Re: Gun stuff

[Guest guest]

> Parrish S. Knight wrote:

>> Except that research indicates that that's not what happens. In areas

>> where private citizens are permitted to carry concealed handguns, the

>> violent crime rate decreases; conversely, areas where it is difficult

>> or impossible for private citizens to carry concealed handguns,

>> violent

>> crime rates are much higher. Probably the best text that goes into

>> this is " More Guns, Less Crime " , which is a highly exhaustive study of

>> the phenomenon throughout the United States.

>

> That's the exact opposite to any research I have ever seen.

Most such research that indicates the opposite is produced by people

who are biased, which Lott is not.

> There is

> also one other factor. The amount of deaths because of careless use of

> firearms is far greater than those prevented by home owners arming

> themselves.

This overlooks the fact that most self-defensive uses of firearms do

not involve the gun being fired. Here in the U.S., guns are used for

self-defense approximately two million times a year, and the gun is

fired in only a few thousand of those cases. In all the others, the

person simply brandishes the firearm, and the criminal runs off.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>

> The real facts are often at odds with the things " everyone knows. "

>

I gather you are one of those gun lovers. The real facts depend on who

is presenting them. Remember that the US is not the only place that has

guns.

" According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under

age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other

industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more

likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide

with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than

children in these other countries. "

The CDC also says " In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with

a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.

This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by

journalists. "

" In addition to firearm deaths, we need to look at how many children and

young people are hurt by guns. The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14 were

non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young people aged

15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. "

Red

[Guest guest]

> Klein wrote:

>> The real facts are often at odds with the things " everyone knows. "

>>

> I gather you are one of those gun lovers.

You're only now figuring that out?

> The real facts depend on who is presenting them.

No, facts are objective. Their truth does not vary by speaker.

> Remember that the US is not the only place that has guns.

Apart from being crashingly obvious, this is also irrelevant.

> " According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under

> age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other

> industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more

> likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit

> suicide

> with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident

> than

> children in these other countries. "

>

> The CDC also says " In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with

> a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.

> This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by

> journalists. "

>

> " In addition to firearm deaths, we need to look at how many children

> and

> young people are hurt by guns. The Centers for Disease Control and

> Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14 were

> non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young people aged

> 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. "

This page alone:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120

refutes the bulk of what you have said. (A bit of Googling would

refute the rest of it, but I'm really not in the mood tonight because

it's late and I'm sick.) Unsurprising, since the CDC is highly

anti-gun and is notorious for distorting statistics to serve its

agenda.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

Mircea Pauca wrote:

> A point: If almost everyone in a locality is armed, doesn't

>the " risk shift " on the few people known to be unarmed ?

>Will criminals deliberately pick on them ?

>

The risk shifts to those who won't be able to react quickly enough.

When gunplay erupts in the street, being slow to take cover may be lethal.

Slow reactions and poor motor skills also reduce the value of carrying a

firearm.

Your gun is of no use if it's in your pocket and the bad guy's gun is

pointing at you.

Soon the bad guy will be selling your gun on the street.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> Klein wrote:

> >

> > The real facts are often at odds with the things " everyone knows. "

> >

> I gather you are one of those gun lovers. The real facts depend on

> who is presenting them. Remember that the US is not the only place

> that has guns.

...thus proving that gun availability is not the issue.

> The CDC also says " In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed

> with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional

> injuries. This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure

> commonly used by journalists. "

A great number (most) of these " kids " of 19 years or less are gang

members. These are some of the most brutal and callous criminals in the

country. Most gang members are young, as their life span tends to be

quite short. These gang members traffic in drugs and illegal guns, and

will not be affected by any gun bans that politicians have managed to

sell the public as a response to " kids killing kids. " It is very

intellectually dishonest to include brutal criminals in the " kids " group

as such.

> " In addition to firearm deaths, we need to look at how many children

> and young people are hurt by guns. The Centers for Disease Control

> and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14

> were non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young

> people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. "

Contrast that with 40,000 people killed per year by automobiles, and

hundreds of thousands injured.

Once again, it is deceptive to use " children " and " young people " here,

because both groups include gang members, who choose a brutally violent

lifestyle that ends up killing them.

[Guest guest]

> The risk shifts to those who won't be able to react quickly enough.

> When gunplay erupts in the street, being slow to take cover may be

> lethal.

I read reports about that kind of thing happening around here

occasionally, especially in the District. It doesn't typically happen

in cases of self-defense, though; typically, it's only gang shootings

and the like where innocent bystanders get shot.

