"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:05:23 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:37:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Thank you for admitting that gun control does not stop crime and only
hurts
innocent people.

You, Bubba Bubble Blow, man of mangled, eyes with furtive and nose
with broken, upon me your oggle, pigsome and plentywide, affixed now
as your bubble-tongue babbles. Gug-bubble gun gug, you say, and smack
do you your bullet-shell rattle upon my ammunition chastity belt. No
gun gug naughty! is your torment as you nappy-shuffle against me,
water pistol love-plastic cocked and potent. Tooth of bits and grin of
piano smash, entwined you make we become, and yours, I am yours,
goggle google gummy goops.

Rubbing myself.

What s(he) said...

Finally your intellectual equal.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:37:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:01:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


I don't like restrictions that only harm innocent people and do
nothing
to
stop crime

OK, I'm finished with this topic. It' clear that you have no intention
of keeping an open mind...

Thank you for admitting that gun control does not stop crime and only
hurts
innocent people.

Wrong answer.

With your level of education and erudition, I can see how you'd come
up with that though...

You gave up what else am I supposed to conclude, especially in light f the
fact that what I said about gun control is true.

BTW, when in all this conversation was YOUR mind open?

"Girth" wrote in message
...
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote:

Q: If guns should be legal, why not machine guns and rocket
launchers?

In the case of machine guns they used to be legal.

Do you think machine guns should be legal *now*?

I suppose a case could be made that a rocket laucher is overkill
for self defense.

Please explain why a rocket launcher is overkill for self defense :

Collateral damage.

Correct!! Well done!! Here... have a banana.

OK, another one. Imagine that machine guns are legal in the US, and
many criminals do carry them when committing burglaries. What should
the sensible home owner do then?


Minefield of course.

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:01:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


I don't like restrictions that only harm innocent people and do nothing
to
stop crime

OK, I'm finished with this topic. It' clear that you have no intention
of keeping an open mind...

What am I supposed to be open to? Repealling the 2nd Ammendment?

Touchy, feely legislation that only affects the law abiding?

How about you show me any factual evidence that any gun control does
anything to curb crime.

Dormer ambled:

GeoSynch was making a racist comment? Hmm.. hard not to take offence
at that, but perhaps Geosynch didn't realise that I'm black.

Do you take offense whenever 'lil Georgie calls someone 'chimp boy'?

Not if they have the intelligent of a chimp, no.

There, there Geo. Nice banana for you!

Ooga-booga.

Do you wear those pimp shoes to keep your knuckles from scraping the ground?


GeoSynch

Dormer goes out on a limb:

OK, another one. Imagine that machine guns are legal in the US, and
many criminals do carry them when committing burglaries. What should
the sensible home owner do then?

Why, they should do what Brits do - break out the bumbershoot and
go chase after the machine-gun-wielding burglar!


GeoSynch

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
Girth wrote:
Oily Tartlet wrote:


Why even The Devil himself wrote here that he had been robbed at
gunpoint!

I was. And if I'd had a gun, it wouldn't have helped--unless I wanted
to kill them as they ran away.


The idea is to pull the gun on them *before* they rob you.

In the socialist mindset, we are all potential victims who are
unable to stop anything.

They come up with a scenario about a robbery. You say you have a gun.
They come back with a scenario where they have their gun to your head.
You come back with martial arts or combat training. They come back
with a dozen armed felons wielding guns.

I've had this exact same discussion here in this group with
someone who tried this tactic. It was as full of holes then and
I don't think the world has changed much in two months. Last
I checked, it hadn't.


