[dave weil]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:33:11 -0400, "CB" wrote:


"Rich Travsky" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:
"nebulax" wrote in message
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2698141.shtml

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

Don't confuse CB with facts.

Just think if Holocaust survivor Professor Liviu Librescu threw a pullet at
loon murderer Cho Seung-Hui rather than him self, the bloodshed would have
ended there.

Yes, throwing young chickens is known to scare the bejezus out of mass
murderers...

[CB]

"Rich Travsky" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:
"nebulax" wrote in message
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2698141.shtml

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

Don't confuse CB with facts.


Just think if Holocaust survivor Professor Liviu Librescu threw a bullet at
loon murderer Cho Seung-Hui rather than him self, the bloodshed would have
ended there.

[nebulax]

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:33:11 -0400, "CB" wrote:


"Rich Travsky" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:
"nebulax" wrote in message
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the
NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2698141.shtml

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will
have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought
into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

Don't confuse CB with facts.

Just think if Holocaust survivor Professor Liviu Librescu threw a pullet
at
loon murderer Cho Seung-Hui rather than him self, the bloodshed would
have
ended there.

Yes, throwing young chickens is known to scare the bejezus out of mass
murderers...

Especially frozen chickens... those things can leave a nasty bruise!

[dave weil]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:34:52 -0400, "CB" wrote:

Just think if Holocaust survivor Professor Liviu Librescu threw a bullet at
loon murderer Cho Seung-Hui rather than him self, the bloodshed would have
ended there.

I threw a bullet at someone once - it bounced harmlessly off of his
arm.

[CB]

"Jeffrey Turner" wrote in message
...
CB wrote:

"nebulax" wrote in message
...

"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2698141.shtml




The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will have
to carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

Of course you've got a test for a "criminal mind"? Like all the traders
at Enron?

If ever a test was passed, it was by Alec Baldwin


--
CB
China and Russia sell arms to Syria and Iran. Iran and Syria supply their
surrogates, in Hezbollah, el Qaeda and the rest, America is forced to fight
Islamo-fascism for fear of them coming to her shores and Libs fight to keep
America's President down while preventing America from being Energy
independent of OPEC, the perfect storm.

[George M. Middius]

CB said:

Of course you've got a test for a "criminal mind"?

If ever a test was passed, it was by Alec Baldwin

Hmm.... He's not in jail, not awaiting trial, not even accused of a
crime. Are you blaming him for one of his brothers' didos?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Rich Travsky]

wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:41:43 -0600, Rich Travsky
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:21:22 -0400, "CB" wrote:


And the law made an even more ludicrous error in deciding that
'only criminals are allowed to have guns on campus'.

Where did the law say that? WHich criminals are you referring to?

RT

The one saying the campus was a 'gun free zone'. BY
definition, if you carry a gun on campus, you are a criminal.

No, it is not an arrestable offense. It's campus rules. You can get expelled.

Therefore, anyone who wishes to NOT commit a crime, must leave their
gun at home. Homicidal maniacs, bring theirs.

[Rich Travsky]

CB wrote:
"Rich Travsky" wrote in message
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:21:22 -0400, "CB" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
wrote in
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:10:43 -0500, dave weil
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:
"nebulax" wrote in message
...
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the
NRA! What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings,
D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...ico/main269814
1.shtml

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will
have to carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought
into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to
be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states.
However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties
prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure
if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year. Of course, they can ONLY be SWAG's because, by the nature of
the situations, 90 % + of them go unreported. There's an attempted
mugging or rape in a dark parking garage, the CCW holder shows
his/her
gun, attacker runs away, CCW holder gets in car and drives off. No
shots fired, no police report, no statistics. Or Home-owner sees
someone lurking around the bushes, peering in the windows, etc, goes
outside with his/her gun and chases them off. No shots fired, no
police report, no statistics.

What it comes down to is the RIGHT ( not 'priviledge' ) of
self defense. Our entire legal system is founded on the concept of
'protection of the rights of the innocent', even when they have the
undesired effect of protecting the rights of the guilty. Our entire
legal system is based on the concept of 'better that 10 guilty men go
free than that one innocent man goes to jail'. The same applies to
self-defense - it is not acceptable for even one person to be
stripped
of their RIGHT to self-defense, regardless of whether there are
criminals in society who find in that a way to twist it to their
advantage.

So Cho was just exercising his "right to self defense"
when he walked on to campus with all those guns?

Man you are one dumb som-bitch

The loony-ben system failed to protect society after he was found a
danger
to him self, Libs run the asylum for the most part. The skoo failed
their
student body for having a loony policy of protecting loons from being
expelled or even suspended.

And the law made an even more ludicrous error in deciding that
'only criminals are allowed to have guns on campus'.

Where did the law say that? WHich criminals are you referring to?

Did you understand what P.M. said?

Better than you do.

Where law abiding citizens are barred from caring firearms on campus,
criminals are free too.

These are kids, you moron.

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that
John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people
like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making
them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out
to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference

How sad, true and ironic her words have become

Coulter? The plagiarist? HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Rich Travsky]

dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:33:11 -0400, "CB" wrote:
"Rich Travsky" wrote in message
dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:
"nebulax" wrote in message
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2698141.shtml

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

Don't confuse CB with facts.

Just think if Holocaust survivor Professor Liviu Librescu threw a pullet at
loon murderer Cho Seung-Hui rather than him self, the bloodshed would have
ended there.

Yes, throwing young chickens is known to scare the bejezus out of mass
murderers...

We mustn't be so hard on CB - he was trying so hard to use English for once.

RT

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:18:42 -0600, Rich Travsky
wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:41:43 -0600, Rich Travsky
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:21:22 -0400, "CB" wrote:


And the law made an even more ludicrous error in deciding that
'only criminals are allowed to have guns on campus'.

Where did the law say that? WHich criminals are you referring to?

RT

The one saying the campus was a 'gun free zone'. BY
definition, if you carry a gun on campus, you are a criminal.

No, it is not an arrestable offense. It's campus rules. You can get expelled.