> Slow reactions and poor motor skills also reduce the value of carrying

> a

> firearm.

Training may be able to compensate for that, but if not, then carrying

a handgun is probably not indicated. Other disorders or conditions,

such as Alzheimer's disease, or even plain old arthritis if it's severe

enough, can also make it a bad idea to have a gun.

> Your gun is of no use if it's in your pocket and the bad guy's gun is

> pointing at you.

Your gun is sometimes useless in a crime situation, that is true (part

of being trained is knowing when *not* to draw). Your gun is *always*

useless if you don't have it with you.

> Soon the bad guy will be selling your gun on the street.

??? Most muggers simply demand your wallet and your jewelry and so on,

and then they scram. If your sidearm is properly concealed, a mugger

won't know you have it.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

> ..thus proving that gun availability is not the issue.

It proves no such thing.

> A great number (most) of these " kids " of 19 years or less are gang

> members. These are some of the most brutal and callous criminals in the

> country. Most gang members are young, as their life span tends to be

> quite short. These gang members traffic in drugs and illegal guns, and

> will not be affected by any gun bans that politicians have managed to

> sell the public as a response to " kids killing kids. " It is very

> intellectually dishonest to include brutal criminals in the " kids " group

> as such.

All guns start out as legal. The more legal guns there are the more

illegal guns there will be. If there were no guns to steal gang members

would not have much access to illegal guns.

In Canada where there are very few legal handguns there are also far

less, in fact a small fraction of the handgun deaths that there are in

the US.

Red

[Guest guest]

> All guns start out as legal. The more legal guns there are the more

> illegal guns there will be. If there were no guns to steal gang members

> would not have much access to illegal guns.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, it's kind of irrelevant...

for one thing, there are nearly 600 million firearms in the world, and

getting rid of all of them would not be possible. Even if you had some

sort of magic wand you could wave and make all guns vanish, though, it

still wouldn't make any difference. Firearms are structurally

uncomplicated, and anyone with access to a machine shop and some scrap

metal (and who has a moderate amount of training in using the tools in

the shop) can build a gun without expending a great deal of time and

effort.

> In Canada where there are very few legal handguns there are also far

> less, in fact a small fraction of the handgun deaths that there are in

> the US.

You are myopically focusing on the instrument of death rather than more

important matters. Those who favor strict gun control laws, for

example, often point out that a good number of suicides in the United

States are committed with firearms, whereas there are virtually no

firearm suicides in Japan (where handguns and rifles are banned, and

shotguns all but). They overlook the fact that Japan's overall suicide

rate, regardless of the method, is quite a bit higher than the United

States'. Such people are either being intellectually dishonest, or

they're saying that certain types of suicide are just fine while others

are completely unacceptable.

[Guest guest]

> Contrast that with 40,000 people killed per year by automobiles, and

> hundreds of thousands injured.

Exactly. And how many crimes would not be committed if the criminal had

to escape on foot or if they had to walk to the site they wished to commit

the crime at? Certainly making private automobile ownership illegal would

significantly reduce at least certain kinds of crimes.

The difference is that, in the US, most people own a car and they don't

want that taken away, yet many don't own a gun so don't care if someone

*else* loses a right they currently exercise.

The *real* question is not " does crime go up with legalized private gun

ownership " but rather " Do the positives outweigh the negatives? "

Also, I've not been impressed by the " pro-gun " arguments here - concealed

carry is a different issue from private gun ownership. Certainly

concealed carry makes no sense without private gun ownership, but seeing

what a carry permit owner does as far as future crime is not the same as

seeing the risk of a private gun owner who does not have a permit.

That all said, it is clear that automotive driving certification and

training, as well as frequent driving experience, all reduce accidents.

Many countries just starting to face the explosion of automotive traffic

are having a horrible record with traffic safety. That doesn't mean the

cars can't be driven as safely in those countries as they can in Europe or

the US, but it rather means that training is required in many of these

" automotively developing " countries.

My neighbor having a gun does not bother me at all. A Californian coming

to Wyoming to shoot deer *does* bother me, as often they seem to not know

the difference between " deer " and " cow " , or worse - " deer " and " person " .

But that's an issue of training and familiarity.

So, I'm all for training people in use of guns. My school district

actually had a mandatory program (it did require parent consent, but I

didn't know anyone who didn't have consent) in firearms training in junior

high - mainly because most people here do have guns or easy access to

them, so it only makes sense that they should know how to *safely* use

them. Giving something dangerous to someone without training *is*

foolish. I wouldn't let someone wire my house without training, so why

would I want them to have a gun without training?

