SPD wrote:

"Califbill" billnews wrote in message
.earthlink.net...
Keyser Söze wrote:
...the reaction of most of the right-wing gunslingers here to the calls
for more controls on the ability of individuals to get their hands on
firearms.

"Nothing will work, nothing can work, so there's no reason to do
anything that might interfere even slightly with our ability to obtain
just about any firearms and ammo we want."

Routine.



Why is it, that also cities with lots of legal guns have low crime rates?

A. Exactly how many of such cities have low crime rates. What percentage?
And how many total? If you sense I think you're lying, you could be right.

B. Because they're little dinky towns with few people in them.

From the rest of your incoherent response, I sense that you don't know much.
But you did seem to suggest that we treat guns like cars: require testing
for a license and require liability insurance to have a gun. That would at
least be a start. But I also sense that you would rather see people die
than you be inconvenienced one little bit. Good boy, Skippy.




Large towns without a drug gang problem have low crime rates. Lots of
cities in Los Angeles County, have low violence rates. As many legal guns
as violent area. Just not the culture to shoot up people. Roseburg has a
high per capita gun possession rate. Very little crime. Until a nutcase
goes off the tracks. I live near Oakland, Calif. we have 80,000
residents, little shooting crime. We live in a very populous area, but
other than a few low life area, little gun crime.