OK - so 'the rules ( not the law ) say that anyone with a gun
can get expelled ( or fired, if employed there, I assume )'. Same
effect - people who follow the law ( and the 'rules' ) are disarmed,
those who ignore 'the rules' bring guns if they choose. Net result -
same as if it were a law.



Therefore, anyone who wishes to NOT commit a crime, must leave their
gun at home. Homicidal maniacs, bring theirs.

--
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/

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:23:13 -0600, Rich Travsky
wrote:

CB wrote:
"Rich Travsky" wrote in message


And the law made an even more ludicrous error in deciding that
'only criminals are allowed to have guns on campus'.

Where did the law say that? WHich criminals are you referring to?

Did you understand what P.M. said?

Better than you do.

Where law abiding citizens are barred from caring firearms on campus,
criminals are free too.

These are kids, you moron.

They are adults, moron. Over 18, often up to 22, and legally
adults in every sense. Employees, of course - easily 50 - 60 + years
old in many cases. Thus, also adults.


"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that
John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people
like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making
them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out
to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference

How sad, true and ironic her words have become

Coulter? The plagiarist? HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

--
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/

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 12:14 am, "nebulax" wrote:
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA! What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=d...Select=seminar

As much as people try to claim otherwise, there is no connection
between guns and increases in violence.

The random acts of a few nut cases who are intent on killing people
are not a reason to enact more gun control.

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 5:42 am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

dw:

I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year.

You'd think Britain would be depopulated by now.

Just what RAO needs, a gun thread.

Stephen

It wouldn't be such a big deal if the anti-gun side would simply be
honest enough to look at all the data in context.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On 25 Apr 2007 08:58:46 -0700, avidlistener
wrote:

On Apr 20, 12:14 am, "nebulax" wrote:
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA! What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=d...Select=seminar

As much as people try to claim otherwise, there is no connection
between guns and increases in violence.

The random acts of a few nut cases who are intent on killing people
are not a reason to enact more gun control.

If they were, we'd have to ban gasoline, fertilizer, cars,
sticks, and a few other things.

BTW - case in point - I don't recall the 9/11 hijackers using
guns.


--
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/

[CB]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:14 am, "nebulax" wrote:
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=d...Select=seminar

As much as people try to claim otherwise, there is no connection
between guns and increases in violence.

The random acts of a few nut cases who are intent on killing people
are not a reason to enact more gun control.

America 'is' 28th in the world for gun violence, after most EU and Latino
countries.

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 8:16 am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year. snip

That would be one in three Americans. Sorry, not believable.

More like 1 in 300. (Did you skip your morning caffeine dosage?)

Opps. Still....

It's hard to get truly accurate data on the subject since most people
don't bother to fill out a police report when they scare away a
criminal with their gun.

[Trevor Wilson]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 20, 8:16 am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year. snip

That would be one in three Americans. Sorry, not believable.

More like 1 in 300. (Did you skip your morning caffeine dosage?)

Opps. Still....

It's hard to get truly accurate data on the subject since most people
don't bother to fill out a police report when they scare away a
criminal with their gun.

**Got any proof of that?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Trevor Wilson]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:14 am, "nebulax" wrote:
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=d...Select=seminar

As much as people try to claim otherwise, there is no connection
between guns and increases in violence.

**There is, however, a DIRECT connection between lax, stupid and haphazard
gun control laws and the number of people shot to death:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

It is not the number of guns in a society that is a problem. It is WHO is
able to access those guns. The US is unique compared to all the other
Western, developed nations, WRT the sale of guns (in many jurisdictions)
without the requirement of background checks. This was amply demonstrated by
the events in Vermont. Worse, in the US secondary gun sales (in many
jurisdictions) require no background checks whatsoever. In the cases where
they are, there are hopelessly inadequate checks and balances to back up
such requirements.


The random acts of a few nut cases who are intent on killing people
are not a reason to enact more gun control.

**I'll make sure that the parents of those killed in Vermont know this fact.
I'm sure they will be comforted.

Alternatively, you could pull your head out of the sand and admit that the
rate of gun violence in the US is simply unacceptable.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 12:23 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:10:43 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:

"nebulax" wrote in message
.. .
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year.

**Bull****. Those "estimates" are nothing but wild speculation. There are
somewhat less than 200 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) resulting in the death of
the perp each year in the US. A handful more result in injury.

Of course, they can ONLY be SWAG's because, by the nature of

the situations, 90 % + of them go unreported.

**Then how the **** can you say that 1,000,000 DGUs occur each year? The
ONLY DGUs of interest are the ones which are reported to police. Anything
else is a delusion.

How can you collect accurate data from people who don't file police
reports when they scare away a criminal?

There's an attempted

mugging or rape in a dark parking garage, the CCW holder shows his/her
gun, attacker runs away, CCW holder gets in car and drives off. No
shots fired, no police report, no statistics. Or Home-owner sees
someone lurking around the bushes, peering in the windows, etc, goes
outside with his/her gun and chases them off. No shots fired, no
police report, no statistics.

**Great way to get criminals off the street. NOT!

You'll never get them off the stree, but you don't have to allow
yourself to be a victim.

What it comes down to is the RIGHT ( not 'priviledge' ) of
self defense.

**A gun is not necessarily the best method for acheiving that. All the other
Western, developed nations allow for self defence for their citizens.
They're just not allowed to carry guns around the streets to do it. And
amazingly enough, fewer people get shot to death in the process.

But what about the other ways to get yourself killed? Removing guns
does not mean reducing crime.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/
Look at the facts about Australia: GUN CONTROL IN AUSTRALIA An
excerpt.
What Has Happened, and How
20 Oct 01

The AIC and the media worked on maintaining high support for the new
gun laws. On November 4, 1996 the AIC released "Violent Deaths and
Firearms in Australia: Data & Trends." About 70 percent of this 96-
page report (RPP04) is about firearm deaths. The rest is about
Australian homicide over the years. On the same day the AIC also
issued a media release entitled "Lax firearm laws mean more deaths."

