
From: Alan Murphy
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:8jvi2390shbao1ltovhdmqsu9tjpii0ufp@4ax.com...
>
> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> said the opposite.
>
One village idiot defends the other. Priceless :-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:56:42
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:45:19 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
<afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote:
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:8jvi2390shbao1ltovhdmqsu9tjpii0ufp@4ax.com...
>>
>> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
>> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
>> said the opposite.
>>
>One village idiot defends the other. Priceless :-)
So what level of intelligence and/or maturity does the continuous
posting of gratuitous (unprovoked) personal insults reveal? That
stuff reveals low class. I would be ashamed-- therefore I don't do
that.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 00:27:13
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
In article <p4pp23dnjdfp2i4v7o22qk7gtpf1vkea35@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:45:19 +0100, "Alan Murphy"
> <afmccl@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:8jvi2390shbao1ltovhdmqsu9tjpii0ufp@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Before you call someone stupid, you should read what they said more
> >> carefully. Larry never said DC was worse than Baghdad. In fact, he
> >> said the opposite.
> >>
> >One village idiot defends the other. Priceless :-)
>
> So what level of intelligence and/or maturity does the continuous
> posting of gratuitous (unprovoked) personal insults reveal? That
> stuff reveals low class. I would be ashamed-- therefore I don't do
> that.
>
> Larry
You mean, other than calling people "winos", right?
LOL
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:44:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 20 Apr 2007 14:25:23 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Apr 20, 1:21 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:49:39 -0700, "Steve" <s...@bs-s.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>> >> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>> >> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>> >> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>> >> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>> >> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>> >> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>> >> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>> >> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>>
>> >Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
>> >the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
>> >1976.
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
>> >The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
>> >Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
>> >owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
>> >firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
>> >Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
>> >before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
>> >"unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>>
>> >Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
>> >the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
>> >Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
>> >liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
>> >Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
>> >objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
>> >values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
>> >three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
>> >ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
>> >and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>>
>> >For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
>> >for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
>> >http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>>
>> > For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
>> >2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
>> >708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
>> >Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>>
>> D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
>> safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
>> DC!!!!
>>
>> Larry
>
>Fuck you, Larry. That isn't even close to being true. I live in DC,
>have all my life, and have NEVER been the victim of a violent crime.
>In Baghdad, thousands of people have suffered violent deaths every yr.
>since we invaded, sometimes by the dozens or hundreds in a single day.
>To say that
>Washington DC is worse than that shows just how stupid you are.
You are not a statistic now ONLY because you have very wisely not gone
to major areas of that city at night. I lived there for several
years-- and I know that no white person had better go near MAJOR areas
of that city at night-- and some areas even during the day! You
have no hope of coming out alive--just like Baghdad! The cops have
given up on patrolling certain areas--and you know where they are!
I know you know that is the truth. The cops would simply warn you
not to go there--just like certain areas of Baghdad. Other areas of
Iraq are totally safe--like Bethesda, Chevy Chase, etc.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:21:18
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 12:12 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1177080055.174095.54790@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Are people who own guns more likely to
> > > > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question!
> Funny no
> > > > one has bothered to collect the data
>
> Guns are fun.
>
> Seems like everyone has missed the real point of gun ownership. I don't
> know why people have a safe full of guns they never use.
In my case, it's because I don't have the time anymore.
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:18:40
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 11:49 pm, "Steve" <s...@bs-s.com > wrote:
> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
> 1976.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>
> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>
> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>
> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
First, it is statistically ridiculous to compare a city to states. Ask
any statistician if you don't believe me. Second, people who say DC's
handgun law is ineffective don't ever seem to think about what the
rate of murder and violent crime would be if that law didn't exist. DC
would be a war zone. And don't tell me it already is. I've lived here
all my life and I've never been the victim of a violent crime. I know
very few people who have.
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 07:40:55
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 8:43 am, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> >Are people who own guns more likely to
> > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question! Funny no
> > one has bothered to collect the data.- Hide quoted text -
>
> It's an irrelevant question in it's current form. I own several guns
> (long and short)... they spend nearly 100% of their time locked up in
> a safe in my house. There are probably a lot of gun owners like me. I
> never really purchased my guns for self protection in the first place
> and so far I haven't really felt the need to be armed all the time. I
> bought all these guns some 20 years ago for hunting and target
> shooting. I haven't done either for several years.
>
> Now... are prople that are "pack'n" more likely to be murdered than
> people who are not? That's a much better question.
I agree, your question is more to the point.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 11:12:51
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1177080055.174095.54790@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > >Are people who own guns more likely to
> > > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question!
Funny no
> > > one has bothered to collect the data
Guns are fun.
Seems like everyone has missed the real point of gun ownership. I don't
know why people have a safe full of guns they never use.
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 06:43:00
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
>Are people who own guns more likely to
> be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question! Funny no
> one has bothered to collect the data.- Hide quoted text -
It's an irrelevant question in it's current form. I own several guns
(long and short)... they spend nearly 100% of their time locked up in
a safe in my house. There are probably a lot of gun owners like me. I
never really purchased my guns for self protection in the first place
and so far I haven't really felt the need to be armed all the time. I
bought all these guns some 20 years ago for hunting and target
shooting. I haven't done either for several years.
Now... are prople that are "pack'n" more likely to be murdered than
people who are not? That's a much better question.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:49:39
From: Steve
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
1976.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
"unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:21:10
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:49:39 -0700, "Steve" <steve@bs-s.com > wrote:
>
>"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>>
>
>Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
>the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
>1976.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
>The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
>Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
>owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
>firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
>Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
>before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
>"unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>
>Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
>the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
>Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
>liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
>Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
>objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
>values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
>three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
>ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
>and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>
>For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
>for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>
> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
>2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
>708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
>Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
D.C. runs just behind Baghdad in urban violence. Afghanistan is MUCH
safer than parts of DC. We need to "cut and run" and get out of
DC!!!!
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:17:18
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Steve wrote:
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
> >
>
> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
> 1976.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>
> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>
> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>
> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some long
diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns more likely to
be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question! Funny no
one has bothered to collect the data.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 00:35:54
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>>>
>> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
>> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
>> 1976.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
>> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
>> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
>> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
>> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
>> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
>> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
>> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>>
>> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
>> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
>> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
>> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
>> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
>> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
>> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
>> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
>> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
>> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>>
>> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
>> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
>> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>>
>> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
>> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
>> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
>> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>
> When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some long
> diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns more likely to
> be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question! Funny no
> one has bothered to collect the data.
Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
cars and reduce crime.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 14:14:22
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
BAR wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> >>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> >>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> >>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> >>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> >>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> >>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> >>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> >>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
> >>>
> >> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
> >> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
> >> 1976.
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
> >> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
> >> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
> >> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
> >> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
> >> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
> >> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
> >> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
> >>
> >> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
> >> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
> >> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
> >> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
> >> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
> >> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
> >> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
> >> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
> >> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
> >> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
> >>
> >> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
> >> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
> >> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
> >>
> >> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
> >> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
> >> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
> >> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
> >
> > When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some long
> > diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns more likely to
> > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question! Funny no
> > one has bothered to collect the data.
>
> Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
> cars and reduce crime.
Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people who own cars
more likely to be killed by a car?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:02:57
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:462B6B35.8782D276@att.net...
>
>
> BAR wrote:
>
>> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>> >
>> > Steve wrote:
>> >
>> >> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>> >>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have
>> >>> any
>> >>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>> >>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any
>> >>> event,
>> >>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>> >>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>> >>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>> >>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun
>> >>> does
>> >>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>> >>>
>> >> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun
>> >> laws in
>> >> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased
>> >> prior to
>> >> 1976.
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
>> >> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the
>> >> District of
>> >> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents
>> >> from
>> >> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
>> >> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
>> >> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns
>> >> registered
>> >> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
>> >> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar
>> >> device."[
>> >>
>> >> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest
>> >> in
>> >> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of
>> >> constitutionality.
>> >> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on
>> >> personal
>> >> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
>> >> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
>> >> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put
>> >> fundamental
>> >> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned
>> >> by a
>> >> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
>> >> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the
>> >> case,
>> >> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>> >>
>> >> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder?
>> >> Wait
>> >> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
>> >> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>> >>
>> >> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost
>> >> double
>> >> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753,
>> >> Florida
>> >> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd
>> >> place,
>> >> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>> >
>> > When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some long
>> > diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns more
>> > likely to
>> > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question!
>> > Funny no
>> > one has bothered to collect the data.
>>
>> Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
>> cars and reduce crime.
>
> Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people who
> own cars
> more likely to be killed by a car?
>
Talk about silly. Cars kill far more people than guns.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 19:06:27
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
> news:462B6B35.8782D276@att.net...
> >
> >
> > BAR wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Steve wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> >> >>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have
> >> >>> any
> >> >>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> >> >>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any
> >> >>> event,
> >> >>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> >> >>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> >> >>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> >> >>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun
> >> >>> does
> >> >>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
> >> >>>
> >> >> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun
> >> >> laws in
> >> >> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased
> >> >> prior to
> >> >> 1976.
> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
> >> >> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the
> >> >> District of
> >> >> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents
> >> >> from
> >> >> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
> >> >> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
> >> >> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns
> >> >> registered
> >> >> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
> >> >> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar
> >> >> device."[
> >> >>
> >> >> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest
> >> >> in
> >> >> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of
> >> >> constitutionality.
> >> >> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on
> >> >> personal
> >> >> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
> >> >> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
> >> >> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put
> >> >> fundamental
> >> >> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned
> >> >> by a
> >> >> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
> >> >> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the
> >> >> case,
> >> >> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
> >> >>
> >> >> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder?
> >> >> Wait
> >> >> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
> >> >> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
> >> >>
> >> >> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost
> >> >> double
> >> >> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753,
> >> >> Florida
> >> >> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd
> >> >> place,
> >> >> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
> >> >
> >> > When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some long
> >> > diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns more
> >> > likely to
> >> > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question!
> >> > Funny no
> >> > one has bothered to collect the data.
> >>
> >> Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
> >> cars and reduce crime.
> >
> > Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people who
> > own cars
> > more likely to be killed by a car?
> >
> Talk about silly. Cars kill far more people than guns.
Exactly, so what do you need a gun for?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:35:16
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net > wrote in message
news:462D0128.68E0FC43@att.net...
>
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>
>> "Robert Hamilton" <DBID@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:462B6B35.8782D276@att.net...
>> >
>> >
>> > BAR wrote:
>> >
>> >> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Steve wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own
>> >> >>> guns,
>> >> >>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have
>> >> >>> any
>> >> >>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>> >> >>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any
>> >> >>> event,
>> >> >>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>> >> >>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there
>> >> >>> is
>> >> >>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>> >> >>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun
>> >> >>> does
>> >> >>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe
>> >> >> gun
>> >> >> laws in
>> >> >> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased
>> >> >> prior to
>> >> >> 1976.
>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
>> >> >> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the
>> >> >> District of
>> >> >> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents
>> >> >> from
>> >> >> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity
>> >> >> semi-automatic
>> >> >> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered
>> >> >> firearms.
>> >> >> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns
>> >> >> registered
>> >> >> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
>> >> >> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar
>> >> >> device."[
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the
>> >> >> strictest
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of
>> >> >> constitutionality.
>> >> >> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on
>> >> >> personal
>> >> >> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
>> >> >> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
>> >> >> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put
>> >> >> fundamental
>> >> >> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was
>> >> >> overturned
>> >> >> by a
>> >> >> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
>> >> >> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> case,
>> >> >> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and
>> >> >> murder?
>> >> >> Wait
>> >> >> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
>> >> >> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents
>> >> >> almost
>> >> >> double
>> >> >> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had
>> >> >> 753,
>> >> >> Florida
>> >> >> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times
>> >> >> 2nd
>> >> >> place,
>> >> >> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>> >> >
>> >> > When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some
>> >> > long
>> >> > diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns
>> >> > more
>> >> > likely to
>> >> > be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question!
>> >> > Funny no
>> >> > one has bothered to collect the data.
>> >>
>> >> Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
>> >> cars and reduce crime.
>> >
>> > Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people
>> > who
>> > own cars
>> > more likely to be killed by a car?
>> >
>> Talk about silly. Cars kill far more people than guns.
>
> Exactly, so what do you need a gun for?
>
Protection, target shooting, hunting just to name a few.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:34:48
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:02:57 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>>
>Talk about silly. Cars kill far more people than guns.
Cigarettes kill 400,000 Americans every year. Whose fault is that?
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 11:53:32
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> BAR wrote:
>
>> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>>>>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>>>>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>>>>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>>>>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>>>>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>>>>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>>>>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>>>>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>>>>>
>>>> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
>>>> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
>>>> 1976.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
>>>> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
>>>> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
>>>> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
>>>> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
>>>> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
>>>> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
>>>> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>>>>
>>>> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
>>>> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
>>>> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
>>>> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
>>>> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
>>>> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
>>>> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
>>>> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
>>>> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
>>>> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
>>>> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
>>>> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>>>>
>>>> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
>>>> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
>>>> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
>>>> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>>> When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some long
>>> diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns more likely to
>>> be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question! Funny no
>>> one has bothered to collect the data.
>> Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
>> cars and reduce crime.
>
> Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people who own cars
> more likely to be killed by a car?
>
>
YES!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 15:55:49
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:53:32 -0400, Joe <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org >
wrote:
>Robert Hamilton wrote:
>> Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people who own cars
>> more likely to be killed by a car?
>>
Really silly question.
>>
>YES!
Without any doubt at all.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 11:21:04
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
>
> BAR wrote:
>
>> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>>>>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>>>>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>>>>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>>>>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>>>>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>>>>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>>>>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>>>>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>>>>>
>>>> Until a recent court decision, Washington DC had the most severe gun laws in
>>>> the country, you could not legal own a gun unless it was purchased prior to
>>>> 1976.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975
>>>> The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of
>>>> Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from
>>>> owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic
>>>> firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms.
>>>> Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered
>>>> before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be
>>>> "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device."[
>>>>
>>>> Washington, D.C.'s gun laws are considered by many to be the strictest in
>>>> the United States, and have been challenged on grounds of constitutionality.
>>>> Any benefits of the firearms law are weighed against the impact on personal
>>>> liberty and rights under the United States Constitution's Second
>>>> Amendment.[10][11] Many find such restrictions and enforcement
>>>> objectionable, as intrusive and invasive of privacy, and put fundamental
>>>> values in jeopardy.[12][13] On March 9, 2007, the law was overturned by a
>>>> three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, in a 2-1
>>>> ruling.[14] The city is expected to ask the full Court to decide the case,
>>>> and appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> For 2004 and 2005, guess where had the most violent crime and murder? Wait
>>>> for it... Washington DC, in a runaway:
>>>> http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html
>>>>
>>>> For violent crime, D.C. had 1459 crimes per 100,000 residents almost double
>>>> 2nd place South Carolina which had 761, 3rd place Tennessee had 753, Florida
>>>> 708, Maryland 703. For murder, D.C. had 35 per 100,000, 3.5 times 2nd place,
>>>> Maryland and Louisiana each had 10, Nevada and Alabama had 8.
>>> When you look for data on the issue, you get stuff like this. Some long
>>> diatribe. People are murdered every day. Are people who own guns more likely to
>>> be murdered than people who do not own guns. It's a simple question! Funny no
>>> one has bothered to collect the data.
>> Only people who own cars have them stolen, therefore, get rid of your
>> cars and reduce crime.
>
> Silly point. No one has ever been shot to death by a car. Are people who own cars
> more likely to be killed by a car?
More people die due to the misuse of cars than guns each year in the USA.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:19:56
From: Bill H.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 1:42 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:49 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> > This is not rocket science. As long as we have criminals with guns,
> > we must counter them by ensuring that many good people have and carry
> > guns. Otherwise we are all potentially as helpless as those students
> > locked in those classrooms.. waiting to be shot down.
Here's the problem with that theory, though. It seems that this guy
didn't become a criminal until he purchased a gun leagally, and used
it to do harm. So if anyone can buy a gun, it make it easier for it
to get into the wrong hands.
Oh, and there should be some system in place to make sure somebody
doesn't have a history of mental illness before selling them a tool
designed to kill people. Just a thought...
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:21:05
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 19 Apr 2007 14:19:56 -0700, "Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Apr 19, 1:42 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 1:49 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> > This is not rocket science. As long as we have criminals with guns,
>> > we must counter them by ensuring that many good people have and carry
>> > guns. Otherwise we are all potentially as helpless as those students
>> > locked in those classrooms.. waiting to be shot down.
>
>Here's the problem with that theory, though. It seems that this guy
>didn't become a criminal until he purchased a gun leagally, and used
>it to do harm. So if anyone can buy a gun, it make it easier for it
>to get into the wrong hands.
>
>Oh, and there should be some system in place to make sure somebody
>doesn't have a history of mental illness before selling them a tool
>designed to kill people. Just a thought...
I expect that every state has an extensive background check program
required before concealed weapon permits are issued--California's
process is rigorous. I know they will revoke or suspend such permits
at the drop of a hat-- the authorities err on the side of public
safety.
But that said, I would love to know that at least a few people in
every crowd are packing. I want the nutcases to know that too. They
will think twice before showing a gun.
One off-duty cop or security man with a concealed pistol in that first
classroom at VT could have ended that whole rampage with no or fewer
student deaths-- like one did in Salt Lake City a few months ago.
Later
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 19:54:18
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
In article <02uf239jdjbhk9914siegbjjugiptisvnc@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007 14:19:56 -0700, "Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 19, 1:42 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 19, 1:49 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > This is not rocket science. As long as we have criminals with guns,
> >> > we must counter them by ensuring that many good people have and carry
> >> > guns. Otherwise we are all potentially as helpless as those students
> >> > locked in those classrooms.. waiting to be shot down.
> >
> >Here's the problem with that theory, though. It seems that this guy
> >didn't become a criminal until he purchased a gun leagally, and used
> >it to do harm. So if anyone can buy a gun, it make it easier for it
> >to get into the wrong hands.
> >
> >Oh, and there should be some system in place to make sure somebody
> >doesn't have a history of mental illness before selling them a tool
> >designed to kill people. Just a thought...
>
> I expect...
IOW, you have no facts, but you're willing to assume to you know
everything.
Now, carry on.
> ... that every state has an extensive background check program
> required before concealed weapon permits are issued--California's
> process is rigorous. I know they will revoke or suspend such permits
> at the drop of a hat-- the authorities err on the side of public
> safety.
>
> But that said, I would love to know that at least a few people in
> every crowd are packing. I want the nutcases to know that too. They
> will think twice before showing a gun.
>
> One off-duty cop or security man with a concealed pistol in that first
> classroom at VT could have ended that whole rampage with no or fewer
> student deaths-- like one did in Salt Lake City a few months ago.
>
> Later
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:42:46
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 1:49 pm, larry <l...@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007 08:46:14 -0700, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 19, 11:01 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1176989737.821275.272610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >By your way of
> >> >> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
> >> >> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> >> >> > > walk out.
>
> >> >> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
> >> >> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> >> >> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
> >> >> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
> >> >> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
> >> >> > automatic pistol
>
> >> >> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
> >> >> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>
> >> > That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
> >> > types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
> >> > will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>
> >> You man want to ready up on HR1022http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>
> >I own three .22s, a .222, and two 20-gauge shotguns, one of which is a
> >5-shot semi-auto, the other an over-under double-bbl. Which of these
> >would be banned under HR 1022?
>
> What are the statistics of innocent people being harmed by someone
> with a "concealed carry" permit? I suspect it is zero. But there
> are persuasive statistics proving that such guns concealed in crowds
> has saved countless lives--stopped massacres in several recent
> incidents.
Ok, let's see 'em.
>
> This is not rocket science. As long as we have criminals with guns,
> we must counter them by ensuring that many good people have and carry
> guns. Otherwise we are all potentially as helpless as those students
> locked in those classrooms.. waiting to be shot down.
>
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:42:06
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177015366.186169.185060@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> What are the statistics of innocent people being harmed by someone
>> with a "concealed carry" permit? I suspect it is zero. But there
>> are persuasive statistics proving that such guns concealed in crowds
>> has saved countless lives--stopped massacres in several recent
>> incidents.
>
> Ok, let's see 'em.
>
I know the number of bad shootings by a CC holder is not zero, but it is
very low. I know there is one case here in MN.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:42:04
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 1:27 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176997574.069228.135200@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 11:01 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1176989737.821275.272610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >By your way of
> >> >> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > walk out.
>
> >> >> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
> >> >> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him
> >> >> > killing
> >> >> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
> >> >> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
> >> >> > automatic pistol
>
> >> >> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
> >> >> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>
> >> > That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
> >> > types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
> >> > will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>
> >> You man want to ready up on
> >> HR1022http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>
> > I own three .22s, a .222, and two 20-gauge shotguns, one of which is a
> > 5-shot semi-auto, the other an over-under double-bbl. Which of these
> > would be banned under HR 1022?
>
> Depends if any have detachable magazines.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All the rifles do. How else do you load one?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:37:28
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177015324.510769.226690@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 1:27 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176997574.069228.135200@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 19, 11:01 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1176989737.821275.272610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > >By your way of
>> >> >> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being
>> >> >> > > able
>> >> >> > > to
>> >> >> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay
>> >> >> > > and
>> >> >> > > walk out.
>>
>> >> >> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being
>> >> >> > able
>> >> >> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells,
>> >> >> > pay
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him
>> >> >> > killing
>> >> >> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
>> >> >> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
>> >> >> > automatic pistol
>>
>> >> >> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm,
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>>
>> >> > That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>> >> > types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that
>> >> > such
>> >> > will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>>
>> >> You man want to ready up on
>> >> HR1022http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>>
>> > I own three .22s, a .222, and two 20-gauge shotguns, one of which is a
>> > 5-shot semi-auto, the other an over-under double-bbl. Which of these
>> > would be banned under HR 1022?
>>
>> Depends if any have detachable magazines.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> All the rifles do. How else do you load one?
>
Some bolt actions have fixed internal mags that have to be loaded through
the breach. Some .22s use a tubular mag as well. The problem lies in how the
"evil" features are defined. Like stocks, pistol grips, ect.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:49:04
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177015324.510769.226690@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Depends if any have detachable magazines.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> All the rifles do. How else do you load one?
Not all rifles have detachable magazines.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:17:45
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 3:08 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 18:32:37 -0700, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Owning a gun increases your risk of being accidentally shot by that
> >> gun.
>
> >> Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
> >> being accidentally shot by that gun.
>
> >> Owning a gun increases your risk of being intentionally shot by
> >> another person using that gun.
>
> >> Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
> >> being intentionally shot by that gun.
>
> >> Owning a gun decreases the risk of you being shot by another gun.
>
> >Those are basically the questions that interest me. Too much political
> >debate on important issues like this is fueled by personal opinion.
> >All that matters is this or that side "win". Reality be dammed!!
>
> Owning a gun should be a matter of personal preference. I used to own
> two pistols when I was single and lived alone. Now, I'm married with
> three kids and I don't want a gun in the house. I live in an area
> where there is virtually no serious crime, so I feel that owning a gun
> would make me, and my family, less safe. If I was still single, I
> would have a gun around the house.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know if there is much disagreement with that. IMHO, there is
no question of it. It's a question of responsibility. IMHO, sellers
need to be held more responsible for who they sell to...with a system
in place they can work with. Would be nice if people actually knew how
to operate the guns they own too!
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:54:15
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 9:40 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> > There's a very slippery slope here. If an abortion is a private act, then
> > seeking help for mental problems is also a private act.
>
> Yes HIPPA laws will probably come into play here, though I believe law
> inforcement can still get access to these records.
It's HIPAA, Mike, not HIPPA. You're batting about .050 the last few
days, big boy.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:25:07
From: Herbert
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 12:24 pm, Jack Skwaht <Neverm...@some.e.mail.org > wrote:
> In cases like this, usually the shooter is determined to do damage. In
> order to prevent multiple deaths, you pretty well have to have some
> time, arrange for snipers/shooters to get a clear shot and kill the
> gunman to rescue the hostages. There were no hostages in this cae. Just
> shooting victims.
LE Agencies around the world have abandoned that strategy after
evaluating the response to the Columbine incident. They no longer try
to contain the scene and wait for a clear shot. The first officers on
the scene are directed to hunt down and kill a shooting suspect ASAP.
It worked at the college in Montreal last year, the first cops on the
scene went directly at the killer, stopping the rampage very quickly
at one fatality.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:46:14
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 11:01 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176989737.821275.272610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
> >> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >By your way of
> >> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
> >> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> >> > > walk out.
>
> >> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
> >> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> >> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
> >> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
> >> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
> >> > automatic pistol
>
> >> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
> >> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>
> > That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
> > types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
> > will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>
> You man want to ready up on HR1022http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
I own three .22s, a .222, and two 20-gauge shotguns, one of which is a
5-shot semi-auto, the other an over-under double-bbl. Which of these
would be banned under HR 1022?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 10:49:51
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 19 Apr 2007 08:46:14 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Apr 19, 11:01 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176989737.821275.272610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >By your way of
>> >> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
>> >> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> >> > > walk out.
>>
>> >> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
>> >> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> >> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
>> >> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
>> >> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
>> >> > automatic pistol
>>
>> >> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
>> >> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>>
>> > That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>> > types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
>> > will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>>
>> You man want to ready up on HR1022http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>
>I own three .22s, a .222, and two 20-gauge shotguns, one of which is a
>5-shot semi-auto, the other an over-under double-bbl. Which of these
>would be banned under HR 1022?