as Jeffrey Snyder says in
FIGHTING
BACK: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun :
"Permit holders need concern themselves with only one thing: protecting
themselves from a sudden, violent assault that threatens life or
grievous
bodily injury. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically
actions
rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of
observation,
great book-learning, or a stint at the police academy to discern. When a
man
pulls a knife on a woman and says, 'You're coming with me,' her judgment
that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error."
"Police, by contrast, do not carry arms solely for the purpose of
defending
themselves, but also for the purpose of enforcing the law. They
deliberately
inject themselves into potentially dangerous and violent situations,
responding to calls for assistance, investigating crimes, intervening in
domestic violence, and making arrests."
The police have much wider duties and responsibilities than civilian
concealed
carry weapon (CCW) permit holders do. As a result, opposing CCW laws
because
police receive greater weapons training or requiring civilians to receive
the
same training as police officers is unwarranted. (Snyder's article also
points-out that police mistakenly kill roughly 300 innocent victims per
year
versus around 30 per year by civilians.)
Additional Sources
The NRA's viewpoint on right to carry laws.
Handgun Control Inc.'s Carrying Concealed Weapons - Questions & Answers
and
Concealed Weapons, Concealed Risk.
One attorney's opinion why carrying a handgun in public may not be for
everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect. A brief, but
informative history of concealed-carry laws, the motives behind early
handgun
licensing and registration laws, and misconceptions regarding concealed
carry
are discussed.
The Florida Department of State - Division of Licensing, concealed
weapons/firearms reports on CCW holders.
The Texas Department of Public Safety, arrest information for Texas
concealed
handgun license holders.
Concealed carry statutes at gunlaws.com.
Additional concealed carry statute information by state from packing.org.


|GunCite Home|

Last Updated: 7/27/2003|GunCite Home|

Is a Gun an Effective Means of Self-Defense?

Summary
Contrary to myth that using a gun in self-defense is more likely to result
in
injury or death to the victim or innocent bystanders and fail to
successfully
thwart the crime rather than the criminal, the evidence, as opposed to
selective anecdotes, suggests the opposite. (Of course this doesn't mean
that
all people should have a gun, or a gun should be used in all
life-threatening
situations.)

Discussion
Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998).
Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives
on
Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:
"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the
sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and
confrontational
burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender.
The
most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the
self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims
attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender
with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the
second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only
by
another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a
nongun weapon." (p. 291)
"[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be
uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS
data
suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in
injury
risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater
effectiveness
in avoiding property loss." (p. 292)
Kleck summarizes the effectiveness and risks of victim self-protection
measures, gleaned from NCVS data, in this table.
Are the lower rates of injury and property loss with defensive gun use
simply
due to the victims having a more favorable set of circumstances than
non-gun
victims? Perhaps the criminals failed to surprise gun defending victims
giving
them time to ready their weapons. Kleck responds to this speculation by
writing:
"These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection
actually
face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the
post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they
are, may still be misleadingly high compared to tother self-protection
measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime
circumstances.
More dangerous situations apparently prompt victims to adopt more
dangerous
self-protection measures. Two pieces of information available in the
NCVS
support this view. First, victims who used guns were substantially more
likely than victims in general or victims using other self-protection
measures to face offenders armed with guns - 32.7 percent of victims who
attacked the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who
threatened
the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the
offender with a gun, faced offenders with guns, compared to only 6.8
percent
of all victims who used self-protection measures, and 2.2 percent of all
victims. Second, victims who used guns were more likely to face multiple
offenders - 33.2 percent of victims who attacked offenders with a gun
and
34.5 percent of those who threatened with a gun confronted multiple
adversaries, compared to 20.6 percent of all those who used
self-protection
measures, and 6.2 percent of all victims. These findings are consistent
with
the view that crime circumstances likely to appear more dangerous to
victims
are more likely to push victims into using guns. They are contrary to
the
speculation that crime outcomes are better for gun-wielding victims
merely
because other circumstances of the crime made successful outcomes more
likely." (pp. 291-92)
Further supporting his contention Kleck writes:
"The simple percentage table results concerning robbery completion and
injury rates are, however, supported by more sophisticated multivariate
analysis of NCVS robbery incidents. In a logistic regression analysis,
Kleck
and Miriam Delone ("Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in
Robbery," Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9 [1993]: 55-82) found
that
robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less
likely to either be injured or lose their property than victims who used
any
other form of self protection or who did nothing to resist. This was
true
even when controlling for other characteristics of the robbery situation
that could influence the effectiveness of defensive actions, such as the
number of robbers, the number of victims, whether the robbery occurred
in a
private place, whether it occurred when it was dark, whether the robbers
were armed, the age and gender of victims, and so on. Thus, there is no
support for the speculation that gun defenders do well merely because of
other advantageous crime circumstances associated with defensive gun
use."
(pp. 293-94)
Appearing to contradict Kleck's assertions are the pre-self-protection
injury
rates. 27% percent of victims were injured prior to taking any
self-protection
measures, but only 5% of gun-defenders were injured prior to taking their
actions. However, "injuries are less common in gun robberies than in
nongun
robberies... Analysts typically attribute the lower injury rate among gun
robbery victims to their lower rates of resistance. Although this is part
of
the explanation, gun robbers are also less likely to attack or injure
their
victims, even controlling for resistance. Further, since resistance often
follows injury, it is not clear that the resistance-injury association
indicates that resistance provokes robber attack. To the extent that
injury
precedes resistance, one cannot entirely explain the lower injury rates of
gun
robberies by less frequent victim resistance... Murder of the victim is
more
likely in gun robberies than non-gun robberies." (Gary Kleck, Targeting
Guns:
Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. pp
238-39. [numerous citations omitted])
Regardless of whether gun-defenders faced easier circumstances or not, as
Kleck concludes, defensive gun use is often an effective form of
self-defense.