The actual report is a generally professional statistical analysis
with some scattered bias, like constantly referring to "firearm
caused" deaths. But the media release was blatantly biased and drew
unwarranted conclusions about firearms prevalence and death rates.

The media release opened by declaring that the AIC report "shows that
Australian states in which guns have been more easily available have
significantly higher death rates than the national average"-and
listing 1994 firearm (not total) death rates for the states and
territories. The media release title and opening statement tried to
make the public think something about deaths in general although the
material was only about those deaths in which firearms were the
instruments used to cause such deaths.

Then, among findings mentioned, the media release stated that the
firearms death rate had fallen over the past decade "as legislation of
the late 1980s in some states has made firearms somewhat more
difficult to obtain," that "those states in which firearms regulation
and licensing have been less stringent have had significantly higher
[gun} death rates than the national average" and that the usual small
group of countries have less gun homicides than the USA because the
USA has more guns. All these statements were attempts to make the
public think that the legislation in some states and countries had
reduced gun death rates and that states/countries with less stringent
control had higher death rates as a result, ignoring the possibility
that the higher and lower gun death rates might be caused by something
other than gun laws or gun prevalence. The report actually had no
facts upon which to base such conclusions. Note that the AIC switched
to addressing homicide rather than total deaths when discussing
international comparisons since some of the countries have higher
suicide rates than the USA.

The media release used the usual gun controller tricks of addressing
"firearm" deaths, and also including accidents and suicides. They
focus on "firearm" deaths/injuries because they can always show
reductions in these if firearm availability is reduced, even though
total deaths and injuries are not affected and such availability
reductions might actually cause more deaths/injuries than they
prevent. They include accidents and suicides in their discussions
because Australia has so few firearm murders and other homicides that
the numbers and rates would not tend to upset people much, especially
in comparison to other types that are much more numerous. Also,
because the numbers are so small, they vary a great deal randomly from
one year to the next so that a plot will not clearly show a definite
trend over time.

Gun controllers are able to upset the public much more by including
suicides in their death figures. What the gun controllers don't want
people to know is that it has been proven (and confirmed) that
reducing the prevalence of firearms does not reduce (total) suicide
rates even though it does in fact reduce firearm suicide rates.
People wanting to commit suicide simple use another tool/method when a
firearm is not available. [Doctors typically don't believe this
because they know that a firearm is more certain to kill than some
other methods that are frequently used, and they've told each other
that some large portion of suicides are impulsive, spur of the moment
events. What they fail to account for is that there is no shortage of
equally deadly methods, and a person who fails in a suicide attempt is
very likely just to try again and again (often without others even
knowing) until he or she succeeds.]

The truth is that the claim about availability was unfounded from a
scientific research standpoint. The report had not even addressed
"availability" in the various states, even by reference to some
existing analysis, much less quantified it. (They couldn't reference
an analysis because there had not been one.)

What the data in the report actually showed (in combination with what
GunsAndCrime.org has been able to learn about gun laws in the late
'80s and early '90s) was that:

1. The "gun death" rate for NSW rose progressively for three years
after effectivity ('90) of the NSW Firearms Act 1989, before finally
falling for just the last two years of the period (meaning the gun
death rate reduction was not caused by the law);
2. The final drop in the NSW gun death rate did occur upon
effectivity of the major '91 amendments to the law, but this was only
for two years (not enough to qualify as a statistically significant
trend) and the pattern actually resulted from a rather random
combination of ups and downs of gun homicide and gun accidents added
to a minor drop in gun suicides.
3. The gun death rate for Tasmania showed no statistically
significant change in the two years of effectivity ('93 & '94) of the
Tasmania Guns Act 1991, and the small reduction was entirely the
result of the rate being artificially high in '92 because of an
abnormally high suicide rate for that year (i.e., there was no reason
to think that the law had any impact on gun death rate); and,
4. Only Queensland had a sustained decline that started with the
effectivity of its new gun law, the Firearms Act 1990, and extending
through '94.


Our entire legal system is founded on the concept of

'protection of the rights of the innocent', even when they have the
undesired effect of protecting the rights of the guilty. Our entire
legal system is based on the concept of 'better that 10 guilty men go
free than that one innocent man goes to jail'.

**Better tell that to the Texas legislators.

Why are they somehow more corrupt than other legislators? I doubt it.

The same applies to

self-defense - it is not acceptable for even one person to be stripped
of their RIGHT to self-defense, regardless of whether there are
criminals in society who find in that a way to twist it to their
advantage.

**Where did you get the impression that any rights of self defence should be
removed?

If you remove a method of self defense, then you have removed part of
the right.

The way to control crime is to control criminals, not
law-abiding people. It's a lot tougher task, granted, because
law-abiding people are amenable to obeying the law ( duh ), while
criminals routinely break it.

**What makes sense is this:

Allowing nutters easy access to guns is bad public policy. Vermont does
exactly this.

Nutters get guns anyway despite every law.

Law abiding citizens should not be left with less defense because of
the few nut cases who will kill anyway.

[Trevor Wilson]

"CB" wrote in message
...

"avidlistener" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:14 am, "nebulax" wrote:
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=d...Select=seminar

As much as people try to claim otherwise, there is no connection
between guns and increases in violence.

The random acts of a few nut cases who are intent on killing people
are not a reason to enact more gun control.

America 'is' 28th in the world for gun violence, after most EU and Latino
countries.

**It is #8 for gun related homicide:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Sandwiched right there between Uruguay and Costa Rica. The next Western,
developed nation is way down at #19.

Don't fool yourself: Having a gun related homicide rate which is amongst a
bunch of third world ********s is nothing to be proud of.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On 25 Apr 2007 12:43:23 -0700, avidlistener
wrote:

On Apr 20, 12:23 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
wrote in message

**What makes sense is this:

Allowing nutters easy access to guns is bad public policy. Vermont does
exactly this.

And has the lowest crime rates in the country. Go figure.


Nutters get guns anyway despite every law.

Yep.