I also am much more nervous around people who are unfamiliar with guns

when they shoot then people who, like myself, have shot guns since they

were little kids. (Incidentally, re the " accidental gun death of

children " , I had no problem understanding " guns are not toys " and " always

treat a gun as if it is loaded " , two things all people should understand -

if I was caught pointing a gun at anything I didn't intend to shoot,

loaded or not, even toy or not, I was going to have a sore bottom for some

time; I might also add that bicycles kill children, too, yet few want to

ban bicycles - most want to make them safer instead of banning them).

" People might get hurt " in itself is not enough reason to ban something.

It's when benefits don't outweigh disadvantages that you need to look at

banning something.

My question to most anti-gun people is also, " Have you received any

firearm training? " Have they even fired a gun once? I recommend that

they do, even if they want to continue to oppose legal private ownership.

After all, what should you do if you come across ammunition or a gun

somewhere it shouldn't be (it happens). Do you teach your children how to

handle guns (the very basics - things like " Don't touch it, don't point it

at anyone, don't let anyone point it at you, tell an adult " )? For

autistic people, if your depressed friend was worried about hurting

himself with a gun, could you safely take custody (not force it out of his

hand, but with his permission) of his gun until he was in a better

condition to handle it? Do you know how to verify different types of guns

are unloaded? How do you safely transport ammunition? Can you verify the

safety setting on most weapons? We could do a lot with helping

" accidental " death if these things were done. We could also encourage all

citizens to treat guns with tremendous respect when handling them if it

was instilled at a young age.

I'm pretty sure the average Wyoming teenager would be fine with all of

these things. I'm not convinced that the average New York City or San

Francisco dweller (adult or teenager) would be.

We teach kids all kinds of other things, why not these things?

--

[Guest guest]

Parrish S.Knight wrote:

>>> Those who take the time to train with their firearms, take safety

>>>courses,

>>> and so forth are not typically of the same mentality as criminals

>>>are.

>>>

>>>

>>Exactly what mentality are you referring to here? Are you saying that

>>people that train with firearms and take safety courses can't be

>>domestic abusers (those most prone to the specific kind of murder I'm

>>talking about)?

>>

>>

>

>No, I'm saying only that it's less likely because those who actually

>trouble themselves to study their firearms, take safety courses, and

>the like are not generally the type to engage in that kind of behavior.

> (Generally. Of course there are exceptions.)

>

>

One hears about quite a few exceptions these days, mostly combat vets

with PTSD.

(The way the military treats its disabled vets is disgraceful, but that

is another topic).

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> Klein wrote:

>

> > ..thus proving that gun availability is not the issue.

>

> It proves no such thing.

If other countries have legal access to guns, and have a lower gun

murder rate, that does show that gun availability is not the issue.

In Switzerland, most households contain at least one fully-automatic

machine gun (issued by the government), as well as the ammunition for

that gun, Their gun murder rate is very, very low.

In the 1950s, the US gun murder rate was far lower, even though it was

legal, at that time, for anyone who wanted a gun to simply mail-order

one, or to get one in a store with no ID required.

In the UK, before guns were banned, the incidence of gun murder was very

low; gun murders were quite rare, as were murders without guns.

And, as I mentioned before, the rate of gun murders among black

Americans is seven times higher than among white Americans (and for the

purposes of the US government, Hispanics are considered white), even

though guns are equally available to whites and blacks.

Like I said, having huge masses of young people that think it is okay to

kill other people is the problem. The means they use to kill others is

not the issue.

> All guns start out as legal. The more legal guns there are the more

> illegal guns there will be. If there were no guns to steal gang

> members would not have much access to illegal guns.

Nonsense.

Cocaine, PCP, LSD, marijuana, and meth all start off as illegal, and

there is no shortage of those drugs. When people want something, and

they are willing to break the law to get it, then they WILL get it.

Drugs are a consumable item; a drug user needs to keep getting more and

more drugs as time goes on. A gun will be just as effective ten years

later as it was on the day the criminal first got ahold of it.

In the UK, home of some of the western world's most comprehensive gun

bans, gun murder and violent crime are increasing at a terrifying pace.

Cheap Eastern-bloc guns are being smuggled in faster than the

authorities can confiscate them. The UK is a paradise for criminals;

most citizens are unarmed, and for years, British authorities have been

telling people just to " walk on by " when they see a crime in progress.