What are the statistics of innocent people being harmed by someone
with a "concealed carry" permit? I suspect it is zero. But there
are persuasive statistics proving that such guns concealed in crowds
has saved countless lives--stopped massacres in several recent
incidents.
This is not rocket science. As long as we have criminals with guns,
we must counter them by ensuring that many good people have and carry
guns. Otherwise we are all potentially as helpless as those students
locked in those classrooms.. waiting to be shot down.
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:27:33
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176997574.069228.135200@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 11:01 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176989737.821275.272610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >By your way of
>> >> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > walk out.
>>
>> >> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
>> >> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay
>> >> > and
>> >> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him
>> >> > killing
>> >> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
>> >> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
>> >> > automatic pistol
>>
>> >> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
>> >> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>>
>> > That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>> > types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
>> > will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>>
>> You man want to ready up on
>> HR1022http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>
> I own three .22s, a .222, and two 20-gauge shotguns, one of which is a
> 5-shot semi-auto, the other an over-under double-bbl. Which of these
> would be banned under HR 1022?
>
Depends if any have detachable magazines.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 11:56:47
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176997574.069228.135200@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> I own three .22s, a .222, and two 20-gauge shotguns, one of which is a
> 5-shot semi-auto, the other an over-under double-bbl. Which of these
> would be banned under HR 1022?
None of them. Any weapon you own prior to this becoming law is legal.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:40:10
From: Arlyn Thomson
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Maybe owning a gun does the opposite of protecting you. Maybe not. Have
you ever heard the story about using the word "assume"? It's sometimes said
that the word "assume" can make an "ass" of "u" and "me". It would be very
unwise to make claims based on someone elses assumptions. Do you have any
data that show that most people who are shot by guns own guns? Are you
really a professor? I'll bet the answers are no and no.
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 07:58:25
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 10:41 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176989926.933441.100210@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 1:16 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
> >> On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
> >> > > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va.
> >> > > Tech
> >> > > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
> >> > > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>
> >> > Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
> >> > himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
> >> > He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
> >> > firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
>
> >> Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
>
> >> --
> >> bill-o
>
> > What did he lie about?
>
> http://www.instapunk.com/archives/BATF_Form_4473a.html
>
> question F.-
Well, that's comforting. You can lie on a BATF application and still
get a handgun.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 10:24:21
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176994705.848839.295820@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 10:41 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176989926.933441.100210@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 19, 1:16 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> >> On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding
>> >> > > citizens
>> >> > > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va.
>> >> > > Tech
>> >> > > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
>> >> > > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>>
>> >> > Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
>> >> > himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
>> >> > He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to
>> >> > purchase
>> >> > firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
>>
>> >> Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> bill-o
>>
>> > What did he lie about?
>>
>> http://www.instapunk.com/archives/BATF_Form_4473a.html
>>
>> question F.-
>
> Well, that's comforting. You can lie on a BATF application and still
> get a handgun.
>
Sure can. Though if caught it's a felony. They need a system for this like
they do for NICS.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:38:46
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 1:16 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org > wrote:
> On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
> > > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
> > > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
> > > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>
> > Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
> > himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
> > He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
> > firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
>
> Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
>
> --
> bill-o
>
What did he lie about?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 03:06:53
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 19-Apr-2007, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> > bill-o
> >
> What did he lie about?
About having been committed
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:35:58
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:06:53 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:
>> > bill-o
>> >
>> What did he lie about?
>
>About having been committed
>
>--
>bill-o
Technically, he wasn't. There was a court order for his commitment,
but he was never actually committed.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:41:51
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176989926.933441.100210@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 1:16 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
>> > > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va.
>> > > Tech
>> > > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
>> > > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>>
>> > Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
>> > himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
>> > He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
>> > firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
>>
>> Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
>>
>> --
>> bill-o
>>
> What did he lie about?
>
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/BATF_Form_4473a.html
question F.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:35:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >By your way of
> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> > > walk out.
>
> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
> > automatic pistol
>
> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 10:01:39
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176989737.821275.272610@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >By your way of
>> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
>> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> > > walk out.
>>
>> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
>> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
>> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
>> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
>> > automatic pistol
>>
>> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
>> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>
> That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
> types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
> will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>
You man want to ready up on HR1022
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:09:29
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:01:39 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>> types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
>> will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>>
>You man want to ready up on HR1022
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>
You might want to go through those weapons and tell us which of his
rifles, or shotguns, will be banned. I'd bet that he, nor 99% of the
population, own a streetsweeper for instance. There's not a weapon on
that list that shouldn't be regulated.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:16:21
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:01:39 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>>>types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
>>>will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>>>
>>
>>You man want to ready up on HR1022
>>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>>
>
> You might want to go through those weapons and tell us which of his
> rifles, or shotguns, will be banned. I'd bet that he, nor 99% of the
> population, own a streetsweeper for instance. There's not a weapon on
> that list that shouldn't be regulated.
It is amazing that Americans don't realise how ludicrous their gun laws
appear to the rest of the world!
cheers
david
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 00:33:45
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
david s-a wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:01:39 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>>>> types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
>>>> will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You man want to ready up on HR1022
>>> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>>>
>>
>> You might want to go through those weapons and tell us which of his
>> rifles, or shotguns, will be banned. I'd bet that he, nor 99% of the
>> population, own a streetsweeper for instance. There's not a weapon on
>> that list that shouldn't be regulated.
>
>
> It is amazing that Americans don't realise how ludicrous their gun laws
> appear to the rest of the world!
Why?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:47:53
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote in message
news:58r0m4F2iiba2U1@mid.individual.net...
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:01:39 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>>>>types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
>>>>will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You man want to ready up on HR1022
>>>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>>>
>>
>> You might want to go through those weapons and tell us which of his
>> rifles, or shotguns, will be banned. I'd bet that he, nor 99% of the
>> population, own a streetsweeper for instance. There's not a weapon on
>> that list that shouldn't be regulated.
>
>
> It is amazing that Americans don't realise how ludicrous their gun laws
> appear to the rest of the world!
>
> cheers
> david
It's amazing you think we care what you think.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 14:14:42
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 20-Apr-2007, david s-a <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
> It is amazing that Americans don't realise how ludicrous their gun laws
> appear to the rest of the world!
As our country was founded to be different from the rest of the world, it is
amazing that others think we care.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 10:31:54
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:3e1f23d8qvvvh5k60av0uap9d0b5t9jgt3@4ax.com...
>>>
>>You man want to ready up on HR1022
>>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:
>>
> You might want to go through those weapons and tell us which of his
> rifles, or shotguns, will be banned. I'd bet that he, nor 99% of the
> population, own a streetsweeper for instance. There's not a weapon on
> that list that shouldn't be regulated.
> --
ALL guns are requlated in some way or another. The previous ban did nothing
to stop crime.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:48:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 19 Apr 2007 06:35:37 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Apr 18, 9:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >By your way of
>> > > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
>> > > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> > > walk out.
>>
>> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
>> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
>> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
>> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
>> > automatic pistol
>>
>> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
>> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>
>That is a lame argument with no basis in fact. There are specific
>types of firearms that are already banned and I have no fear that such
>will lead to my rifles and shotguns being banned.
Match, set, game.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:49:49
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:48:17 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>Match, set, game.
Oops....Game, set, match.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 03:09:10
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 19-Apr-2007, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:48:17 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Match, set, game.
>
> Oops....Game, set, match
It's ok Bobby this isnt't rec.sport.tennis!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:32:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 9:31 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
> > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
> > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
> > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>
> Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
> himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
> He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
> firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
That's exactly my point. He was known to be a head case, yet there was
no legal impediment to his buying two handguns. That doesn't owe to a
"hole in the sytem." It owes to the system itself.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 05:03:03
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 1:16 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org > wrote:
> On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
> > > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
> > > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
> > > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>
> > Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
> > himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
> > He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
> > firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
>
> Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
>
> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
Hum...I didn't hear that. I heard that he wasn't in the system as
someone flagged not eligible for a gun...
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 03:05:43
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 19-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> Hum...I didn't hear that. I heard that he wasn't in the system as
> someone flagged not eligible for a gun...
I equally heard that VA does only a criminal backround, not a medical one.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:34:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:05:43 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:
>On 19-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hum...I didn't hear that. I heard that he wasn't in the system as
>> someone flagged not eligible for a gun...
>
>I equally heard that VA does only a criminal backround, not a medical one.
There's a lot of different information going around, but I never heard
anyone say that he spent any time on an inpatient unit under
involuntary commitment. It seems that Cho was judged by a court to be
dangerous to himself and others due to mental illness. However, he was
able to avoid inpatient commitment if he agreed to take medication and
attend outpatient treatment. This is the is the medical equivalent of
plea bargaining.
I'm not sure if Virginia would have reported him to the FBI even if he
was committed. The actual procedures in Virginia (and a lot of other
states) is vague.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:14:46
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
The hole in the system are the state and federal medical privacy acts. One
goes into 'the system" if they are involuntary committed - court ordered
with a public record, etc. Cho voluntarily committed himself.
There's a very slippery slope here. If an abortion is a private act, then
seeking help for mental problems is also a private act.
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1176984183.040108.188360@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 1:16 am, "bill-o" <assimil...@borg.org> wrote:
>> On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
>> > > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va.
>> > > Tech
>> > > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
>> > > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>>
>> > Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
>> > himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
>> > He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
>> > firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
>>
>> Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
>>
>> --
>> bill-o
>>
>> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
>> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
>
> Hum...I didn't hear that. I heard that he wasn't in the system as
> someone flagged not eligible for a gun...
>
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:40:53
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:_PmdnaGcPeilwLrbnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> The hole in the system are the state and federal medical privacy acts. One
> goes into 'the system" if they are involuntary committed - court ordered
> with a public record, etc. Cho voluntarily committed himself.
>
> There's a very slippery slope here. If an abortion is a private act, then
> seeking help for mental problems is also a private act.
>
Yes HIPPA laws will probably come into play here, though I believe law
inforcement can still get access to these records.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 13:07:12
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
You have the cart in front of the horse. Law enforcement can't get access to
HIPPA protected records without a search warrant which takes convincing a
judge there is a valid reason which is often that a gun crime has already
been committed.
Notice that the only record that has been made public is the judge's order.
No other medical records have surfaced.
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:58pdbnF2g7j9lU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:_PmdnaGcPeilwLrbnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> The hole in the system are the state and federal medical privacy acts.
>> One goes into 'the system" if they are involuntary committed - court
>> ordered with a public record, etc. Cho voluntarily committed himself.
>>
>> There's a very slippery slope here. If an abortion is a private act, then
>> seeking help for mental problems is also a private act.
>>
> Yes HIPPA laws will probably come into play here, though I believe law
> inforcement can still get access to these records.
>
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 03:25:22
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Please add my comments from the last 200 2nd amendment threads. Nothing has
changed. There is nothing new to add.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 23:27:17
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 9:42 am, John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org >
wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2007 09:08:37 -0700, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> >how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> >data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> >violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> >if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> >correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> >a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> >required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> >the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> <sigh>
>
> **plonk thread**
> --
> jvdp
> RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
Your loss, John. Lots of interesting posts being shared here.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:44:51
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 10:19 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> I own 2 semi-auto handguns... neither have killed anything but game,
> tin cans, paper, etc... it's highly unlikely that they ever will.
Would you say your killing game with handguns is atypical or your
weapon of choice when hunting? I don't know, I'm not a hunter, and
only target shoot occasionally.
> A revolver is also a semi-auto weapon? I know they usually only hold
> at most 6 rounds (some small caliber revolvers hole 8 or maybe even
> 10).
A look at www.glock.com reveals:
1.1 RPS. And the Glock that Cho used has an optional magazine w/ the
capability to hold 33 rounds - all Glock 9mm's allow for that
option. Not sure if he opted for the extra capacity clip, but
standard, it comes with minimum 10/maximum 17 w/ the option to step up
to a man-sized 33.
Also, from www.liveleak.com:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c45_1176890967
The guy says Cho reloaded, at least once, so I suspect unless he hit
someone with every shot I'd wager he had a large capacity
clip...though the guy does say it was a .22, which Cho did have.
> I'll give you the fact that semi-auto pistols usually have higher
> capacity magazines, but a fairly skilled person with a revolver and a
> belt full of speed loaders can fire a lot of rounds in a hurry too.
This kid wasn't fairly skilled - he was a deranged punk. I don't know
- a revolver would require some seriously mad Josey Wales style skills
to kill 30 people in one instance. You'd need some chaw, a poncho,
yada yada...
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:20:57
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 10:13 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
> Fully automatic weapons - pistols and long guns - have been banned in the US
> for decades.
>
That's not entirely true. Certain people can (and do) own them if they
pay the high fees and meet the requirements.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:19:01
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 9:55 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
> > > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> > > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
> > > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
> > > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
> > > automatic pistol
>
> > The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
> > move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>
> I disagree fundamentally. As a matter of fact, just look at the
> assault weapon ban; not only did it not spark further banning of "all
> types of firearms", it expired! I just don't see a day when hunting
> rifles and shotguns are outlawed...the industry is too large and
> powerful and they have a legitimate use outside of killing human
> beings or shooting at targets. Semi-automatic and automatic pistols
> are, at best, luxury items. At worst, they are good for nothing more
> than killing people.