Law abiding citizens should not be left with less defense because of
the few nut cases who will kill anyway.




--
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/

[Trevor Wilson]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:23 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:10:43 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:

"nebulax" wrote in message
.. .
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the
NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will
have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought
into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year.

**Bull****. Those "estimates" are nothing but wild speculation. There are
somewhat less than 200 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) resulting in the death
of
the perp each year in the US. A handful more result in injury.

Of course, they can ONLY be SWAG's because, by the nature of

the situations, 90 % + of them go unreported.

**Then how the **** can you say that 1,000,000 DGUs occur each year? The
ONLY DGUs of interest are the ones which are reported to police. Anything
else is a delusion.

How can you collect accurate data from people who don't file police
reports when they scare away a criminal?

**You can't, so you ignore them. People who don't report criminal activity,
are probably engaged in criminal activity of their own. ALL good, law
abiding citizens should report criminal activity when they see/experience
it. "Scaring criminals away" merely transfers the problem to someone else.
It does nothing to solve the problem. And trust me when I say this: I know
Americans. They bitch and complain whenever they can about everything they
can. They WILL report criminal activity. That they do not, suggests that the
figures of 1 million or more and just nonsensical.


There's an attempted

mugging or rape in a dark parking garage, the CCW holder shows his/her
gun, attacker runs away, CCW holder gets in car and drives off. No
shots fired, no police report, no statistics. Or Home-owner sees
someone lurking around the bushes, peering in the windows, etc, goes
outside with his/her gun and chases them off. No shots fired, no
police report, no statistics.

**Great way to get criminals off the street. NOT!

You'll never get them off the stree, but you don't have to allow
yourself to be a victim.

**You WILL get them off the street. In fact, the US has the highest
incarceration rate of any Western, developed nation:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita


What it comes down to is the RIGHT ( not 'priviledge' ) of
self defense.

**A gun is not necessarily the best method for acheiving that. All the
other
Western, developed nations allow for self defence for their citizens.
They're just not allowed to carry guns around the streets to do it. And
amazingly enough, fewer people get shot to death in the process.

But what about the other ways to get yourself killed? Removing guns
does not mean reducing crime.

**Who said anything about "removing guns"? Certainly not me. Try to pay
attention.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/
Look at the facts about Australia: GUN CONTROL IN AUSTRALIA An
excerpt.
What Has Happened, and How
20 Oct 01

The AIC and the media worked on maintaining high support for the new
gun laws. On November 4, 1996 the AIC released "Violent Deaths and
Firearms in Australia: Data & Trends." About 70 percent of this 96-
page report (RPP04) is about firearm deaths. The rest is about
Australian homicide over the years. On the same day the AIC also
issued a media release entitled "Lax firearm laws mean more deaths."

The actual report is a generally professional statistical analysis
with some scattered bias, like constantly referring to "firearm
caused" deaths.

**Well, gee whiz, that's a surprise. Now, what was the title of that paper
again? Sheesh! Of course it referred to firearm caused deaths.

But the media release was blatantly biased and drew
unwarranted conclusions about firearms prevalence and death rates.

The media release opened by declaring that the AIC report "shows that
Australian states in which guns have been more easily available have
significantly higher death rates than the national average"-and
listing 1994 firearm (not total) death rates for the states and
territories.

**Can't argue with the facts.

The media release title and opening statement tried to
make the public think something about deaths in general although the
material was only about those deaths in which firearms were the
instruments used to cause such deaths.

**What was the title of that paper again? Was it about workplace deaths?
Motorcycle deaths? Alcohol related deaths? No, it was entitled: Violent
Deaths and Firearms in Australia: Data & Trends. Read it again.


Then, among findings mentioned, the media release stated that the
firearms death rate had fallen over the past decade "as legislation of
the late 1980s in some states has made firearms somewhat more
difficult to obtain," that "those states in which firearms regulation
and licensing have been less stringent have had significantly higher
[gun} death rates than the national average" and that the usual small
group of countries have less gun homicides than the USA because the
USA has more guns.

**Does it say that? Find me the quote. I'll wait.

All these statements were attempts to make the
public think that the legislation in some states and countries had
reduced gun death rates and that states/countries with less stringent
control had higher death rates as a result,

**Again, can't argue the facts:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

There's the US at #8.
There's Australia, way down at #27, with nearly 1/10th the rate of the US.
There's the UK way, way down at #32 with 1/20th the figure of the US.
Germany #21
Denmark #28
Etc.

The US, OTOH, is up there with a bunch of third world ********s. Way to go.

ignoring the possibility
that the higher and lower gun death rates might be caused by something
other than gun laws or gun prevalence. The report actually had no
facts upon which to base such conclusions. Note that the AIC switched
to addressing homicide rather than total deaths when discussing
international comparisons since some of the countries have higher
suicide rates than the USA.

**Switched? Did it? You certain about that?


The media release used the usual gun controller tricks of addressing
"firearm" deaths, and also including accidents and suicides. They
focus on "firearm" deaths/injuries because they can always show
reductions in these if firearm availability is reduced, even though
total deaths and injuries are not affected and such availability
reductions might actually cause more deaths/injuries than they
prevent. They include accidents and suicides in their discussions
because Australia has so few firearm murders and other homicides that
the numbers and rates would not tend to upset people much, especially
in comparison to other types that are much more numerous. Also,
because the numbers are so small, they vary a great deal randomly from
one year to the next so that a plot will not clearly show a definite
trend over time.

Gun controllers are able to upset the public much more by including
suicides in their death figures. What the gun controllers don't want
people to know is that it has been proven (and confirmed) that
reducing the prevalence of firearms does not reduce (total) suicide
rates even though it does in fact reduce firearm suicide rates.

**You'd better provide some proof of that.

People wanting to commit suicide simple use another tool/method when a
firearm is not available. [Doctors typically don't believe this
because they know that a firearm is more certain to kill than some
other methods that are frequently used, and they've told each other
that some large portion of suicides are impulsive, spur of the moment
events. What they fail to account for is that there is no shortage of
equally deadly methods, and a person who fails in a suicide attempt is
very likely just to try again and again (often without others even
knowing) until he or she succeeds.]