They have been prosecuting individuals for carrying items that were

never intended to be used as weapons, and they call this " carrying an

offensive weapon. " Most of the police are still unarmed; they have to

call in special units to deal with armed criminals. Hell, if I were a

criminal, I would MUCH rather be one there than here; it would be a

great deal safer.

> In Canada where there are very few legal handguns there are also far

> less, in fact a small fraction of the handgun deaths that there are

> in the US.

Handgun deaths are no more or less tragic than other kinds of deaths.

You've got to be specific about what you're talking about. In the US,

we have a rather high murder rate compared to other first-world

countries. Whether guns are used is not the issue.

Guns are used a lot in murders here because they are convenient tools

with which to murder someone-- but that does not mean that the people

that used those guns to kill people would suddenly reconsider their

murderous lifestyle and start selling insurance if guns were not

available. The NON-gun murder rate in the US exceeds the total murder

rate of most first-world countries, after all. What we have here is a

social problem-- we have way too many people that think it's okay to

kill others for reasons other than self-defense.

Canada is a relatively homogenous society, with only a fraction of the

racial diversity (and tension) we have here in the US. If you adjusted

the murders committed by various racial groups to reflect the

percentages of the total Canadian population, our murder rate would be

very similar to Canada's.

[Guest guest]

,

When last did you visit Canada, Switzerland, or any other place than Arizona or

California?

Most Canadian cities (which " house " the vast majority of the population) are

very cosmopolitan, some having their own (name-the-nationality) neighbourhoods.

When I lived in Calgary, I was shocked to hear about racial groups of

school-going teens having at each other with pangas (cane knives), but for the

most part, Canadians prefer hockey as a method of taking out their frustrations

(shades of " Rollerball " <g>).

There are many illegal weapons in Canada, but there are also licensed weapons as

well - most for hunting. The illegal ones are used for supporting other illegal

activities - drugs, gangs, etc., which, I imagine, is no different than anywhere

else.

Colin.

Quoting Klein :

> Canada is a relatively homogenous society, with only a fraction of the

> racial diversity (and tension) we have here in the US. If you adjusted

> the murders committed by various racial groups to reflect the

> percentages of the total Canadian population, our murder rate would be

> very similar to Canada's.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Colin Wessels wrote:

> ,

>

> When last did you visit Canada, Switzerland, or any other place than

> Arizona or California?

I don't have to visit them to read facts about them. That's a red herring.

> Most Canadian cities (which " house " the vast majority of the

> population) are very cosmopolitan, some having their own

> (name-the-nationality) neighbourhoods.

That does not mean that they have the same percentage of minority groups

as in the US. They don't.

> When I lived in Calgary, I was shocked to hear about racial groups of

> school-going teens having at each other with pangas (cane knives),

> but for the most part, Canadians prefer hockey as a method of taking

> out their frustrations (shades of " Rollerball " <g>).

For the most part, Americans don't resort to violence either. It's a

small group of people, mostly in the inner cities, that are committing

the great bulk of violent crime.

[Guest guest]

Klein wrote:

>

> Canada is a relatively homogenous society, with only a fraction of the

> racial diversity (and tension) we have here in the US. If you adjusted

> the murders committed by various racial groups to reflect the

> percentages of the total Canadian population, our murder rate would be

> very similar to Canada's.

>

Well this statement shows your complete ignorance of the social

diversity of Canada. There is more racial diversity in Canada than the

US. The only groups Canada has less of is blacks and Hispanics. The

reason Canada has less blacks than the US is because Canada was never

arrogant enough to have slaves.

There are no valid adjustments you could make to reflect equal murder

rates except maybe the amount of guns in the country.

Red

[Guest guest]

redhottech@... wrote:

> Klein wrote:

> >

> > Canada is a relatively homogenous society, with only a fraction of

> > the racial diversity (and tension) we have here in the US. If you

> > adjusted the murders committed by various racial groups to reflect

> > the percentages of the total Canadian population, our murder rate

> > would be very similar to Canada's.

> >

>

> Well this statement shows your complete ignorance of the social

> diversity of Canada. There is more racial diversity in Canada than

> the US. The only groups Canada has less of is blacks and Hispanics.

Those are the two biggest racial minorities in the US, and they are also

the two that commit the lion's share of the murders. That is

*precisely* my point.

> The reason Canada has less blacks than the US is because Canada was

> never arrogant enough to have slaves.

I can just hear you singing " O Canada. " You're just so damn superior

that I don't know what to make of it.