I own 2 semi-auto handguns... neither have killed anything but game,
tin cans, paper, etc... it's highly unlikely that they ever will.
A revolver is also a semi-auto weapon? I know they usually only hold
at most 6 rounds (some small caliber revolvers hole 8 or maybe even
10). I'll give you the fact that semi-auto pistols usually have higher
capacity magazines, but a fairly skilled person with a revolver and a
belt full of speed loaders can fire a lot of rounds in a hurry too.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:55:18
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 8:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu > wrote:
> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
> > automatic pistol
>
> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
I disagree fundamentally. As a matter of fact, just look at the
assault weapon ban; not only did it not spark further banning of "all
types of firearms", it expired! I just don't see a day when hunting
rifles and shotguns are outlawed...the industry is too large and
powerful and they have a legitimate use outside of killing human
beings or shooting at targets. Semi-automatic and automatic pistols
are, at best, luxury items. At worst, they are good for nothing more
than killing people.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 05:15:16
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 18-Apr-2007, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
> At worst, they are good for nothing more
> than killing people.
And if the people killed are criminals attempting to do someone else harm?
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 22:13:26
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Fully automatic weapons - pistols and long guns - have been banned in the US
for decades.
All, repeat all pistols, available for sale in the US are semi-automatic.
"Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1176947718.268380.315790@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 18, 8:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>> > In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
>> > to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> > walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
>> > 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
>> > inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
>> > automatic pistol
>>
>> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
>> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>
> I disagree fundamentally. As a matter of fact, just look at the
> assault weapon ban; not only did it not spark further banning of "all
> types of firearms", it expired! I just don't see a day when hunting
> rifles and shotguns are outlawed...the industry is too large and
> powerful and they have a legitimate use outside of killing human
> beings or shooting at targets. Semi-automatic and automatic pistols
> are, at best, luxury items. At worst, they are good for nothing more
> than killing people.
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:07:06
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:wfqdnUc8-uvXTbvbnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com...
> Fully automatic weapons - pistols and long guns - have been banned in the
US
> for decades.
The ban on automatic weapons only lasted 19 years and recently expired. You
could always buy an automatic weapon, they just could not manufacture any
more for commercial use. Price on guns went up.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:16:35
From: Jeffrey A. Setaro
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:07:06 -0500, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
>news:wfqdnUc8-uvXTbvbnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Fully automatic weapons - pistols and long guns - have been banned in the
>US
>> for decades.
>
>The ban on automatic weapons only lasted 19 years and recently expired. You
>could always buy an automatic weapon, they just could not manufacture any
>more for commercial use. Price on guns went up.
>
Wrong, the so called assault weapons ban only banned certain types of
semi-automatic weapons it did nothing to regulate fully automatic
weapons. Those have been controlled by the National Firearms Act since
the late 20s.
Cheers-
Jeff Setaro
jasetaro@SPAM_ME_NOT_mags.net
http://people.mags.net/jasetaro/
PGP Key IDs DH/DSS: 0x5D41429D RSA: 0x599D2A99 New RSA: 0xA19EBD34
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 14:29:30
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Jeffrey A. Setaro" <jasetaro@SPAM_ME_NOT_mags.net > wrote in message
news:p3cf2394l4rt79kpflr3a70c38f8td19o1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:07:06 -0500, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
>>news:wfqdnUc8-uvXTbvbnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Fully automatic weapons - pistols and long guns - have been banned in
>>> the
>>US
>>> for decades.
>>
>>The ban on automatic weapons only lasted 19 years and recently expired.
>>You
>>could always buy an automatic weapon, they just could not manufacture any
>>more for commercial use. Price on guns went up.
>>
>
> Wrong, the so called assault weapons ban only banned certain types of
> semi-automatic weapons it did nothing to regulate fully automatic
> weapons. Those have been controlled by the National Firearms Act since
> the late 20s.
>
1934 actually.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 22:57:51
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
They haven't been banned, they have been regulated.
sfb wrote:
> Fully automatic weapons - pistols and long guns - have been banned in the US
> for decades.
>
> All, repeat all pistols, available for sale in the US are semi-automatic.
>
> "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1176947718.268380.315790@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 18, 8:40 pm, dsc <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
>>>> to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>>>> walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
>>>> 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
>>>> inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
>>>> automatic pistol
>>> The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
>>> move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
>> I disagree fundamentally. As a matter of fact, just look at the
>> assault weapon ban; not only did it not spark further banning of "all
>> types of firearms", it expired! I just don't see a day when hunting
>> rifles and shotguns are outlawed...the industry is too large and
>> powerful and they have a legitimate use outside of killing human
>> beings or shooting at targets. Semi-automatic and automatic pistols
>> are, at best, luxury items. At worst, they are good for nothing more
>> than killing people.
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:53:59
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"BAR" <screwed@you.com > wrote in message
news:L4OdnT4nJ-c2R7vbnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> They haven't been banned, they have been regulated.
>
Yes
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:40:42
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >By your way of
> > thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
> > walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> > walk out.
>
> In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
> to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
> 32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
> inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
> automatic pistol
The problem is anytime you ban another specific type of firearm, you
move one step closer to banning all types of firearms...
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:32:37
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 7:00 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:35:18 -0500, Chicago shorty fan
>
> <youralmightylordandfat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He's the only one owning the gun. In fact he
> >owned two guns. So? Unless you know that the 32 people he shot also
> >owned guns...I thought they taught logic to professors.
>
> Here's some logic.
>
> Owning a gun increases your risk of being accidentally shot by that
> gun.
>
> Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
> being accidentally shot by that gun.
>
> Owning a gun increases your risk of being intentionally shot by
> another person using that gun.
>
> Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
> being intentionally shot by that gun.
>
> Owning a gun decreases the risk of you being shot by another gun.
Those are basically the questions that interest me. Too much political
debate on important issues like this is fueled by personal opinion.
All that matters is this or that side "win". Reality be dammed!!
The paper that I found is pretty weak in a lot of ways. In the case of
suicide and being shot by someone close to you who is to say that
lacking a gun people wouldn't use another method. So someone buys a
gun to kill themself and you say gun owners have a higher suicide
rate? Someone goes out and buys a gun and kills someone close to them
and so people who own guns have a higher tendancy to kill people close
to them with a gun? The data have to be organized so that they
segregate out such things, and I don't see that.
However, the question that really interests me is "Do people who own
guns get killed by a thord party with another gun at a higher rate
than peole without guns"? You would have to remove police officers and
armed security guards, IMHO. You might also want to remove known
active criminals like drug dealers too. Also IMHO, the data should be
easy to collect. I can think of reasons why and why not, and I guess
maybe sociologists and other non scientists would prefer to simply
argue it out, but I cannot come to a conclusion without properly
collected real data. Just survey gun killings and see if the vicim
owned a gun. Data I have seen say only 35% of the population own a
gun, BTW.
Can you say a gun makes you more or less secure? No. They're just
opinion. But if there were some real, legitimate data one way or the
other it would definately affect me. My opinion is that is makes you
less secure, BTW, but one can speculate using any real or imagined
rhetorical style, but lacking real data, the speculations and rhetoric
are worthless.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 16:08:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 18 Apr 2007 18:32:37 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>> Owning a gun increases your risk of being accidentally shot by that
>> gun.
>>
>> Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
>> being accidentally shot by that gun.
>>
>> Owning a gun increases your risk of being intentionally shot by
>> another person using that gun.
>>
>> Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
>> being intentionally shot by that gun.
>>
>> Owning a gun decreases the risk of you being shot by another gun.
>
>Those are basically the questions that interest me. Too much political
>debate on important issues like this is fueled by personal opinion.
>All that matters is this or that side "win". Reality be dammed!!
Owning a gun should be a matter of personal preference. I used to own
two pistols when I was single and lived alone. Now, I'm married with
three kids and I don't want a gun in the house. I live in an area
where there is virtually no serious crime, so I feel that owning a gun
would make me, and my family, less safe. If I was still single, I
would have a gun around the house.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:35:10
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:ioif235p2b92kja2skj93g31hs6mkth417@4ax.com...
>
> Owning a gun should be a matter of personal preference. I used to own
> two pistols when I was single and lived alone. Now, I'm married with
> three kids and I don't want a gun in the house. I live in an area
> where there is virtually no serious crime, so I feel that owning a gun
> would make me, and my family, less safe. If I was still single, I
> would have a gun around the house.
I have kids and several guns at home. Everyone in the family has been
through firearm saftey and everything is locked up. We are also not in a
high crime area (yet). Though the punk crimes is on the rise.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:49:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:35:10 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:ioif235p2b92kja2skj93g31hs6mkth417@4ax.com...
>>
>> Owning a gun should be a matter of personal preference. I used to own
>> two pistols when I was single and lived alone. Now, I'm married with
>> three kids and I don't want a gun in the house. I live in an area
>> where there is virtually no serious crime, so I feel that owning a gun
>> would make me, and my family, less safe. If I was still single, I
>> would have a gun around the house.
>
>I have kids and several guns at home. Everyone in the family has been
>through firearm saftey and everything is locked up. We are also not in a
>high crime area (yet). Though the punk crimes is on the rise.
If you're comfortable with that then that's fine. I have nothing
against gun ownership. I owned guns in the past and probably will own
guns again when my kids leave home.
A lot also has to do with where you live. In my neighborhood, guns
are just not a part of the social milieu. I think my kids would have
trouble inviting their friends over to my house if their friend's
parents knew my kids had been to firearms training.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:00:31
From: MoiMoi
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
In article <ioif235p2b92kja2skj93g31hs6mkth417@4ax.com >,
xsleeper@aol.com says...
> Owning a gun should be a matter of personal preference. I used to own
> two pistols when I was single and lived alone. Now, I'm married with
> three kids and I don't want a gun in the house. I live in an area
> where there is virtually no serious crime, so I feel that owning a gun
> would make me, and my family, less safe. If I was still single, I
> would have a gun around the house.
Bizarre "logic".
Now that you have MORE to protect, you choose to become more
defenseless.
MM
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:23:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:00:31 -0400, MoiMoi <moimoi@example.com > wrote:
>> Owning a gun should be a matter of personal preference. I used to own
>> two pistols when I was single and lived alone. Now, I'm married with
>> three kids and I don't want a gun in the house. I live in an area
>> where there is virtually no serious crime, so I feel that owning a gun
>> would make me, and my family, less safe. If I was still single, I
>> would have a gun around the house.
>
>Bizarre "logic".
>Now that you have MORE to protect, you choose to become more
>defenseless.
>
>MM
I look at in terms of probability. I have two sons, 12 and 10, who
are very bright and inquisitive. Guns are very attractive to young
boys. I think the chance of an accident happening because I own a gun
is greater that the chance of me actually needing a gun. However, I
will admit that if some night, someone breaks into my house, I'll be
real sorry I don't have a gun. Nevertheless, I feel that my family is
safer without a gun in the house.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:31:39
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
> I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
> -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
> was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
> until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 12:56:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 18 Apr 2007 18:31:39 -0700, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>> I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
>> -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
>> was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
>> until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>
>Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
>himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
>He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
>firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
It's not a hole in the system, it's called confidentiality. The
hospital is not allowed to report him to the police. The solution is
to report anyone who has been involuntarily committed and make it
impossible for them to legally purchase a gun. It could be done, but I
know that the medical profession would be dead against it.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 05:16:51
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
> > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
> > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
> > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>
> Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
> himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
> He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
> firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:39:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:4626fb30$0$25243$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 18-Apr-2007, dsc <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>> > I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
>> > -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
>> > was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
>> > until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered.
>>
>> Hum... you aren't keeping up. A court had declared him a danger to
>> himself and others in the past couple of years.You call that decent?
>> He is definitly someone that should not have been allowed to purchase
>> firearms. He fell throuh a hole in the system.
>
> Yes he lied on his app. and it was not caught.
>
The question on the 4473 only asks if you were ever committed.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:26:58
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 12:32 pm, Blagovist <b...@ovist.com > wrote:
> Otto wrote:
> > Ownership would be even a better idea if government would get out of the way
> > and allow all law abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they please.
>
> *gong* for prick post of the year.
>
> Blago
That is a valid point of view... arguable... but valid.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 18:25:44
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 12:08 pm, The_Professor <d...@att.net > wrote:
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
The NRA publications have several examples of gun owners defeating
criminals every issue... Of coruse there are many cases where it goes
the other way.
In order for a gun to have a chance to save you... you first have to
have it with you at all times... that's not possible in most parts of
our country. Even states with CC laws (like KY) have some pretty
severe restrictions on where you can carry them. For instance, I would
not be able to take one to work with me (at a regional university)...
so if we had a student go nuts (like at VT)... nothing I could do
about it. I can't even take it with me and leave it in my truck.