**Prove it.


The truth is that the claim about availability was unfounded from a
scientific research standpoint. The report had not even addressed
"availability" in the various states, even by reference to some
existing analysis, much less quantified it. (They couldn't reference
an analysis because there had not been one.)

What the data in the report actually showed (in combination with what
GunsAndCrime.org has been able to learn about gun laws in the late
'80s and early '90s) was that:

1. The "gun death" rate for NSW rose progressively for three years
after effectivity ('90) of the NSW Firearms Act 1989, before finally
falling for just the last two years of the period (meaning the gun
death rate reduction was not caused by the law);

**A fall is a fall. You think that is a bad thing? Can you prove that the
gun control law did not influence that fall?

2. The final drop in the NSW gun death rate did occur upon
effectivity of the major '91 amendments to the law, but this was only
for two years (not enough to qualify as a statistically significant
trend) and the pattern actually resulted from a rather random
combination of ups and downs of gun homicide and gun accidents added
to a minor drop in gun suicides.
3. The gun death rate for Tasmania showed no statistically
significant change in the two years of effectivity ('93 & '94) of the
Tasmania Guns Act 1991, and the small reduction was entirely the
result of the rate being artificially high in '92 because of an
abnormally high suicide rate for that year (i.e., there was no reason
to think that the law had any impact on gun death rate); and,
4. Only Queensland had a sustained decline that started with the
effectivity of its new gun law, the Firearms Act 1990, and extending
through '94.

**All very well, but in 1997 a proper, cohesive set of gun control laws were
introduced across the entire nation. I suggest you examine the data in light
of this facts.



Our entire legal system is founded on the concept of

'protection of the rights of the innocent', even when they have the
undesired effect of protecting the rights of the guilty. Our entire
legal system is based on the concept of 'better that 10 guilty men go
free than that one innocent man goes to jail'.

**Better tell that to the Texas legislators.

Why are they somehow more corrupt than other legislators? I doubt it.

**Texas kills more innocents than any other state.


The same applies to

self-defense - it is not acceptable for even one person to be stripped
of their RIGHT to self-defense, regardless of whether there are
criminals in society who find in that a way to twist it to their
advantage.

**Where did you get the impression that any rights of self defence should
be
removed?

If you remove a method of self defense, then you have removed part of
the right.

**I see. So your rights to owning thermo-nuclear devices, machine guns, and
biological wepaons is a removal of your rights to self-defence?


The way to control crime is to control criminals, not
law-abiding people. It's a lot tougher task, granted, because
law-abiding people are amenable to obeying the law ( duh ), while
criminals routinely break it.

**What makes sense is this:

Allowing nutters easy access to guns is bad public policy. Vermont does
exactly this.

Nutters get guns anyway despite every law.

**Cho purcahsed his weapons legally and without impediment. Had he tried to
purchase in another jurisdiction (NYC, for instance), he would have been
refused.


Law abiding citizens should not be left with less defense because of
the few nut cases who will kill anyway.

**Why are you bleating about self-defence? The problem with Vermont gun
control laws do not relate to the removal of ownership of guns by sane
people.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[Trevor Wilson]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 20, 5:42 am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

dw:

I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year.

You'd think Britain would be depopulated by now.

Just what RAO needs, a gun thread.

Stephen

It wouldn't be such a big deal if the anti-gun side would simply be
honest enough to look at all the data in context.

**The YOU present your data, which shows why Vermont gun laws make any kind
of sense. Take as much time as you need.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 12:23 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:10:43 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:

"nebulax" wrote in message
.. .
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year.

**Bull****. Those "estimates" are nothing but wild speculation. There are
somewhat less than 200 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) resulting in the death of
the perp each year in the US. A handful more result in injury.

Of course, they can ONLY be SWAG's because, by the nature of

the situations, 90 % + of them go unreported.

**Then how the **** can you say that 1,000,000 DGUs occur each year? The
ONLY DGUs of interest are the ones which are reported to police. Anything
else is a delusion.


By studying the data and how it was arrived at hehttp://
www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
THE KLECK (AND GERTZ) STUDY ON
FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USES
(and Gun Controller Criticism of It)
RESULTS

222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their
household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in
some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the
preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had
experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average
number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and
by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per
year was arrived at.

However, Kleck reviewed the record associated with each reported DGU
and flagged every report for which: (1)it was not clear if the
respondent had actually confronted the perpetrator; (2)the respondent
was a police officer, soldier, or security guard; (3)the interviewer
had not properly recorded exactly what the respondent had done with
the gun, so it was not certain that the respondent had actually used
the gun; or, (4)the record did not state a specific crime the
respondent thought was being committed.

When all such cases were eliminated, the results were 1.125 percent of
adults had used guns defensively an average of 1.472 times each, for a
total of 2.16 million DGUs per year. This, then is the K-G
conservative estimate of annual DGUs. So, rather than saying that K-G
found that there are 2.5 million DGUs per year, we should say that
there are up to 2.5 million, or be more conservative and say something
like over 2 million.

Note that an average of 1.472 DGUs per person implies that some people
are involved in DGUs much more frequently than others.

In their report K-G say that the sampling error for 95 percent
confidence interval is plus or minus .32 percent for the unpurged 2.55
million estimate for DGU frequency. The corresponding sampling error
for the more conservative 2.16 million estimate would be something
greater because the purging would have reduced the sample size.
However, do not assume that the results are actually this accurate
since these sampling errors do not account for any biases in the
survey.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On 25 Apr 2007 13:16:28 -0700, avidlistener
wrote:


By studying the data and how it was arrived at hehttp://
www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
THE KLECK (AND GERTZ) STUDY ON
FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USES
(and Gun Controller Criticism of It)
RESULTS


Also, there is the simple fact that self-reporting a defensive
gun display is utterly stupid.

Given a scenario for example 'Walking through parking deck to
car. Mugger jumps out. You take your gun out, point it, he runs.'