Regardless-- it is that arrogance that embodies institutionalized

racism, and that institutionalized racism has effectively

disenfranchised 13 percent of the US population. That disenfranchised

population now kills at a rate seven times higher than the rest of the

population, despite the fact that guns are no more or less available to

them than to everyone else. If our racial makeup was equal to Canada's,

our murder rate would be quite similar, and this is true even with

America's history of arrogance with blacks.

You failed to address this difference in murder rates in the various

racial groups in the US. If availability of guns causes crime, then why

is the crime rate so different in the different racial groups, even

though the availability of guns is the same?

You also failed to address my statement that the murder rate of the US

was lower half a century ago, when guns were much more available, and

that it was low in the UK before they had any effective controls on

them. If guns cause murder, then these could not be true, could they?

They are, though.

> There are no valid adjustments you could make to reflect equal murder

> rates except maybe the amount of guns in the country.

I hope you are not ignorant enough to actually believe that. Even if

you discount all of the murders that were done with guns, our rate is

still higher than Canada's. You think guns are responsible for all of

the murders Americans commit with baseball bats, knives, lengths of

re-bar, and poison? Let me iterate-- America's NON-gun murder rate is

still higher than the murder rate in Canada.

The world is not as cut and dried as you appear to think it is, and not

nearly so simple, no matter how much you want the world's problems to be

solved in sentences that will fit onto a bumper sticker. We have

thousands of young Americans that think it is okay to kill people

whenever they feel like it, and you seem think that making guns harder

to get (they will never be impossible to get) will suddenly make all

those people stop killing. Guns don't make people kill-- it takes a

complete disregard for the lives of others to do that, and a total

contempt for society (among other things). Having a complete disregard

for life, a total contempt for society, but no gun, will not render

someone harmless to others.

You can't reduce murder by making laws against the inanimate objects

that murderers use to murder. If you want to solve a problem, you have

to address the cause of that problem, and guns are not the cause of the

murder problem in the US. They are used in a majority of murders

because they are the most effective tool for murdering people, but that

does not mean that this was what made the people decide to kill. When

someone decides to make a life of victimizing others and killing, he

equips himself with the most effective tool for the job. That does not

make the tool evil; the blame still lies with the person that did the

killing.

[Guest guest]

> If availability of guns causes crime, then why

> is the crime rate so different in the different racial groups, even

> though the availability of guns is the same?

>

> You also failed to address my statement that the murder rate of the US

> was lower half a century ago, when guns were much more available, and

> that it was low in the UK before they had any effective controls on

> them. If guns cause murder, then these could not be true, could they?

> They are, though.

Reminds me of a saying I heard once: saying that guns cause crime is

like saying that flies cause garbage.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

Parrish S.Knight wrote:

>

>

>

>>The risk shifts to those who won't be able to react quickly enough.

>>When gunplay erupts in the street, being slow to take cover may be

>>lethal.

>>

>>

>

>I read reports about that kind of thing happening around here

>occasionally, especially in the District. It doesn't typically happen

>in cases of self-defense, though; typically, it's only gang shootings

>and the like where innocent bystanders get shot.

>

>

We were discussing what would happen if most people carried guns. There

would certainly

be a lot more gunfire in the streets in such a place, as gun-toting

citizens respond more or

less accurately to real or imagined threats to their person, and the bad

guys respond with

even more guns and more bullets. Then comes the arms race into

automatic weapons with

ever greater risks to innocent bystanders.

I'd rather not share a subway car with Bernie Goetz, and I'd rather not

live in a city where

guns and bullets are pervasive.

>>Slow reactions and poor motor skills also reduce the value of carrying

>>a firearm.

>>

>>

>Training may be able to compensate for that,

>

Improving reactions and motor skills in people like us can be especially

challenging. The

stuff that works for NTs often doesn't work for us.

It is surprisingly common for gun-owners and even policemen to be shot

with their own guns.

You would think that training would at least be able to prevent that.

> but if not, then carrying

>a handgun is probably not indicated. Other disorders or conditions,

>such as Alzheimer's disease, or even plain old arthritis if it's severe

>enough, can also make it a bad idea to have a gun.

>

>

And a bad idea to be around such a person while they are trying to

defend themselves with one.

>>Your gun is of no use if it's in your pocket and the bad guy's gun is

>>pointing at you.

>>

>>

>

>Your gun is sometimes useless in a crime situation, that is true (part

>of being trained is knowing when *not* to draw). Your gun is *always*

>useless if you don't have it with you.

>

>

I have a hard time envisioning too many plausible scearios in which one

would be useful.