Honestly, I don't think I would be in favor of professors and other
university employees bringing guns to work at this point in time
anyway. The chances that somethign bad would happen related to the
legal guns far outweighs the chances of a postal student.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:31:59
From: BigPurdueFan
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 12:08 pm, The_Professor <d...@att.net > wrote:
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
Couldn't you have come up with a better topic, like abortion?
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:12:19
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 5:14 pm, Jack Skwaht <Neverm...@some.e.mail.org > wrote:
> >Unless you know that the 32 people he shot also owned
> > guns...I thought they taught logic to professors.
>
> ...not a real professor. Just plays one on Usenet.
And poorly, at that.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:35:18
From: Chicago shorty fan
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 2007-04-18 11:08:37 -0500, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > said:
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
If you don't have any data, how can you make any assumption? And the
phrase, "some people." is a ludicrous way of arguing and while it may
be true, it does not give you any basis for factual analysis. You
might as well say, "Some people think that driving after downing a half
bottle of rum makes them drive better." Let's see, a nut job shoots 32
people and then himself. He's the only one owning the gun. In fact he
owned two guns. So? Unless you know that the 32 people he shot also
owned guns...I thought they taught logic to professors.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 20:00:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:35:18 -0500, Chicago shorty fan
<youralmightylordandfather@yahoo.com > wrote:
> He's the only one owning the gun. In fact he
>owned two guns. So? Unless you know that the 32 people he shot also
>owned guns...I thought they taught logic to professors.
Here's some logic.
Owning a gun increases your risk of being accidentally shot by that
gun.
Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
being accidentally shot by that gun.
Owning a gun increases your risk of being intentionally shot by
another person using that gun.
Owning a gun increases the risk of someone else in your household
being intentionally shot by that gun.
Owning a gun decreases the risk of you being shot by another gun.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 22:14:45
From: Jack Skwaht
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Chicago shorty fan wrote:
> On 2007-04-18 11:08:37 -0500, The_Professor <dbid@att.net> said:
>
>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
>
> If you don't have any data, how can you make any assumption? And the
> phrase, "some people." is a ludicrous way of arguing and while it may be
> true, it does not give you any basis for factual analysis. You might as
> well say, "Some people think that driving after downing a half bottle of
> rum makes them drive better." Let's see, a nut job shoots 32 people and
> then himself. He's the only one owning the gun. In fact he owned two
> guns. So? Unless you know that the 32 people he shot also owned
> guns...I thought they taught logic to professors.
>
...not a real professor. Just plays one on Usenet.
--
Jack Skwaht
“Every time you tell me you don’t know, I’ll kill you.”
Knapp--victim recovery specialist on Kidnapped, holding a gun to the
head of a bad guy who (‘til now) refuses to talk.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 13:31:32
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 3:15 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > On Apr 18, 12:23 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
> >> The_Professor wrote:
> >>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> >>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> >>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> >>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> >>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> >>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> >>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> >>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> >>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
> >> Totally a straw man argument:
>
> > I'm not making an arguement, I'm asking a question.
>
> Sorry. I didn't see your question mark. :)
>
> FWIW, I don't support the claim that owning a gun protects you from gun
> violence, nor do I believe the converse.
>
> Joe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I personally don't have a hard opinion either way, other than I feel
really uncomfortable about owning a gun.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:50:25
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
The_Professor wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:15 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>> The_Professor wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 12:23 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>>>> The_Professor wrote:
SNIP
>>
>> FWIW, I don't support the claim that owning a gun protects you from gun
>> violence, nor do I believe the converse.
>>
>> Joe- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I personally don't have a hard opinion either way, other than I feel
> really uncomfortable about owning a gun.
>
I do own a long gun, though just recently acquired as a gift from my
younger brother who felt I really ought to have one. We all grew up as
kids with shotguns and small caliber rifles, so I don't have any bias
against weapons. (Lets see, BB gun at 8 yrs, my first shotgun when I was
10, and a .22 for squirrels at 13. Pretty much like every other country
kid in the area.) I do feel very strongly about the right to ownership
though and that the choice is yours not an agency.
The problem with gun related violence in my opinion is more sociological
than anything else. As a nation we were founded with a gun culture, but
one which expected responsible behavior. The social controls on
behavior have changed now. Look at the video game market place or the
Rap videos. Until the nation comes to grips with the anti-social
behaviors, things are going to get worse. Historically the single
largest factor influencing violent crime is the number of young (twenty
something) males in the population. That is still true, but the new
media driven component has begun to overlay itself. Dr. D can address
this better than I can.
Joe
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:18:29
From: Matt
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
> I personally don't have a hard opinion either way, other than I feel
> really uncomfortable about owning a gun.
So dont own a gun, its your right.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:15:26
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176928292.621465.148780@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> I personally don't have a hard opinion either way, other than I feel
> really uncomfortable about owning a gun.
I own 14 guns. They don't make me uncomfortable.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:31:03
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:g9WdnSZULNftF7vbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:1176928292.621465.148780@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I personally don't have a hard opinion either way, other than I feel
>> really uncomfortable about owning a gun.
>
> I own 14 guns. They don't make me uncomfortable.
>
I get uncomfortable when my gun safe has an empty slot. :-)
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 13:10:18
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 1:37 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:08 pm, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> Where on earth did you get the idea that most people who are shot to
> death own guns? I'm sure that's not even close to being true.
So far, the only REAl information I have found is this, an article
from The Journal of the American Medical Association:
http://www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.html
While it's weak, you definately cannot conclude, as they say, that
guns protect you from gun violence. I never considered the suicide
angle.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:32:41
From: Jeffrey A. Setaro
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 18 Apr 2007 13:10:18 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>On Apr 18, 1:37 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 18, 12:08 pm, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>>
>> Where on earth did you get the idea that most people who are shot to
>> death own guns? I'm sure that's not even close to being true.
>
>So far, the only REAl information I have found is this, an article
>from The Journal of the American Medical Association:
>
>http://www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.html
>
>While it's weak, you definately cannot conclude, as they say, that
>guns protect you from gun violence. I never considered the suicide
>angle.
I'd suggest reading "The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything
You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong" by John R. Lott Jr., "More
Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws" by John R.
Lott Jr. and "The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth
About Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment" by Richard Poe and David
Horowitz
Cheers-
Jeff Setaro
jasetaro@SPAM_ME_NOT_mags.net
http://people.mags.net/jasetaro/
PGP Key IDs DH/DSS: 0x5D41429D RSA: 0x599D2A99 New RSA: 0xA19EBD34
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:47:08
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 12:23 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> Totally a straw man argument:
I'm not making an arguement, I'm asking a question.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:15:33
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
The_Professor wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:23 pm, Joe <J...@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org> wrote:
>> The_Professor wrote:
>>> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>>> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>>> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>>> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>>> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>>> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>>> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>>> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>>> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>> Totally a straw man argument:
>
> I'm not making an arguement, I'm asking a question.
>
Sorry. I didn't see your question mark. :)
FWIW, I don't support the claim that owning a gun protects you from gun
violence, nor do I believe the converse.
Joe
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 07:34:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 11:04 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38 -0700, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
> >your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
>
> >larry
>
> Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
> gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
Right. Nine times out of ten, if a burglar encounters a barking dog,
he's going to leave.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:55:39
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177166077.440487.81010@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 11:04 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38 -0700, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
>> >your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
>>
>> >larry
>>
>> Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
>> gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
>
>
> Right. Nine times out of ten, if a burglar encounters a barking dog,
> he's going to leave.
>
Yes but what do you do about that other tenth?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 15:46:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:55:39 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>> Right. Nine times out of ten, if a burglar encounters a barking dog,
>> he's going to leave.
>>
>Yes but what do you do about that other tenth?
Call the cops, wait till the burglar is either caught or escapes and
then shoot the dog.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 07:33:20
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 11:04 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38 -0700, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
> >your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
>
> >larry
>
> Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
> gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
I once knew a guy who had two dobermans. He was a woodworker and used
his garage as his shop. The garage was attached to the house. One
night he heard someone in the garage. He opened the door, let the dogs
into the garage, locked them in there with the burglar and called the
cops. When they arrived, the dogs had torn the guy up pretty good.
After being convicted of breaking and entering, the burglar sued the
homeowner for siccing the dogs on him. On the advice of his lawyer,
the homowner claimed that it was his usual practice to put the dogs in
the garage at night, and that he didn't know someone was in there
until he heard them attack him. Otherwise, he would have lost the
suit.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 06:13:56
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 21, 12:45 am, BAR <scre...@you.com > wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38 -0700, larry <l...@delmardata.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
> >> your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
>
> >> larry
>
> > Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
> > gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
>
> Depends upon the dog and its disposition. I had a GSD that would not
> accept treats or food except from my immediate family. This dog loved
> me, put up with my wife and tolerated the kids. Everyone else was a
> potential lawsuit.
>
> The tow dogs we have now are dumber than a box of rocks, beagle mutts,
> and they would be following the intruder around waiting for a treat or
> to get petted.
We've got a pretty good dog right now. Don't think she would bite
anyone... but she barks a lot and looks mean and they don't know she
won't bite. I've neer had a dog that would bite anyone... and don't
want one. They are far worse than gun ownership.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 06:10:17
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
>
> Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
> gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
Where's the sport in that? :)
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:45:33
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
> A felon is a person convicted of a crime.
Are you a felon... if your crime is only a misdameanor?
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 12:15:13
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 20, 1:22 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "Bill H." <bill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177091858.760724.37540@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 8:53 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> I don't see how a handgun is much use as a defensive weapon,
> >> especially if you are not trained in it's use. To shoot a moving
> >> target, likely in the dark, and incapacitate them immediately (before
> >> they get off a few shots at you), seems unlikely. If I walk out into
> >> the living room when an intruder is present, my handgun is probably
> >> going to get me shot if the intruder is armed.
>
> > This is why I don't understand those who own handguns for home defense
> > purposes. I think a big, burly, 12-gauge has more stopping power, is
> > more intimidating, and requires far less precision, especially if you
> > consider that your target (i.e. your intruder) may be moving around in
> > the dark. I'm not a weapons expert by any stretch of the imagination,
> > but having fired pistols and having fired a shotgun, I know which I'd
> > rather be armed with if my life (or my family's life) depended on it.
>
> > Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
> > easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>
> Ever shoot a 12G indoors? Not a good idea.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd clean up the mess later if need be. Beats being dead!
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 15:57:35
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1177096513.841801.275700@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 20, 1:22 pm, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Bill H." <bill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1177091858.760724.37540@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 19, 8:53 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't see how a handgun is much use as a defensive weapon,
>> >> especially if you are not trained in it's use. To shoot a moving
>> >> target, likely in the dark, and incapacitate them immediately (before
>> >> they get off a few shots at you), seems unlikely. If I walk out into
>> >> the living room when an intruder is present, my handgun is probably
>> >> going to get me shot if the intruder is armed.
>>
>> > This is why I don't understand those who own handguns for home defense
>> > purposes. I think a big, burly, 12-gauge has more stopping power, is
>> > more intimidating, and requires far less precision, especially if you
>> > consider that your target (i.e. your intruder) may be moving around in
>> > the dark. I'm not a weapons expert by any stretch of the imagination,
>> > but having fired pistols and having fired a shotgun, I know which I'd
>> > rather be armed with if my life (or my family's life) depended on it.
>>
>> > Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
>> > easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>>
>> Ever shoot a 12G indoors? Not a good idea.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I'd clean up the mess later if need be. Beats being dead!
>
You'd also be deaf and blind (if it was dark).
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 10:57:38
From: Bill H.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 8:53 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net > wrote:
> I don't see how a handgun is much use as a defensive weapon,
> especially if you are not trained in it's use. To shoot a moving
> target, likely in the dark, and incapacitate them immediately (before
> they get off a few shots at you), seems unlikely. If I walk out into
> the living room when an intruder is present, my handgun is probably
> going to get me shot if the intruder is armed.
This is why I don't understand those who own handguns for home defense
purposes. I think a big, burly, 12-gauge has more stopping power, is
more intimidating, and requires far less precision, especially if you
consider that your target (i.e. your intruder) may be moving around in
the dark. I'm not a weapons expert by any stretch of the imagination,
but having fired pistols and having fired a shotgun, I know which I'd
rather be armed with if my life (or my family's life) depended on it.
Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 19:44:31
From: WhiteOut
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
> Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
> easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>
>
a friend of mine (and former business partner) has a sawed-off 12 guage
hanging on small bike hooks screwed into the wall just behind his headboard.
he and his wife live in an affluent suburb and his house has been broken
into twice--door was kicked in both times. there is no other person i have
ever felt safer with.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 22:55:19
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:44:31 GMT, "WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com > wrote:
>there is no other person i have
>ever felt safer with.