If you call the police to report it here's what happens :

Officer - "We have a report that you pointed a gun at someone !"

You - "Yes, it was a mugger. He ran away when he saw my gun"

Officer - "Let me see your CC permit, ( and other papers if any )"

Other Officer - "Where have you been tonight ? Let me see your DL.
Where were you going ? Can you prove it ? There was a shooting on
this block on the second Tuesday of last month - where were you
between the hours of 10 PM and 1 AM on that night, and who can we
verify it with ? You don't mind if we search your car, do you ? Turn
around, I'm cuffing you for your protection and mine, you're not under
arrest yet. What's this in your pocket ? Do you have any drugs or
needles that are going to stick me ?" and on and on and on.....

1 hour later

Officer - "We're going to confiscate your gun as evidence, you can
call the DA in a few months to see if he lets you have it back"

1 month later

DA calls - "We have a report that you pointed a gun at someone, and
you confessed to it. Since there are no witnessess to prove you had a
NEED to do it, we can only assume you were endagering the public.

You - "What about the guy who tried to mug me ?"

DA - "That case is closed. There was no proof that any crime
occurred. Now we're looking into you going around pointing a gun at
people on the street. We plan to prosecute, have your lawyer contact
us, this is a serious felony and we will be seeking jail time."

Suuuuuureeee-bob, people are going to report it !!!!! Riiiiight !!!!


--
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/

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

And trust me when I say this: I know
Americans. They bitch and complain whenever they can about everything they
can. They WILL report criminal activity.

Read this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/60minutes/main2704565.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2704565




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[James McGill]

wrote:

Suuuuuureeee-bob, people are going to report it !!!!! Riiiiight !!!!

Pointing a gun at someone is assault.
Don't do it. Intend to fire when you draw.
Practice drawing aiming and firing as a single exercise.
The concealment of a concealed weapon is part of the weapon.
Once you draw a weapon and do not fire it, the bad guy knows you
hesitated, and it weakens your position.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:27:58 -0700, James McGill
wrote:

wrote:

Suuuuuureeee-bob, people are going to report it !!!!! Riiiiight !!!!

Pointing a gun at someone is assault.

Wrong. It depends on the circumstance. It may be
self-defense, it may be assault. Same as actually firing it. Same as
hitting someone.

Don't do it. Intend to fire when you draw.

Wrong. **Be prepared** to fire it, yes. Never draw it UNLESS
you're prepared to fire it. BUT - that does not mean you 'intend to
fire it'. In fact, until the instant you HAVE to pull the trigger,
your hope should be to NOT fire it.

Practice drawing aiming and firing as a single exercise.

That is one technique to practice, among many.

The concealment of a concealed weapon is part of the weapon.

No, it is not. It is facilitation of having it present and
available.

Once you draw a weapon and do not fire it, the bad guy knows you
hesitated, and it weakens your position.

Bull****. What he knows is it's in your hand and ready to
kill him. Your hand has a gun in it - a moment ago it was empty. He
knows the balance of power has changed, and if you and he are both
lucky, he will adjust his behavior accordingly. If not - you will
shoot him.


--
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/

[Larry Hewitt]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:23 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:10:43 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:

"nebulax" wrote in message
.. .
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the
NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will
have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought
into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year.

**Bull****. Those "estimates" are nothing but wild speculation. There are
somewhat less than 200 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) resulting in the death
of
the perp each year in the US. A handful more result in injury.

Of course, they can ONLY be SWAG's because, by the nature of

the situations, 90 % + of them go unreported.

**Then how the **** can you say that 1,000,000 DGUs occur each year? The
ONLY DGUs of interest are the ones which are reported to police. Anything
else is a delusion.


By studying the data and how it was arrived at hehttp://
www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
THE KLECK (AND GERTZ) STUDY ON
FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USES
(and Gun Controller Criticism of It)
RESULTS

222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their
household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in
some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the
preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had
experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average
number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and
by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per
year was arrived at.

However, Kleck reviewed the record associated with each reported DGU
and flagged every report for which: (1)it was not clear if the
respondent had actually confronted the perpetrator; (2)the respondent
was a police officer, soldier, or security guard; (3)the interviewer
had not properly recorded exactly what the respondent had done with
the gun, so it was not certain that the respondent had actually used
the gun; or, (4)the record did not state a specific crime the
respondent thought was being committed.

When all such cases were eliminated, the results were 1.125 percent of
adults had used guns defensively an average of 1.472 times each, for a
total of 2.16 million DGUs per year. This, then is the K-G
conservative estimate of annual DGUs. So, rather than saying that K-G
found that there are 2.5 million DGUs per year, we should say that
there are up to 2.5 million, or be more conservative and say something
like over 2 million.

Note that an average of 1.472 DGUs per person implies that some people
are involved in DGUs much more frequently than others.

In their report K-G say that the sampling error for 95 percent
confidence interval is plus or minus .32 percent for the unpurged 2.55
million estimate for DGU frequency. The corresponding sampling error
for the more conservative 2.16 million estimate would be something
greater because the purging would have reduced the sample size.
However, do not assume that the results are actually this accurate
since these sampling errors do not account for any biases in the
survey.



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".

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.

Additionally, the statistical methods used by Kleck and others to come up
with such large numbers are suspect.

From the above they do not report the sampling error for the "validated"
data because this sample size is too small, instead reporting the sample
error from the unvalidated data. This is a no no, using known bad data to
calculate the integrity of a smaller sample size.

There is also a hint of another problem wiith Kleck's data --- an
acknowlegement that in reality a smaller number of people account for the
bulk of reported incidents because the average reports of incidents is 1.4
That is, in reality the sample size is really much, much smaller than they
indicate (it should be number pf people, not number of reports), making the
data even more unreliable. (the larger the sample size, the more accurate
the data, the more reliable the conclusions. Below a certain sample size you
cannot support any conclusions)

Larry

[Trevor Wilson]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:23 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:10:43 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr2007 07:36:57 -0400, "CB" wrote:

"nebulax" wrote in message
.. .
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the
NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will
have
to
carry out dirt deeds!

