[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:49:41 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
wrote:


And this last line is the key --- biases in the survey.

For in fact the survey is multply biased toward reporting DGUs, and
accepting reports for what they are. That is, the person pulling the weapon
defines the incident, not both parties involved let alone an independent
third party. Thus the most common DGU reported is something like "I saw a
scary person, I brandished my gun, and he ran away".

Kee-****ing-H-christ. Let's say the victim DIDN'T have a gun,
got mugged or raped, and reported it. Are you going to make the same
comment THEN ?? 'Well, there was no independent third party witness,
so it didn't happen' ?

An analysis of Kleck's numbers, even after they are vetted to remove reports
even Kleck finds unreliable, show most rspondents could not_prove_ that a
crime was committed or that the person supposedly doing the threatening was,
in fact, armed. That is, the DGUser was actually the agressor.

What would make you happy as 'proof', a trip to the hospital ?
What if someone reports getting mugged, their jewelry and wallet
stolen - there's no proof they didn't just leave them at home that day
instead, right ? Or maybe the necklace FELL off a while ago, and the
lady didn't notice until now. So, according to you, there can not
have been any crime ?

Face it - there's NOTHING that you're going to admit proves
the case that having a gun is a valid self-defense measure.

So - buh by,

plonk


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

[Bert Hyman]

In
wrote:

Face it - there's NOTHING that you're going to admit proves
the case that having a gun is a valid self-defense measure.

As far as these guys are concerned, a defensive gun use requires that
somebody ends up dead.

Blood thirsty *******s, aren't they?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
In
wrote:

Face it - there's NOTHING that you're going to admit proves
the case that having a gun is a valid self-defense measure.

As far as these guys are concerned, a defensive gun use requires that
somebody ends up dead.

**Not so. It's just that the dead guys SEEM to be the only ones which are
reported. All the other alleged DGUs are kept secret. It's all just a bit
hard to believe. I am certain that there are SOME DGUs where the bad guy
does not end up dead. Just how many, is a source of mystery. It would seem
reasonable to collate police reports and work out the real numbers from
those reports.


Blood thirsty *******s, aren't they?

**Remind me: Who are the ones that want to point guns at people?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com