Nowwhere in their minds is it possible to actually defend yourself
as that is counter to their ideas of personal responsibility and
power.


Of course not the governement is supposed to provide all that. Liberals
never cease to be confused, the government that can't run wars becuase they
are senselsess killing and that shouldn't be allowed to kill murderers is
supposed to defend you from them when the liberals won't vote enough money
for adequate police forces in the first place or when there's a need to cut
money from a budget, where's the first place they want to cut?

Dormer dallied:

Home burglaries in the U.S. where the homeowner is home
are exceedingly rare because as robbers have stated, they
fear an armed homeowner more than they fear being caught
by the police.

Getting your head blown off so only parts of it remain, dangling from
tendrils, is something that happens fairly often in America.

Define "fairly often" limey puke!


GeoSynch

Girth wrote:

"GeoSynch" wrote:

It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in.
Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates
who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution.
When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he
said he would but he never did.

The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is
approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully
convicted.

Prove it.


GeoSynch

Dormer spun:

It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in.
Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates
who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution.
When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he
said he would but he never did.

The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is
approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully
convicted.

Prove it.

I should say, not those killed, they would never admit to that - those
exonerated from death row.

In other words, no proof to substantiate your ridiculous claims.
Why am I not surprised?


GeoSynch

Dormer spun himself silly:

It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in.
Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates
who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution.
When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he
said he would but he never did.

The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is
approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully
convicted.

Prove it.

I should say, not those killed, they would never admit to that - those
exonerated from death row.

In other words, no proof to substantiate your ridiculous claims.
Why am I not surprised?

You are so full of crap I can't be bothered.

Yep, you're just like Trevor, alright.

When challenged to prove the veracity of your ludicrous claims,
you look around for the nearest exit.

Sorry to inform you, ol' chap, but you're the one who is full of it.


GeoSynch

Girth wrote:
"GeoSynch" wrote:


All figures are /1000 people.

Assaults Murders Burglaries
US 7.98 0.05 7.48
Australia 7.22 0.02 22.35

Hey! Look! Nobody has guns at home!

Gheez that's a high figure for robberies. That's one out of
every 44 people per year. Nasty.

Trevor's proud of his vulnerable position when it comes to
getting robbed by criminals.

Home burglaries in the U.S. where the homeowner is home
are exceedingly rare because as robbers have stated, they
fear an armed homeowner more than they fear being caught
by the police.


Getting your head blown off so only parts of it remain, dangling from
tendrils, is something that happens fairly often in America.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

Girth wrote:


"GeoSynch" wrote:

It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks
in.
Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates
who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution.
When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he
said he would but he never did.

The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is
approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully
convicted.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







I don't know percentages, but since the advent of DNA testing, a significant
number of people convicted of first-degree murder and scheduled for execution
have been exonerated.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Girth wrote:


"GeoSynch" wrote:

It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor
trafficks
in.
Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates
who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution.
When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he
said he would but he never did.

The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is
approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully
convicted.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t







I don't know percentages, but since the advent of DNA testing, a
significant
number of people convicted of first-degree murder and scheduled for
execution
have been exonerated.



Bruce J. Richman


Interesting new book coming out from Mark Fuhrman on one little county in
Oklahoma that has been generating the majority of that states death
sentences. He said in an interview that he would be oppose to the death
penalty if can't be done better than these guys are doing it.

Girth tries to gaze beyond his navel

I'm not going to tie your shoelaces for you.

You ain't even capable of reaching down to tie your own shoelaces.

Oh yes I am.

Prove it!


GeoSynch