It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought
into
action

Yesterday, one of the major proponents of Right To Carry laws was on
CNN once again during Virginia Tech coverage claiming that people
packing guns kept the crime rate down, if teachers were allowed to be
toting handguns things like this wouldn't happen, blah, blah, blah.
His major claim was that the crime rate dropped everywhere Right To
Carry laws were instituted. So I decided to do a quick survey and it
turns out that yes, crime rates have dropped in those states. However,
crime has dropped roughly the same rate in the two states that still
don't have any concealed carry laws at this date, Illinois and
Michigan. Crime has generally been dropping since the mid-80s whether
or not concealed carry laws have been put on the books.

He also trotted out one of those occasions where vigilanties prevented
crime. Well, with 12,000 plus gun-related murders a year, and
something like 30,000 gun deaths of all kinds a year, I'm not sure if
it really matters that a handful of lives have been saved by some
amateurs lucky enough not to have killed bystanders or themselves.

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year.

**Bull****. Those "estimates" are nothing but wild speculation. There are
somewhat less than 200 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) resulting in the death
of
the perp each year in the US. A handful more result in injury.

Of course, they can ONLY be SWAG's because, by the nature of

the situations, 90 % + of them go unreported.

**Then how the **** can you say that 1,000,000 DGUs occur each year? The
ONLY DGUs of interest are the ones which are reported to police. Anything
else is a delusion.


By studying the data and how it was arrived at hehttp://
www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
THE KLECK (AND GERTZ) STUDY ON
FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USES
(and Gun Controller Criticism of It)
RESULTS

222 of the 4799 respondents reported having at least one DGU in their
household in the past 5 years. After correcting for oversampling in
some regions, this figure drops to 66 personal accounts of DGUs in the
preceding year, indicating that 1.326 percent of adults nationwide had
experienced at least one DGU. When multiplied by 1.478, the average
number of DGUs reported per DGU claimant for the preceding year, and
by the total adult population, an estimate of 2.55 million DGUs per
year was arrived at.

However, Kleck reviewed the record associated with each reported DGU
and flagged every report for which: (1)it was not clear if the
respondent had actually confronted the perpetrator; (2)the respondent
was a police officer, soldier, or security guard; (3)the interviewer
had not properly recorded exactly what the respondent had done with
the gun, so it was not certain that the respondent had actually used
the gun; or, (4)the record did not state a specific crime the
respondent thought was being committed.

When all such cases were eliminated, the results were 1.125 percent of
adults had used guns defensively an average of 1.472 times each, for a
total of 2.16 million DGUs per year. This, then is the K-G
conservative estimate of annual DGUs. So, rather than saying that K-G
found that there are 2.5 million DGUs per year, we should say that
there are up to 2.5 million, or be more conservative and say something
like over 2 million.

Note that an average of 1.472 DGUs per person implies that some people
are involved in DGUs much more frequently than others.

In their report K-G say that the sampling error for 95 percent
confidence interval is plus or minus .32 percent for the unpurged 2.55
million estimate for DGU frequency. The corresponding sampling error
for the more conservative 2.16 million estimate would be something
greater because the purging would have reduced the sample size.
However, do not assume that the results are actually this accurate
since these sampling errors do not account for any biases in the
survey.

**Kleck's survey is STILL a survey. It is not fact. It is also highly
flawed. There is no independent verification for any of the following:

* That the person who claimed a DGU (or DGUs) actually defended themselves.
* That the person who claimed a DGU for that time period, actually did use a
gun defensively during that time.

Here are the words from an official US government report into the DoJ's
survey into DGUs (the DoJ report claimed around 108,000 DGUs):

---
"Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack."

And:

"The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even
stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates
are calculated using only the most recently
reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as
noted, about half of the respondents who reported a
DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year.
Although there are no details on the circumstances
of those additional DGUs, presumably they are
similar to the most recent case and provide
evidence for additional millions of violent crimes
foiled and perpetrators shot.

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one
believes, only a small fraction of adults have used
guns defensively in 1994. The only question is
whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would
conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated
by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's
criteria).

Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based
on screening the general population is likely to
have a positive bias. The reason can best be
explained by use of an epidemiological
framework.[15] Screening tests are always subject
to error, whether the "test" is a medical
examination for cancer or an interview question for
DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or
"false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber
the former, the population prevalence will be
exaggerated.

The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the
case of rare events boils down to a matter of
arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in
1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1
can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any
of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even
2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result
will be a positive bias--regardless of whether the
one true positive tells the truth.

Respondents might falsely provide a positive
response to the DGU question for any of a number of
reasons:

o They may want to impress the interviewer by their
heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.

o They may be genuinely confused due to substance
abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
memories.

o They may actually have used a gun defensively
within the last couple of years but falsely report
it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."

Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why
that rare respondent who actually did use a gun
defensively within the time frame may have decided
not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the
arithmetic dictates that the false positives will
likely predominate."

---


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




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

[.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

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 7:34 am, dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr2007 10:19:49 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net wrote:



dave weil said:

Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per year.

I actually didn't say this, but that's OK.

Not true. The accurate estimates run between 275 per year and
-63,000,000. The larger number is negative because that's the number of
victims who weren't attacking the gun-toter. Did you know that fully 60%
of all gun-related deaths are caused or influenced by atmospheric carbon
monoxide?

Well, then we have to also ask how many times that guns were used in
the commission of a crime but actually wasn't used (bank robberies,
enebling break-ins by giving a burglar confidence that he or she is
being protected) and by taking a page from the same book, all of those
"unreported" millions of times that a criminal used a gun to
intimidate someone or used in the commission of a crime. Of course,
we've got vice presidents shooting people in the face as well (OK, all
of you literalists, back off, it's just an ironic comment).

Personally, I'd also like the right to interact with the public
without the hidden presence of guns, but that's just my own personal
preference.

Then report back as soon as you find a place where evil does not
exist, so there would be no need for such protection.