I have a few friend who, for one reason or another, carry handguns and
I do feel safer when I'm with them, except perhaps when were drinking
and playing cards.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:44:31 GMT, "WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com > wrote:
>
>> Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
>> easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>>
>>
>
>a friend of mine (and former business partner) has a sawed-off 12 guage
>hanging on small bike hooks screwed into the wall just behind his headboard.
>
>he and his wife live in an affluent suburb and his house has been broken
>into twice--door was kicked in both times. there is no other person i have
>ever felt safer with.
He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 23:04:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
>your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
>
>larry
Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:52:54
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:04:11 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
>>your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
>>
>>larry
>
>Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
>gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
Correct. I have both----and have never had need to let my Rottweiler
bite anyone or to show anyone a gun. We have never had even a hint
of an attempted burglary-- because any and all who might want to do
that know that our property is protected.
I don't carry a pistol in my car-- but then I also don't drive in
neighborhoods where I might need one. If I had to do that regularly,
collect rents, etc. I would get a Concealed Carry permit. I know
someone who was nearly car-jacked in a ghetto neighborhood. He
escaped by simply showing them his big .44 revolver as they walked up
to his car. He didn't point it or threaten them. He just made sure
they could see it in his hand. They just turned and walked away.
Nobody wants to die.
Larry
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 00:45:19
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:35:38 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
>> He needs a team of Rottweilers. They would hold the target until
>> your friend had time to get his shotgun out and make a clean shot.
>>
>> larry
>
> Actually a dog is a much better weapon against a house burglar than a
> gun. With a dog, he never gets in and you don't have to shoot him.
Depends upon the dog and its disposition. I had a GSD that would not
accept treats or food except from my immediate family. This dog loved
me, put up with my wife and tolerated the kids. Everyone else was a
potential lawsuit.
The tow dogs we have now are dumber than a box of rocks, beagle mutts,
and they would be following the intruder around waiting for a treat or
to get petted.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 10:07:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:45:19 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com > wrote:
>The tow dogs we have now are dumber than a box of rocks, beagle mutts,
>and they would be following the intruder around waiting for a treat or
>to get petted.
Most dogs will at least bark and wake everyone up if an intruder
attempts to get in the house.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 10:01:19
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 10:07:44 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:45:19 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>
>>The tow dogs we have now are dumber than a box of rocks, beagle mutts,
>>and they would be following the intruder around waiting for a treat or
>>to get petted.
>
>Most dogs will at least bark and wake everyone up if an intruder
>attempts to get in the house.
That is their primary value. But we are in the country here. When we
have crews of workers here-- I ensure the workers see the Rottweiler--
on a leash. I always say, "muy malo" when they see him-- usually
growling as we walk by. Amazingly, we have had no night "visitors."
Larry
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 10:59:32
From: BAR
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:45:19 -0400, BAR <screwed@you.com> wrote:
>
>> The tow dogs we have now are dumber than a box of rocks, beagle mutts,
>> and they would be following the intruder around waiting for a treat or
>> to get petted.
>
> Most dogs will at least bark and wake everyone up if an intruder
> attempts to get in the house.
If you ring the bell they will bark, if you knock they will bark, but if
you just open the door they will great you as a great liberator.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:00:17
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com > wrote in message
news:zK8Wh.1427$H_.285@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
>> Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
>> easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>>
>>
>
> a friend of mine (and former business partner) has a sawed-off 12 guage
> hanging on small bike hooks screwed into the wall just behind his
> headboard.
>
> he and his wife live in an affluent suburb and his house has been broken
> into twice--door was kicked in both times. there is no other person i
> have ever felt safer with.
So you hang out with felons? Cutting down a shotgun is a no-no. I had an
idiot friend that cut down a single shot shotgun down to pistol size. We
talked him into sawing it into little pieces and throwing it away.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:35:57
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote in message
news:58snv0F2hne2uU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com> wrote in message
> news:zK8Wh.1427$H_.285@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>> Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
>>> easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> a friend of mine (and former business partner) has a sawed-off 12 guage
>> hanging on small bike hooks screwed into the wall just behind his
>> headboard.
>>
>> he and his wife live in an affluent suburb and his house has been broken
>> into twice--door was kicked in both times. there is no other person i
>> have ever felt safer with.
> So you hang out with felons? Cutting down a shotgun is a no-no. I had an
> idiot friend that cut down a single shot shotgun down to pistol size. We
> talked him into sawing it into little pieces and throwing it away.
>
A felon is a person convicted of a crime. Cutting down a shotgun is not a
crime. Cutting down a shotgun below federal minimums is a crime. Someone
caught and convicted of cutting down a shot gun below federal minimums is a
felon.
From Wikipedia:
Shotguns intended for defensive use are as short as 18 inches (457 mm) for
private use (the minimum shotgun barrel length allowed by law in the United
States without special permits). Shotguns used by military, police, and
other government agencies are exempted from regulation under the National
Firearms Act of 1934, and often have barrels as short as 12 to 14 inches
(305 to 356 mm), so that they are easier to handle in confined spaces.
Non-prohibited private citizens may own short-barreled shotguns by
purchasing a $200 tax stamp from the Federal government and passing an
extensive background check (state and local laws may be more restrictive).
Defensive shotguns will often have no buttstock or will have a folding stock
to reduce overall length even more when required.
Me again: Overall length is a minimum of 26". Try it with a yard stick and
you will see that it is small. A handy tool around the house.
By the way, the 18" is measured from the face of the bolt.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 13:22:21
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1177091858.760724.37540@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 8:53 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't see how a handgun is much use as a defensive weapon,
>> especially if you are not trained in it's use. To shoot a moving
>> target, likely in the dark, and incapacitate them immediately (before
>> they get off a few shots at you), seems unlikely. If I walk out into
>> the living room when an intruder is present, my handgun is probably
>> going to get me shot if the intruder is armed.
>
> This is why I don't understand those who own handguns for home defense
> purposes. I think a big, burly, 12-gauge has more stopping power, is
> more intimidating, and requires far less precision, especially if you
> consider that your target (i.e. your intruder) may be moving around in
> the dark. I'm not a weapons expert by any stretch of the imagination,
> but having fired pistols and having fired a shotgun, I know which I'd
> rather be armed with if my life (or my family's life) depended on it.
>
> Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
> easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>
Ever shoot a 12G indoors? Not a good idea.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 00:26:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
The book _Freakonomics_ compares the danger of having a house with a
pool and having a house with a gun - and which one is a more dangerous
neighbor. I enjoyed the book, the following is a review:
http://www.freakonomics.com/thebook.php
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:28:31
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:22:21 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"Bill H." <billhen@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1177091858.760724.37540@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 19, 8:53 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see how a handgun is much use as a defensive weapon,
>>> especially if you are not trained in it's use. To shoot a moving
>>> target, likely in the dark, and incapacitate them immediately (before
>>> they get off a few shots at you), seems unlikely. If I walk out into
>>> the living room when an intruder is present, my handgun is probably
>>> going to get me shot if the intruder is armed.
>>
>> This is why I don't understand those who own handguns for home defense
>> purposes. I think a big, burly, 12-gauge has more stopping power, is
>> more intimidating, and requires far less precision, especially if you
>> consider that your target (i.e. your intruder) may be moving around in
>> the dark. I'm not a weapons expert by any stretch of the imagination,
>> but having fired pistols and having fired a shotgun, I know which I'd
>> rather be armed with if my life (or my family's life) depended on it.
>>
>> Granted, you can't keep a 12-gauge in your bedside table, but it could
>> easily be stored under a bed or secured in a closet.
>>
>Ever shoot a 12G indoors? Not a good idea.
I expect that the few times a little lady pulled the trigger of a 12G
indoors it was for a very good reason. I hope she purified the gene
pool just a little bit more.
Larry
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 16:49:39
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:52ji23hda5mkt8tncd70ecd7r3gocnnje6@4ax.com...
> I expect that the few times a little lady pulled the trigger of a 12G
> indoors it was for a very good reason. I hope she purified the gene
> pool just a little bit more.
>
> Larry
Racist
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 09:02:16
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 8:53 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:42 am, Simon <hancock_si...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19 Apr, 07:32, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 18, 2:25 pm, grizzledb...@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
>
> > > > Really, really stupid question. Owning a gun, per se, doesn't do one
> > > > thing in this world to protect you. I own six, five of them hunting
> > > > weapons. The other is a 9mm handgun which sleeps by my head.
>
> > > > Would I use it? You're betting you life should you decide to break into
> > > > my home.
>
> > > > So, do guns protect you? Yes. Only, however, if you know their
> > > > capabilities, have one handy and are willing to pull the trigger.
>
> > > Exactly. One reason I own two pistols is peace of mind, especially
> > > true when we're sleeping on a transient dock in our boat. I sleep
> > > better knowing that if somebody boarded my boat, assuming wealth and
> > > wanting it, I'd have a chance to defend my wife and I.
>
> > > Without it....no reliable defense.
>
> > > -Greg
>
> > To be perfectly honest, I'd rather lose my property than start a
> > gunfight with a someone that probably had more experience of using a
> > gun and certainly more inclination to use one.
>
> > My hunch is that you would be more likely to get shot if you confront
> > an armed criminal with your own gun. I don't know if there are any
> > official figures on this.
>
> > It's a bit of a chicken & egg situation. If burglars assume that
> > householders are armed then they are more likely to arm themselves
> > too. Over here in the UK, I can't recall any incidents of people being
> > shot during robberies. Even if the criminal is armed, the victim won't
> > be and there wouldn't be any need to actually use the gun. The gun
> > crime here seems to be restricted to inner city gangs shooting each
> > other. Criminals will always find guns and use them if they want them.
> > Most decent people won't kill anyone whether they own a gun or not.
> > The problem is when people suddenly flip or get drunk and violent and
> > they have access to weapons. I think that's where gun control could
> > reduce some fatalities, although it's probably too late to take
> > control over the guns already out there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree with your view. If someone breaks into my home to steal my TV,
> do I want to kill someone over that? Of course I want to protect
> myself though. Say a 12 guage shotgun, me hunkered down behind say a
> bed...if the person comes in and threatens me, that's one thing. If
> the person leaves that's another!
That's the scenario I think about....being hunkered down in a boat
cabin, waiting for the cops to come or them to leave....whichever
comes first.
As for a home, hunkering behind a bed is fine unless the perp goes
upstairs where my kids are. Our property is irrelevent. Here in
Mayberry, I don't even bother to lock our doors during the day.
> I don't see how a handgun is much use as a defensive weapon,
> especially if you are not trained in it's use. To shoot a moving
> target, likely in the dark, and incapacitate them immediately (before
> they get off a few shots at you), seems unlikely. If I walk out into
> the living room when an intruder is present, my handgun is probably
> going to get me shot if the intruder is armed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like I said, if he means bodily harm against the people I love, I have
no chance without a gun. With a gun....a chance.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:53:56
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 19, 7:42 am, Simon <hancock_si...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 07:32, Dene <gdst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2:25 pm, grizzledb...@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
>
> > > Really, really stupid question. Owning a gun, per se, doesn't do one
> > > thing in this world to protect you. I own six, five of them hunting
> > > weapons. The other is a 9mm handgun which sleeps by my head.
>
> > > Would I use it? You're betting you life should you decide to break into
> > > my home.
>
> > > So, do guns protect you? Yes. Only, however, if you know their
> > > capabilities, have one handy and are willing to pull the trigger.
>
> > Exactly. One reason I own two pistols is peace of mind, especially
> > true when we're sleeping on a transient dock in our boat. I sleep
> > better knowing that if somebody boarded my boat, assuming wealth and
> > wanting it, I'd have a chance to defend my wife and I.
>
> > Without it....no reliable defense.
>
> > -Greg
>
> To be perfectly honest, I'd rather lose my property than start a
> gunfight with a someone that probably had more experience of using a
> gun and certainly more inclination to use one.
>
> My hunch is that you would be more likely to get shot if you confront
> an armed criminal with your own gun. I don't know if there are any
> official figures on this.
>
> It's a bit of a chicken & egg situation. If burglars assume that
> householders are armed then they are more likely to arm themselves
> too. Over here in the UK, I can't recall any incidents of people being
> shot during robberies. Even if the criminal is armed, the victim won't
> be and there wouldn't be any need to actually use the gun. The gun
> crime here seems to be restricted to inner city gangs shooting each
> other. Criminals will always find guns and use them if they want them.
> Most decent people won't kill anyone whether they own a gun or not.
> The problem is when people suddenly flip or get drunk and violent and
> they have access to weapons. I think that's where gun control could
> reduce some fatalities, although it's probably too late to take
> control over the guns already out there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with your view. If someone breaks into my home to steal my TV,
do I want to kill someone over that? Of course I want to protect
myself though. Say a 12 guage shotgun, me hunkered down behind say a
bed...if the person comes in and threatens me, that's one thing. If
the person leaves that's another!
