🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38eqog$d97@crchh518.bnr.ca> tomg@bnr.ca (Tom Gargulak) writes:
>
>> No, he is correct on a technicality -- remember the claim is that more
>> innocent people are KILLED than criminals.  Since the 2,000,000 or so
>> crimes prevented by gun owners do not all result in the death of the
>> criminal, the anti-gunners have made the unwillingness of gun owners
>> to kill criminals into a liabilty.
>
>Part 1 of NRA twists-the-facts BULLSH*T.  Even if one agrees with those
>statistics, how many of the crimes would have occurred if guns where 
>not easily available?

Since only some 12% of crimes involve guns, the answer is quite simple.
Without private gun ownership, 88% of those 2 million prevented crimes
would have occured, resulting in a net increase of some 1.8 million
crimes.  Hey, you ask the questions, I just provide the answers ...

>This is not only BULLSH*T, it is pure NRA twist-the-facts BULLSH*T.  It
>just so happens that generally the states with the strict carry laws
>are the same ones with the high-population cities, where the crime-rate 
>is always higher regardless if you are in America, Europe or anywhere else.
>The carry laws reduced crime in already high-crime areas.  Who gives a
>sh*t about passing a carry law if crime is low?

No, this is not bullshit.  Of those states, several include rather
large cities.  Some don't, and some include significant amounts of
prairie land on both sides.

However, if you do take your objection into consideration and adjust
for per-capita murders, you still come away with the same exact result.
Washington DC is, last time I checked, smaller than many other cities
in the United States.  It is certainly smaller than LA and NYC.  It
also has the strictest handgun laws and the highest murder rate.

>Anyway, why compare USA states where guns are easily obtained?  Why not
>compare crime rates against other countries where guns are CONTROLLED
>and difficult to obtain?  Like Japan, England and most of Europe.  Then
>compare crime against countries where guns are easily obtained.  Like
>Mexico, Bosnia and Italy.  Its so obvious that only a gun-fanatic
>cannot understand it.

No, it isn't "so obvious".  Let's consider Japan.

In Japan there is exactly one significant ethnic group.  Of the remaining
ethnic groups, not only are they rather insignificant in size, they are
all Asian.

As for England, Scotland Yard is now reconsidering its "no guns" policy
for bobbies because, well, because the criminals have guns and damnit
the police might as well too.

Oh -- I had a friend who was a convicted felon who not only knew how to
make zip guns, he did me the favor of teaching me how to also.  As long
as hacksaws and steel tubing are legal, I'll be able to own a gun.

>You gun-fanatics.  Why not just give everyone a gun?  Kids, adults,
>everyone.  NRA nuts always claim that it is impossible to keep guns
>out of the hands of criminals.  What would happen if every idiot
>had a gun?  12 year olds, homeless, mentally ill and many others 
>who do not now because they cannot afford it.  Of course crime would
>go up because more idiots would have guns.  (A benefit is that the NRA
>could then claim that guns prevent more crimes because there are
>more crimes.  ;-)  

Hey, my 21 month old son already owns a gun. ;-)

Look, an armed society is a polite society.  Guns are the single most
effect tool for preventing rape -- 33% more effective than "doing nothing",
"begging", "martial arts", "knives" and a slew of other nice ideas.
Armed homes are less likely to be broken into -- criminals frequently
avoid homes if they know the occupant is home because they are afraid
they might be ARMED.  How likely is a mugger to jump someone if they
are unsure as to whether or not the guy across the street is carrying a
gun and can use it.  Or as I always say, all of my guns are target
pistols.

>On the other hand, what if guns where heavily taxed and controlled?
>Less people would have access to them and there would be less crime.
>Sure, big-daddy crime boss will still have one but he is not who
>I am afraid of walking down the street.  It is the common punk who
>I have a far greater chance of meeting.  He is the one I don't want 
>to have a gun.  And the only way to reduce his odds of having one
>is to reduce the supply of guns.

Since most guns aren't used in the commission of a crime, odds are that
reducing the availabilty of guns will only affect law-abiding citizens.
Don't forget about my friend and his zip guns.  He can't legally buy
them, but while he was doing time in Angola State Prison he sure was
learning how to do something most everyone in this newgroup hasn't a
clue about.

>It boils down to supply/demand.  Simple economics.

Right.  Supply/demand.  What are you going to do when the weapon of
choice is a big stick and a little woman, say your wife or daughter,
isn't strong enough to defend herself with her bare hands?
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.