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 9:12 am, Jenn wrote:
In article ,



wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr2007 15:16:21 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

'handful' my ass. Most estimates put it at over 1,000,000 per
year. snip

That would be one in three Americans. Sorry, not believable.

More like 1 in 300. (Did you skip your morning caffeine dosage?)

Opps. Still....

'Still' my ass. 30 % vs 0.3 % - bit of a difference, don'cha
think ?

You talk about your ass a lot.

Anyway, yes of course it's quite a difference. And it's still not
believable, IMO.

Talk to the FBI and the people computing the stats. You'll find
that's it's not as far fetched as you think.

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 10:07 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
CB said:

Clinton told (Larry) King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have
more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is
incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for
stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...otu/index.html

Let's see you 'relatively' compare that quote

Clinton would have been smart enough to find them.

Only if they had been under his dick..

[avidlistener]

On Apr 20, 12:02 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"CB" wrote in message

...



"nebulax" wrote in message
.. .
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will have
to carry out dirt deeds!

**How's that working for ya? Let's see:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...p-crime-murder...

There's the US at #8, with 0.0279271/1,000 people. Now, where's the next
nearest Western, developed nation?

Here it is. Down at #19, with 0.00534117/1,000 people. Can the Swiss carry
concealed guns around the streets? Nope. In fact, no other Western,
developed nation allows it's people to carry concealed guns around the
streets. Only in the US. In fact, the Swiss, like all the other Western,
devloped nations have very tough, sane and homogenous gun control laws. By
an amazing coincidence, the US also has the highest (by a very considerable
margin) homicide rate, via the use of firearms, of any Western, developed
nation.



It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

**Yadda, yadda, yadda. You suck up that **** shovelled to you by the NRA.
It's working real well for you.

NOT!

--
The stats are from the FBI and they have been the same regardless of
administrations. The NRA does not run the government, they just keep
reminding folks of the reason the 2nd amendment was included and how
many other rights have been chipped away.

[Trevor Wilson]

"avidlistener" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:02 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
"CB" wrote in message

...



"nebulax" wrote in message
.. .
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

The more guns 'LAW ABIDING CITIZENS' have the less a dirt bags will
have
to carry out dirt deeds!

**How's that working for ya? Let's see:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...p-crime-murder...

There's the US at #8, with 0.0279271/1,000 people. Now, where's the next
nearest Western, developed nation?

Here it is. Down at #19, with 0.00534117/1,000 people. Can the Swiss
carry
concealed guns around the streets? Nope. In fact, no other Western,
developed nation allows it's people to carry concealed guns around the
streets. Only in the US. In fact, the Swiss, like all the other Western,
devloped nations have very tough, sane and homogenous gun control laws.
By
an amazing coincidence, the US also has the highest (by a very
considerable
margin) homicide rate, via the use of firearms, of any Western, developed
nation.



It's not the gun you ass, it's the criminal mind that puts thought into
action

**Yadda, yadda, yadda. You suck up that **** shovelled to you by the NRA.
It's working real well for you.

NOT!

--
The stats are from the FBI and they have been the same regardless of
administrations.

***WTF are on about?

The NRA does not run the government, they just keep
reminding folks of the reason the 2nd amendment was included and how
many other rights have been chipped away.

**No. The NRA acts in the political system to ensure that the gun
manufacturers have their needs served (to sell as many guns as they can), by
whatever means they find necessary. The NRA bullies and cajoles to ensure
that occurs. The NRA has employed primitive, but effective methods to
brainwash large segments of the US population to believe that the NRA and
the Second Amendment are necessary to their well-being. The NRA is pure
evil. They have zero interest in the long term well-being of the US. They
are acting for purely commercial reasons. This was not always the case. The
NRA was once a noble and decent organisation, which cared for the welfare of
the working man. Sometime in the 1960s, their purpose became perverted and
twisted.

Shame on you for not being more circumspect.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[CB]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"CB" wrote in message
...

"avidlistener" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:14 am, "nebulax" wrote:
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=d...Select=seminar

As much as people try to claim otherwise, there is no connection
between guns and increases in violence.

The random acts of a few nut cases who are intent on killing people
are not a reason to enact more gun control.

America 'is' 28th in the world for gun violence, after most EU and Latino
countries.

**It is #8 for gun related homicide:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Sandwiched right there between Uruguay and Costa Rica. The next Western,
developed nation is way down at #19.

Don't fool yourself: Having a gun related homicide rate which is amongst a
bunch of third world ********s is nothing to be proud of.

I know it's not. I wonder though, in the stats you quoted, is there any
breakdown on the ethnicity of those who used guns in the commission of a
murder? I doubt it, not too PC.

The "28th" I quoted was from "Boortz"



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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

[CB]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"avidlistener" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:14 am, "nebulax" wrote:
"We are captives, the majority here, of the NRA. To hell with the NRA!
What
about the society? I don't get it." - Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, D-Fla

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...tico/main26981...

http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=d...Select=seminar

As much as people try to claim otherwise, there is no connection
between guns and increases in violence.

**There is, however, a DIRECT connection between lax, stupid and haphazard
gun control laws and the number of people shot to death:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

It is not the number of guns in a society that is a problem. It is WHO is
able to access those guns. The US is unique compared to all the other
Western, developed nations, WRT the sale of guns (in many jurisdictions)
without the requirement of background checks. This was amply demonstrated
by the events in Vermont. Worse, in the US secondary gun sales (in many
jurisdictions) require no background checks whatsoever. In the cases where
they are, there are hopelessly inadequate checks and balances to back up
such requirements.


The random acts of a few nut cases who are intent on killing people
are not a reason to enact more gun control.

**I'll make sure that the parents of those killed in Vermont know this
fact. I'm sure they will be comforted.

Alternatively, you could pull your head out of the sand and admit that the
rate of gun violence in the US is simply unacceptable.

Just glancing at the chart on NationMaster I see that Spain is 29th.
According to Boortz the other day, Span has more homicides by guns than
America.

I don't recall the site (CDC?) Boortz was quoting from



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



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