I don't see how a handgun is much use as a defensive weapon,
especially if you are not trained in it's use. To shoot a moving
target, likely in the dark, and incapacitate them immediately (before
they get off a few shots at you), seems unlikely. If I walk out into
the living room when an intruder is present, my handgun is probably
going to get me shot if the intruder is armed.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 05:42:35
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 19 Apr, 07:32, Dene <gdst...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2:25 pm, grizzledb...@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
>
> > Really, really stupid question. Owning a gun, per se, doesn't do one
> > thing in this world to protect you. I own six, five of them hunting
> > weapons. The other is a 9mm handgun which sleeps by my head.
>
> > Would I use it? You're betting you life should you decide to break into
> > my home.
>
> > So, do guns protect you? Yes. Only, however, if you know their
> > capabilities, have one handy and are willing to pull the trigger.
>
> Exactly. One reason I own two pistols is peace of mind, especially
> true when we're sleeping on a transient dock in our boat. I sleep
> better knowing that if somebody boarded my boat, assuming wealth and
> wanting it, I'd have a chance to defend my wife and I.
>
> Without it....no reliable defense.
>
> -Greg
To be perfectly honest, I'd rather lose my property than start a
gunfight with a someone that probably had more experience of using a
gun and certainly more inclination to use one.
My hunch is that you would be more likely to get shot if you confront
an armed criminal with your own gun. I don't know if there are any
official figures on this.
It's a bit of a chicken & egg situation. If burglars assume that
householders are armed then they are more likely to arm themselves
too. Over here in the UK, I can't recall any incidents of people being
shot during robberies. Even if the criminal is armed, the victim won't
be and there wouldn't be any need to actually use the gun. The gun
crime here seems to be restricted to inner city gangs shooting each
other. Criminals will always find guns and use them if they want them.
Most decent people won't kill anyone whether they own a gun or not.
The problem is when people suddenly flip or get drunk and violent and
they have access to weapons. I think that's where gun control could
reduce some fatalities, although it's probably too late to take
control over the guns already out there.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 23:32:14
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 2:25 pm, grizzledb...@webtv.net (Kenn Smith) wrote:
> Really, really stupid question. Owning a gun, per se, doesn't do one
> thing in this world to protect you. I own six, five of them hunting
> weapons. The other is a 9mm handgun which sleeps by my head.
>
> Would I use it? You're betting you life should you decide to break into
> my home.
>
> So, do guns protect you? Yes. Only, however, if you know their
> capabilities, have one handy and are willing to pull the trigger.
Exactly. One reason I own two pistols is peace of mind, especially
true when we're sleeping on a transient dock in our boat. I sleep
better knowing that if somebody boarded my boat, assuming wealth and
wanting it, I'd have a chance to defend my wife and I.
Without it....no reliable defense.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 16:25:17
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Really, really stupid question. Owning a gun, per se, doesn't do one
thing in this world to protect you. I own six, five of them hunting
weapons. The other is a 9mm handgun which sleeps by my head.
Would I use it? You're betting you life should you decide to break into
my home.
So, do guns protect you? Yes. Only, however, if you know their
capabilities, have one handy and are willing to pull the trigger.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:12:31
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 1:44 pm, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
>By your way of
> thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
> walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> walk out.
In fact, in Virginia, there _was_ nothing wrong with "his being able
to walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
walk out." There was something very wrong, however, with him killing
32 people with said gun(s). But in spirit, I agree with you -
inherently it seems incredibly wrong that weapons such as a semi-
automatic pistol are so readily available to anyone with three valid
forms of ID and a clean record. However, it is the law.
But the reality here is that this guy would have gone off even if the
firearms were harder to obtain. The kids in Columbine stockpiled
firearms they were not able to obtain legally. Where there's a will,
there's a way. Anyone so sick as to slaughter 32 innocent people
isn't going to let a pesky little gun law get in the way. The law
just made it easier for him to accomplish his mission.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 11:44:54
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 12:19 pm, "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net >
wrote:
> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> The problem is carry laws.
>
> The criminals carry guns because they don't care about the laws.
>
> In many areas/situations/states/municipilaties, the law abiding citizen is
> not allowed to carry a gun--even with a legal, concealed carry permit.
>
> Ownership would be even a better idea if government would get out of the way
> and allow all law abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they please.
I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
-- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered. By your way of
thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
walk out.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:43:30
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176921894.358098.265900@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
> -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
> was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
> until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered. By your way of
> thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
> walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> walk out.
Is it mere coincidence that these mass shootings seem to take place in areas
where concealed carry is not allowed? School campusses are all no carry
areas as far as I know. You can not even carry a cub scout pocket knife in
your knapsack to peel an apple.
The nutballs like this guy at VT or the kooks at Columbine are cowards.
Pussies through and through. If confronted with even the thought of equal or
greater force, they wilt.
Otto
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 18:42:37
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:43:30 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1176921894.358098.265900@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> I can't believe people think this way. We're ALL law-abiding citizens
>> -- until we aren't anymore. The kid that went on a rampage at Va. Tech
>> was a decent, law-abiding citizen in legal possession of firearms
>> until he shot the first of the 31 people he murdered. By your way of
>> thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
>> walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
>> walk out.
>
>
>Is it mere coincidence that these mass shootings seem to take place in areas
>where concealed carry is not allowed? School campusses are all no carry
>areas as far as I know. You can not even carry a cub scout pocket knife in
>your knapsack to peel an apple.
And the reason he could do that was because he KNEW that even the
campus police are unarmed. If there had been ANY risk that an
off-duty cop was mixed in those classrooms-- with his weapon
concealed, that guy would NOT have done that.
Larry
>
>The nutballs like this guy at VT or the kooks at Columbine are cowards.
>Pussies through and through. If confronted with even the thought of equal or
>greater force, they wilt.
>
>Otto
>
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 14:19:40
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176921894.358098.265900@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> By your way of
> thinking, there was absolutely nothing wrong with his being able to
> walk into a gun store, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, pay and
> walk out.
>
There is nothing wrong with it. He passed the NICS background check. In MN
you need a permit to purchase a handgun as well as the NICS check at
purchase time. And seeing when he bought the guns a waiting period would not
have had an affect either.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 11:37:03
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 12:08 pm, The_Professor <d...@att.net > wrote:
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
Where on earth did you get the idea that most people who are shot to
death own guns? I'm sure that's not even close to being true.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 13:23:55
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
The_Professor wrote:
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
Totally a straw man argument:
"If I assume..."
"I have no data..."
"If assumption is true..."
"A correlation exists"
"Therefore....case is true"
This is either a troll or one must question how you can be a "professor
in a science based discipline
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 10:11:29
From: Tom Yost
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 18 Apr 2007 09:08:37 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
Is this assumption based on any data?
>... I don't have any data...
Ahh... yeah, OK.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:59:32
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 11:41 am, Bow Tie <ken_pitt...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Rob -
>
> Violent crime rates are down across the board in Texas since conceal
> and carry became the law. The idea is that the criminals do not know
> who is armed and that some number of crimes go thwarted and unreported
> just with the display of a piece by the intended victim. There has
> been only one questionable shooting so far. Someone was being
> assaulted in his car and opened fire. Turned out the attacker was not
> armed.
>
> I own two handguns and have never come close to an accident or having
> to use one. I was trained in the use of and fighting with a sidearm
> and a service rifle in the Navy. I think I could have saved a lot of
> lives if I had been on the VTech campus with my .380 or my 9mm.
>
> You may have heard about that law school where the gunman ultimately
> surrendered. What goes unreported is that a sherriff's deputy was
> attending class there, went to get his hand gun from the car, drew
> down on the assailant and forced the surrender. Most of these
> murdering fools are cowards when confronted with equal force.
>
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> On Apr 18, 11:08 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I personally don't know. Owning a gun is one thing though. Knowing how
to use it in a real life situation is another, so I think you are
right on the money. Most people I know who own guns are great at
shooting hay bales in the back 40 but I suspect couldn't hit a real,
moving, deadly target with a fully automatic machine gun!
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:37:55
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176915572.384978.292730@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>Most people I know who own guns are great at
> shooting hay bales in the back 40 but I suspect couldn't hit a real,
> moving, deadly target with a fully automatic machine gun!
Herein lies your best defense if you can not physically engage the shooter.
Move.
Otto
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 18:40:58
From: larry
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:37:55 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>
>"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote in message
>news:1176915572.384978.292730@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>Most people I know who own guns are great at
>> shooting hay bales in the back 40 but I suspect couldn't hit a real,
>> moving, deadly target with a fully automatic machine gun!
>
>Herein lies your best defense if you can not physically engage the shooter.
>
>Move.
>
>Otto
Thankfully, we needn't shoot straight, or even shoot at all! It can
be a fake gun. A gun is like a Rottweiler-- just the threat is
enough to make them choose a different house, a different guy in the
alley, a different car on a lonely road. Show it to them and drive
on, they will let you pass. They don't want to die, they don't want
noise that would draw the cops and put them back in prison--they want
this crime to be easy! They are looking for helpless sheep-- like
those defenseless unarmed PC morons on the VT campus.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Apr 2007 01:57:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:40:58 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:37:55 -0400, "Otto"
>>Herein lies your best defense if you can not physically engage the shooter.
>>
>>Move.
>>
>>Otto
>
>Thankfully, we needn't shoot straight, or even shoot at all! It can
>be a fake gun. A gun is like a Rottweiler-- just the threat is
>enough to make them choose a different house, a different guy in the
>alley, a different car on a lonely road. Show it to them and drive
>on, they will let you pass. They don't want to die, they don't want
>noise that would draw the cops and put them back in prison--they want
>this crime to be easy! They are looking for helpless sheep-- like
>those defenseless unarmed PC morons on the VT campus.
>
>Larry
MORONS? MORONS? You lowlife piece of shit. You're talking about
kids who were scared to death and had little defense against two
semi-automatic pistols.
You've sunk to a new depth, and I'm sure that you'll find ways to go
even lower. Scum!
bk
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:56:17
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Apr 18, 11:19 am, "MnMikew" <mnmiik...@aol.com > wrote:
> "The_Professor" <d...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>
> I doubt very many of the 32 VT students owned guns.
>
> > how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> > data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> > violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> > if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> > correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> > a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> > required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> > the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
> Goggle John Lott, he has done a lot of research on this.
Thanks. So much of what I find is radical opinion one way or the
other. Hard to find rational analyses with decent data!
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:42:58
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On 18 Apr 2007 09:08:37 -0700, The_Professor <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
>how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
>data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
>violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
>if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
>correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
>a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
>required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
>the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
<sigh >
**plonk thread**
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 09:41:00
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Rob -
Violent crime rates are down across the board in Texas since conceal
and carry became the law. The idea is that the criminals do not know
who is armed and that some number of crimes go thwarted and unreported
just with the display of a piece by the intended victim. There has
been only one questionable shooting so far. Someone was being
assaulted in his car and opened fire. Turned out the attacker was not
armed.
I own two handguns and have never come close to an accident or having
to use one. I was trained in the use of and fighting with a sidearm
and a service rifle in the Navy. I think I could have saved a lot of
lives if I had been on the VTech campus with my .380 or my 9mm.
You may have heard about that law school where the gunman ultimately
surrendered. What goes unreported is that a sherriff's deputy was
attending class there, went to get his hand gun from the car, drew
down on the assailant and forced the surrender. Most of these
murdering fools are cowards when confronted with equal force.
Ken
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Apr 18, 11:08 am, The_Professor <d...@att.net > wrote:
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 07:30:41
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:41:00 -0700, Bow Tie wrote:
> Violent crime rates are down across the board in Texas since conceal and
> carry became the law.
Are they lower than in Canada, where you cannot carry handguns at all?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:24:49
From: Jack Skwaht
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Bow Tie wrote:
snip
> I own two handguns and have never come close to an accident or having
> to use one. I was trained in the use of and fighting with a sidearm
> and a service rifle in the Navy. I think I could have saved a lot of
> lives if I had been on the VTech campus with my .380 or my 9mm.
>
snip
If you had been packing on the VT campus, and you were going to save
lives, that would have required that either 1) you were in the dorm
where the first shootings occured and then sought out the gunman, found
him and killed him, or 2) heard the shooting in the other building, went
there, snuck in, located the scene of the shooting, got a clear shot at
the gunman, and shot and killed him.
In either case, you would have been just as likely to get killed
yourself. What private citizen, even one carrying a weapon, would
actually go TOWARDS the scene of a shooting incident?
In cases like this, usually the shooter is determined to do damage. In
order to prevent multiple deaths, you pretty well have to have some
time, arrange for snipers/shooters to get a clear shot and kill the
gunman to rescue the hostages. There were no hostages in this cae. Just
shooting victims.
--
Jack Skwaht
“Every time you tell me you don’t know, I’ll kill you.”
Knapp--victim recovery specialist on Kidnapped, holding a gun to the
head of a bad guy who (‘til now) refuses to talk.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 15:34:06
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Jack Skwaht" <Nevermind@some.e.mail.org > wrote in message
news:BvsVh.93501$aG1.65250@pd7urf3no...