The only one I can think of is suprising a burglar in the home, and

there only because you

have the element of surprise, whereas usually the criminal has it.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye

[Guest guest]

> Well this statement shows your complete ignorance of the social

> diversity of Canada.

According to the CIA World Fact Book...

Ethnic groups in Canada:

British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%,

Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%

Ethnic groups in US:

white 77.1%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1.5%,

native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.3%, other 4% (2000)

note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US

Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American

descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin)

living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black,

Asian, etc.)

Other then the reporting of " mixed background " , which the US doesn't

report, and which I believe also includes things like a French mother and

English father, of which the majority of Whites in the US would be

considered " mixed " in the US, and the lack of reporting in the US of

Hispanics (15% in my northern state - much higher in southern states), I'm

not sure the numbers support your accusations that Canada is more diverse

then the US. Perhaps you have a better source or you can define exactly

what you mean by diverse. (Ex: Is having both people from Germany and

England " diversity " ?)

--

[Guest guest]

> We were discussing what would happen if most people carried guns.

> There

> would certainly

> be a lot more gunfire in the streets in such a place, as gun-toting

> citizens respond more or

> less accurately to real or imagined threats to their person, and the

> bad

> guys respond with

> even more guns and more bullets. Then comes the arms race into

> automatic weapons with

> ever greater risks to innocent bystanders.

You are mostly speculating here. None of this has ever been the case

in Israel, where at any given time, roughly 10-12 percent of the public

at large is carrying a handgun (a much higher percentage than in the

United States).

As to automatic weapons, they are usually a poor choice for this kind

of combat (for either criminal or law-abiding citizen) for various

reasons. The criminal will mainly be concerned that they are too

difficult to conceal due to their bulk, whereas the law-abiding citizen

will recognize that there are too many legal complications involved in

using such a weapon for self-defense (and, besides which, in most U.S.

states, it is not permitted in any event).

Finally, if automatic weapons are so dangerous to innocent bystanders,

why do the military and law enforcement carry them so often?

> I'd rather not share a subway car with Bernie Goetz,

That's up to you. Personally, I'd feel a lot better knowing that there

are others around me who are trained and armed. They might save my ass

someday. That's much more likely than them accidentally harming me

with their firearm, which is something that law enforcement officers do

much more often than private citizens do.

> and I'd rather not live in a city where guns and bullets are pervasive.

Does that include living in a city where the police don't carry guns?

If not, have you ever asked yourself why?

> Improving reactions and motor skills in people like us can be

> especially

> challenging. The stuff that works for NTs often doesn't work for us.

That's a pretty broad statement to make. Some can be trained, others

can't. With practice and study, my own reaction time and judgment have

been noticeably sharpened (and yes, I've tested it). Others cannot

learn it at all, but that is hardly the bailiwick of the autistic.

> It is surprisingly common for gun-owners and even policemen to be shot

> with their own guns.

It is surprisingly common for gun control advocates to quote outdated

statistics such as this one. Being shot with your own firearm is

actually quite rare.

> You would think that training would at least be able to prevent that.

It does. People who shoot themselves with their own guns are usually

people who haven't had gun safety training, which is irresponsible (to

put it mildly).

>> but if not, then carrying

>> a handgun is probably not indicated. Other disorders or conditions,

>> such as Alzheimer's disease, or even plain old arthritis if it's

>> severe

>> enough, can also make it a bad idea to have a gun.

>>

> And a bad idea to be around such a person while they are trying to

> defend themselves with one.

Probably. It's moot, in any event. Such individuals are not eligible

for carry permits, and if they're defending themselves from a 2 AM

break-in, you're probably not going to be around when it happens.

>>> Your gun is of no use if it's in your pocket and the bad guy's gun is

>>> pointing at you.

>>

>> Your gun is sometimes useless in a crime situation, that is true (part

>> of being trained is knowing when *not* to draw). Your gun is *always*

>> useless if you don't have it with you.

>>

> I have a hard time envisioning too many plausible scearios in which one

> would be useful.

C. Dennett referred to this as " Philosophers' Syndrome " :

mistaking a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. It

is difficult for you to imagine something being true, therefore you

conclude that it must be false. That is not the way the world works.

> The only one I can think of is suprising a burglar in the home, and

> there only because you have the element of surprise, whereas usually

> the criminal has it.

There are, in fact, many others, which is why it happens over two

million times a year, and why the violent crime rate decreases in areas

where private citizens are easily licensed.

-----

Homemade scented candles to bring warmth and fragrance to your home...

Knight Scents

http://www.knightscents.biz

[Guest guest]

What about the population? The numbers I heard said that Canada had *fewer

murders* than the United States. That says absolutely nothing about the

murder *rate*. Canada definitely had a much smaller population than the

United States. They could have fewer murders and still have a higher murder

*rate*.

Elayne

http://cablespeed.com/~solinox/index.htm

" Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection

by that state. "

> -----Original Message-----

> From: redhottech@...

> There are no valid adjustments you could make to reflect equal murder

> rates except maybe the amount of guns in the country.

[Guest guest]

I am deleting un-read all posts with the subject line " Gun stuff. " So

I hope y'all will change the subject line when you change the topic.

Thanks.

Jane

[Guest guest]

AndyTiedye wrote:

> We were discussing what would happen if most people carried guns.

> There would certainly be a lot more gunfire in the streets in such a

> place, as gun-toting citizens respond more or less accurately to real

> or imagined threats to their person, and the bad guys respond with

> even more guns and more bullets. Then comes the arms race into

> automatic weapons with ever greater risks to innocent bystanders.

This is a response based on fear, not on fact. Hand-wringing

politicians in many of the states that considered making concealed carry

available to everyone without a felony record said the same thing. When

Florida was considering such a law in 1987, politicians and newspapers

predicted that Florida would turn into the " Gunshine state. " The law

passed, and the hand-wringers were wrong. Even though more than 300,000

Floridians have gotten licenses to carry concealed handguns, this fear

has not turned into reality. Violent crime dropped in Florida since

1987, even while it rose slowly in other states in the region.

> I'd rather not share a subway car with Bernie Goetz, and I'd rather

> not live in a city where guns and bullets are pervasive.

I would much rather share a subway car with him than with the miscreants

that tried to attack him with sharpened screwdrivers. The thing is that

no one gave me a choice. The miscreants use their weapons to victimize

others... Goetz only used his gun to defend himself against them. Yet

you single out Goetz as the one you would fear being around. Isn't that

kind of odd?

Would you feel better about Goetz if he had been stabbed to death with a

screwdriver? Is that somehow morally superior to someone that defends

himself?

> Improving reactions and motor skills in people like us can be

> especially challenging. The stuff that works for NTs often doesn't

> work for us.

This is a complete guess with regard to guns. Unless you've trained

with them, or seen a study dealing with that, then you are just making

stuff up to try to support your side.

> It is surprisingly common for gun-owners and even policemen to be

> shot with their own guns. You would think that training would at

> least be able to prevent that.

Cops carry their guns openly, and they have a lot of contact with bad

guys. The chance of a concealed-carrying civilian getting shot with his

own gun is a whole lot less.

Training has changed that with regard to cops being shot with their own

guns. Lindell retention techniques and security holsters have changed

this in many departments.

> And a bad idea to be around such a person while they are trying to

> defend themselves with one.

Well, if they are trying to defend themselves, then there is someone

around trying to attack them or someone around them, so it would be a

bad idea to be around them if they just begged for their life too. The

thing is that you never know when this is going to happen-- if you did,

you could just leave the area when there was a crime about to take

place, and so could everyone else.

> I have a hard time envisioning too many plausible scearios in which

> one would be useful.

That's the problem-- all of your responses here are based on you

envisioning things, and not on fact. If you received any real-world

training with guns, or if you at least read about real-life uses of guns

for defensive purposes, you would see a very different story.

Statistically, resistance with a gun is the most effective means of

dealing with violent crime, and those who resist with a gun have the

lowest chance of being injured by their attacker (Source: US Department

of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey). This is with the

average level of training of individuals in the US... getting more

training improves things beyond this.

For a long list of links to news stories where regular folks used guns

to defend themselves, see:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/default.asp

On the right side of the screen is a list of about 80 recent

self-defense stories using guns, and a link to the older ones as well.

And this is just a subset of the real stories-- most of the time, when

the good guy pulls out his gun, the bad guy changes his mind about what

he is doing, and runs away. No attack takes place, and no news story

ever gets written. This is the case in over 90 percent of self-defense

usages of guns (source: DOJ's Crime Victimization Survey again, as well

as Lott's research). And of those under-10% where the gun is

fired, many do not make it into the newspaper. Even wit that in mind,

look how many *do* make it into the online versions of various newspapers.

> The only one I can think of is suprising a

> burglar in the home, and there only because you have the element of

> surprise, whereas usually the criminal has it.

If you had ever trained with guns, you would learn that there is a lot

more to it than simply carrying a gun around and thinking it will ward

off evil by its very presence. Most of the time, there is ample

evidence that something is about to happen, if you're looking for it.