> Bow Tie wrote:
> snip
>
>> I own two handguns and have never come close to an accident or having
>> to use one. I was trained in the use of and fighting with a sidearm
>> and a service rifle in the Navy. I think I could have saved a lot of
>> lives if I had been on the VTech campus with my .380 or my 9mm.
>>
> snip
>
> If you had been packing on the VT campus, and you were going to save
> lives, that would have required that either 1) you were in the dorm where
> the first shootings occured and then sought out the gunman, found him and
> killed him, or 2) heard the shooting in the other building, went there,
> snuck in, located the scene of the shooting, got a clear shot at the
> gunman, and shot and killed him.
>
> In either case, you would have been just as likely to get killed yourself.
> What private citizen, even one carrying a weapon, would actually go
> TOWARDS the scene of a shooting incident?
>
> In cases like this, usually the shooter is determined to do damage. In
> order to prevent multiple deaths, you pretty well have to have some time,
> arrange for snipers/shooters to get a clear shot and kill the gunman to
> rescue the hostages. There were no hostages in this cae. Just shooting
> victims.
>
>
> --
> Jack Skwaht
If you were in the classroom where he was shooting through the door and you
returned fire through the door it may have stopped the rampage.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:21:22
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
I think the problem is that people who own guns for protection are not
killers and they do not know how or when to use it. It has been said many
times if you pull a gun in self defense then fire it...most people do not do
that and as you say end up being shot or killed.
With all the killings at VA, I see where the supreme court has upheld the
ban on partial birth abortion and the anti abortion people have claimed
victory. I am not getting into that debate except feel some sense of outrage
that the right to life people are usually the same ones against gun controls
of any kind. It appears that they are most concerned about the unborn but
once you are born and enter this world they have no regard to do things to
make life better and or indeed do what they can to keep you alive. Seems a
huge contradiction.
More debates and for the record I am politically independent
I tee off at 7:04 in the morning in sunny S Florida
Bill
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:10:31
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Bill" <bill@home.com > wrote in message
news:KzrVh.6149$Zm3.222@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> With all the killings at VA, I see where the supreme court has upheld the
> ban on partial birth abortion and the anti abortion people have claimed
> victory. I am not getting into that debate except feel some sense of
> outrage that the right to life people are usually the same ones against
> gun controls of any kind. It appears that they are most concerned about
> the unborn but once you are born and enter this world they have no regard
> to do things to make life better and or indeed do what they can to keep
> you alive. Seems a huge contradiction.
>
And you do not see the obvious flip side to this? How about the same people
that get outraged and want to strip all citizens of their right to bear arms
when some sick nut kills 30 people with firearms are the same people which
support the killing of the unborn?
Seems to me that the most dangerous place to be in America is not in a
college classroom. The most dangerous place to be is developing in the
womb.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 07:34:46
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Frank Ketchum" <no-one@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:9%IVh.945$go5.766@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Bill" <bill@home.com> wrote in message
> news:KzrVh.6149$Zm3.222@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>> With all the killings at VA, I see where the supreme court has upheld the
>> ban on partial birth abortion and the anti abortion people have claimed
>> victory. I am not getting into that debate except feel some sense of
>> outrage that the right to life people are usually the same ones against
>> gun controls of any kind. It appears that they are most concerned about
>> the unborn but once you are born and enter this world they have no regard
>> to do things to make life better and or indeed do what they can to keep
>> you alive. Seems a huge contradiction.
>>
>
> And you do not see the obvious flip side to this? How about the same
> people that get outraged and want to strip all citizens of their right to
> bear arms when some sick nut kills 30 people with firearms are the same
> people which support the killing of the unborn?
>
> Seems to me that the most dangerous place to be in America is not in a
> college classroom. The most dangerous place to be is developing in the
> womb.
I certainly see the flip side....the contradiction of both sides...life is
only good for one at a certain time and the other time it seems they dont
care if you get killed.
I do not get involved in the individual debates much anymore except to point
out the obvious contradictions on all sides including what you said
I am teeing off again at 10:30
Maybe I will 'shoot' better today :-)
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 14:23:45
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Bill" <bill@home.com > wrote in message
news:KzrVh.6149$Zm3.222@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> I think the problem is that people who own guns for protection are not
> killers and they do not know how or when to use it. It has been said many
> times if you pull a gun in self defense then fire it...most people do not
> do that and as you say end up being shot or killed.
>
While not being a gun owner, I'll plug a book that is a reasonable read for
someone thinking about it - and which speaks directly to your point (hey, I
know the guy who wrote it and his wife):
Armed Response, A comprehesive guide to using firearms for self-defense
Kenik, David S. ISBN: 0-936783-45-1 http://www.armedresponsebook.com/
> I tee off at 7:04 in the morning in sunny S Florida
>
Yeah, but the rates are lower after 2pm and there's nobody out there ;-)
About to head out myself.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:35:21
From: WhiteOut
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
the right to life people are usually the same ones against gun controls
> of any kind. It appears that they are most concerned about the unborn but
> once you are born and enter this world they have no regard to do things to
> make life better and or indeed do what they can to keep you alive. Seems a
> huge contradiction.
>
?!? their argument is the unborn have no choice to thier own life, so to
protect life means to eliminate abortion (prtecting the innocent). once
born, one has free-will and the right to protect themselves and their
property. which part of that ideal is incongruent with 'making life better'
(whatever the heck that means)?
re: 'trying to keep people alive' -- isn't it the right-to-life crowd who is
generally anti-euthanasia?
enjoy your tee time.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 14:15:52
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com > wrote in message
news:tFsVh.17471$Um6.381@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> the right to life people are usually the same ones against gun controls
>> of any kind. It appears that they are most concerned about the unborn but
>> once you are born and enter this world they have no regard to do things
>> to make life better and or indeed do what they can to keep you alive.
>> Seems a huge contradiction.
>>
>
> ?!? their argument is the unborn have no choice to thier own life, so to
> protect life means to eliminate abortion (prtecting the innocent). once
> born, one has free-will and the right to protect themselves and their
> property. which part of that ideal is incongruent with 'making life
> better' (whatever the heck that means)?
>
> re: 'trying to keep people alive' -- isn't it the right-to-life crowd who
> is generally anti-euthanasia?
>
> enjoy your tee time.
I think you miss the point like they all do, but I will enjoy my game
tomorrow...
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 19:05:13
From: WhiteOut
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Bill" <bill@home.com > wrote in message
news:3ftVh.14841$qB4.8985@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com> wrote in message
> news:tFsVh.17471$Um6.381@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> the right to life people are usually the same ones against gun controls
>>> of any kind. It appears that they are most concerned about the unborn
>>> but once you are born and enter this world they have no regard to do
>>> things to make life better and or indeed do what they can to keep you
>>> alive. Seems a huge contradiction.
>>>
>>
>> ?!? their argument is the unborn have no choice to thier own life, so to
>> protect life means to eliminate abortion (prtecting the innocent). once
>> born, one has free-will and the right to protect themselves and their
>> property. which part of that ideal is incongruent with 'making life
>> better' (whatever the heck that means)?
>>
>> re: 'trying to keep people alive' -- isn't it the right-to-life crowd who
>> is generally anti-euthanasia?
>>
>> enjoy your tee time.
>
>
> I think you miss the point like they all do, but I will enjoy my game
> tomorrow...
>
>
yeah, i think i missed a point you failed to state clearly. cheers.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 15:20:20
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com > wrote in message
news:JZtVh.11124$YL5.5701@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Bill" <bill@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3ftVh.14841$qB4.8985@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "WhiteOut" <gofins@07.com> wrote in message
>> news:tFsVh.17471$Um6.381@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>>> the right to life people are usually the same ones against gun controls
>>>> of any kind. It appears that they are most concerned about the unborn
>>>> but once you are born and enter this world they have no regard to do
>>>> things to make life better and or indeed do what they can to keep you
>>>> alive. Seems a huge contradiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ?!? their argument is the unborn have no choice to thier own life, so
>>> to protect life means to eliminate abortion (prtecting the innocent).
>>> once born, one has free-will and the right to protect themselves and
>>> their property. which part of that ideal is incongruent with 'making
>>> life better' (whatever the heck that means)?
>>>
>>> re: 'trying to keep people alive' -- isn't it the right-to-life crowd
>>> who is generally anti-euthanasia?
>>>
>>> enjoy your tee time.
>>
>>
>> I think you miss the point like they all do, but I will enjoy my game
>> tomorrow...
>>
>>
>
> yeah, i think i missed a point you failed to state clearly. cheers.
>
reading and comprehension skills are hard to come by these days
you take care and write some more I will earn
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 07:58:25
From: Frank Ketchum
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Bill" <bill@home.com > wrote in message news:vbuVh.8385$vD4.1073@bigfe9...
>
> reading and comprehension skills are hard to come by these days
> you take care and write some more I will earn
>
That quite nicely sums up a large majority of threads round here especially
political ones.
How did you shoot?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 07:29:13
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Frank Ketchum" <no-one@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:QPIVh.944$go5.468@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Bill" <bill@home.com> wrote in message news:vbuVh.8385$vD4.1073@bigfe9...
>>
>> reading and comprehension skills are hard to come by these days
>> you take care and write some more I will earn
>>
>
> That quite nicely sums up a large majority of threads round here
> especially political ones.
>
> How did you shoot?
my partner or at golf? :-)
Had an ok 91...usual screw ups.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 11:19:38
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
I doubt very many of the 32 VT students owned guns.
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
>
Goggle John Lott, he has done a lot of research on this.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 09:36:57
From:
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
The time has come where we have to go door to door and search and
collect all
guns and destroy them. Along with going to gun stores and doing the same
thing.
We can no longer have weapons in the home or on person.
It must be done. If no one has guns, then no one can be killed by guns.
The time has come to do this now.
charles
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 13:49:44
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:36:57 -0400, charles381@webtv.net wrote:
>The time has come where we have to go door to door and search and
>collect all
>guns and destroy them. Along with going to gun stores and doing the same
>thing.
>We can no longer have weapons in the home or on person.
>
>It must be done. If no one has guns, then no one can be killed by guns.
>The time has come to do this now.
>
>charles
Troll.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 11:06:00
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:8aep23551ngjfmo8jgq5qb6gtgfbfoc273@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:36:57 -0400, charles381@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>The time has come where we have to go door to door and search and
>>collect all
>>guns and destroy them. Along with going to gun stores and doing the same
>>thing.
>>We can no longer have weapons in the home or on person.
>>
>>It must be done. If no one has guns, then no one can be killed by guns.
>>The time has come to do this now.
>>
>>charles
>
> Troll.
> --
And a stupid one at that.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:19:20
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1176912517.689586.144460@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> If I assume that most people who are shot to death by guns own guns,
> how can you claim guns protect you from gun violence? I don't have any
> data, but at least some people who think guns protect you from gun
> violence don't seem to be able to refute the assumption. In any event,
> if most of the people who are shot to death own guns, then the
> correlation is very telling, IMHO, because, if nothing else, there is
> a rational basis for inferring a causal mechnaism because guns are
> required to shoot someone to death with a gun. Maybe owning a gun does
> the opposite of protecting you from gun violence!
The problem is carry laws.
The criminals carry guns because they don't care about the laws.
In many areas/situations/states/municipilaties, the law abiding citizen is
not allowed to carry a gun--even with a legal, concealed carry permit.
Ownership would be even a better idea if government would get out of the way
and allow all law abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they please.
Otto
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 06:23:25
From: multi
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:19:20 -0400, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:
>Ownership would be even a better idea if government would get out of the way
>and allow all law abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they please.
It would have been great if some of the students or teachers there had
been carrying concealed guns, and shot the guy before he could kill so
many people.
It would be terrible if everybody in a bar or on the highway carried
concealed guns, and an argument that might have stopped at a couple
punches ended up with somebody dead.
There is one incident like VaTech about every five years or so. There
are probably thousands of road rage incidents or bar fights every day.
I'm just sayin.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 17:32:14
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
Otto wrote:
> Ownership would be even a better idea if government would get out of the way
> and allow all law abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they please.
*gong* for prick post of the year.
Blago
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:16:33
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
"Blagovist" <blag@ovist.com > wrote in message
news:46264831$1_1@x-privat.org...
> Otto wrote:
>
>> Ownership would be even a better idea if government would get out of the
>> way
>> and allow all law abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they please.
>
> *gong* for prick post of the year.
>
> Blago
Why make too much sense for you?
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 19:56:42
From: Blagovist
Subject: Re: Do guns protect you?
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "Blagovist" <blag@ovist.com> wrote in message
> news:46264831$1_1@x-privat.org...
>> Otto wrote:
>>
>>> Ownership would be even a better idea if government would get out of the
>>> way
>>> and allow all law abiding citizens to carry guns wherever they please.
>> *gong* for prick post of the year.
>>
>> Blago
>
> Why make too much sense for you?
It's already dangerous enough having some prick "want some" after a few
buds, without giving him a gun.
Blago
|
|