[Guest guest]

Elayne Glantzberg wrote:

> What about the population? The numbers I heard said that Canada had *fewer

> murders* than the United States. That says absolutely nothing about the

> murder *rate*. Canada definitely had a much smaller population than the

> United States. They could have fewer murders and still have a higher murder

> *rate*.

>

The murder rate in the US is listed at 6.8 per 100,000. In Canada it is

1.7 per 100,000 or about 1/3 those of the US.

Red

[Guest guest]

Insofar as guns are concerned, I am glad someone remembers the Goetz thing, I do

as well.

I can only imagine his frustration as it built over time, but it doesn't mean I

condone his vigilante justice. i.e. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and revenge

doesn't equal justice, yada yada, etc. etc.

I am a bit scared of guns....yes.

I do however walk alone, and there are homeless who have on occasion been

violent with locals who tried to offer meals, one tried to assault a woman after

she gave him a meal. I am not giving a socially conscious opinion on the state

of the homeless situation here, in fact I've got 5 bags lined up to donate to a

homeless shelter as we speak...but it goes to show I'm humaan, I walk alone, I

get frightened, and I am saying he lives under a bridge I have to cross, and I

do carry a knife. Its illegal because its long, but I *feel* better.

I'm not scared to use it, if need be my daughter accompanies me on these walks

downtown and on occasion the said man has popped out of the bushes, brown bag in

hand on one way streets, after the sun has gone down.

Kim

You must do the very thing you think you cannot do ---

Eleanor Roosevelt

Please note: message attached

Return-Path:

<sentto-3984008-17143-1107846725-lyndahoboken=juno.com@...>

Received: from mx05.nyc.untd.com (mx05.nyc.untd.com [10.140.24.65])

by maildeliver10.nyc.untd.com with SMTP id AABBAS3UHAEZQJCS

for (sender

<sentto-3984008-17143-1107846725-lyndahoboken=juno.com@...>\

);

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:12:07 -0800 (PST)

Received: from n2a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com (n2a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com [66.94.237.36])

by mx05.nyc.untd.com with SMTP id AABBAS3UGA2BJE3S

for (sender

<sentto-3984008-17143-1107846725-lyndahoboken=juno.com@...>\

);

Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:12:06 -0800 (PST)

Received: from [66.218.69.1] by n2.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2005

07:12:06 -0000

Received: from [66.218.66.156] by mailer1.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb

2005 07:12:06 -0000

X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email

X-Sender: nourse@...

X-Apparently-To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

Received: (qmail 69217 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2005 07:12:05 -0000

Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166)

by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2005 07:12:05 -0000

Received: from unknown (HELO tiedye.tiedye.com) (216.36.81.114)

by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2005 07:12:04 -0000

Received: from [216.36.81.123] (ip-216-36-81-123.dsl.lax.megapath.net

[216.36.81.123])

by tiedye.tiedye.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AA13BF

for <AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse >; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 22:26:53

-0800 (PST)

Message-ID:

User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)

X-Accept-Language: en-us, en

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

References: <20052521037.875094@moggz>

<002901c50c8a$d932ea60$73829ad5@mijlociu>

In-Reply-To:

X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0

X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime

X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 216.36.81.114

X-Yahoo-Profile: kc1ip

MIME-Version: 1.0

Mailing-List: list AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse ; contact

AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse-owner

Delivered-To: mailing list AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

Precedence: bulk

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse-unsubscribe >

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:24:31 -0800

Subject: Re: Gun stuff

Reply-To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

X-ContentStamp: 16:8:204189390

X-UNTD-Peer-Info:

66.94.237.36|n2a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com|n2a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com|sentto-3984008-17143-\

1107846725-lyndahoboken=juno.com@...

X-UNTD-UBE:-1

[Guest guest]

What I do not understand is why so many firearms are still being manufactured at

an alrmaing rate today, every single day.

They pour like candy off the assembly lines. I mean aren't there enough out

there already? Every single gun manufactured is one more just not needed. I

figure there are so many made already, that we just don't need to keep them

rolling out.

There's not a need for more production.

It that there are programs in place where communities are 'buying back' guns to

get them off the streets and here they are rolling off the lines, its damned

scary.

senseless. When kids at age 7 in underpriveleged countries overseas, we've all

seen them are carrying semi-automatics, desensitized to it all, on the

streets...where do they get them?

Enough's enough.

Kim

You must do the very thing you think you cannot do ---

Eleanor Roosevelt