Leanne wrote:
I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats

discussions

should be made with a bit of discretion.


We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should
we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many
gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of
nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy.

Leanne


Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal
interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police,
etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more
than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under.

Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more
likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than
than a criminal.

Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by
the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses,
this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a
liability.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:43:51 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:

Leanne wrote:
I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats

discussions

should be made with a bit of discretion.


We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should
we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many
gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of
nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy.

Leanne


Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal
interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police,
etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more
than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under.

Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more
likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than
than a criminal.

Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by
the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses,
this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a
liability.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

back in the 80's, a suburb of Chicago, Morton Grove, outlawed handgun
ownership. In response to this, a suburb of Atlanta, Kennesaw, passed
a law requiring gun ownership. In the 2 decades since this happened,
Morton Grove has maintained the rate of increase in violent crime of
any Chicago suburbs. At the same time, Kennesaw has had the lowest
rate of property and personal crime and violence. The only 2 handgun
murders in Kennesaw were at hotels there, not in homes in the
community.

Think about it. If you are a criminal, are you going to go to the one
community where everyone is required to have a gun or the one where
nobody is allowed to have one.

The problem with gun control is that its only obeyed by the law
abiding. Criminals are generally unaffected.

Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:43:51 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:


Leanne wrote:

I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats

discussions


should be made with a bit of discretion.


We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should
we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many
gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of
nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy.

Leanne



Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal
interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police,
etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more
than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under.

Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more
likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than
than a criminal.

Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by
the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses,
this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a
liability.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html


back in the 80's, a suburb of Chicago, Morton Grove, outlawed handgun
ownership. In response to this, a suburb of Atlanta, Kennesaw, passed
a law requiring gun ownership. In the 2 decades since this happened,
Morton Grove has maintained the rate of increase in violent crime of
any Chicago suburbs. At the same time, Kennesaw has had the lowest
rate of property and personal crime and violence. The only 2 handgun
murders in Kennesaw were at hotels there, not in homes in the
community.


You should get your fact straight before you parrot the arguments of
others. Kennesaw has a low crime rate, but not lower than many other
"bedroom suburbs" around Atlanta. If you compare to Massachusetts,
which gun advocates decry as a failed experiment in ultra liberal gun
control (we require a license for ownership), the Kennesaw crime rate is
rather high - double that of many towns in the state. Burglaries, for
instance, are much more common than in the city I live in.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:14:19 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:43:51 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:


Leanne wrote:

I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats

discussions


should be made with a bit of discretion.


We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should
we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many
gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of
nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy.

Leanne



Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal
interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police,
etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more
than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under.

Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more
likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than
than a criminal.

Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by
the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses,
this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a
liability.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html


back in the 80's, a suburb of Chicago, Morton Grove, outlawed handgun
ownership. In response to this, a suburb of Atlanta, Kennesaw, passed
a law requiring gun ownership. In the 2 decades since this happened,
Morton Grove has maintained the rate of increase in violent crime of
any Chicago suburbs. At the same time, Kennesaw has had the lowest
rate of property and personal crime and violence. The only 2 handgun
murders in Kennesaw were at hotels there, not in homes in the
community.


You should get your fact straight before you parrot the arguments of
others. Kennesaw has a low crime rate, but not lower than many other
"bedroom suburbs" around Atlanta. If you compare to Massachusetts,
which gun advocates decry as a failed experiment in ultra liberal gun
control (we require a license for ownership), the Kennesaw crime rate is
rather high - double that of many towns in the state. Burglaries, for
instance, are much more common than in the city I live in.

Not sure where you are getting your stats (I live in the Atlanta area
and worked for many years in Kennesaw and am well aware of the local
crime stats, esp. burglary and violent crime rates)


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

wrote:
back in the 80's, a suburb of Chicago, Morton Grove, outlawed handgun
ownership. In response to this, a suburb of Atlanta, Kennesaw, passed
a law requiring gun ownership. In the 2 decades since this happened,
Morton Grove has maintained the rate of increase in violent crime of
any Chicago suburbs. At the same time, Kennesaw has had the lowest
rate of property and personal crime and violence. The only 2 handgun
murders in Kennesaw were at hotels there, not in homes in the
community.


You should get your fact straight before you parrot the arguments of
others. Kennesaw has a low crime rate, but not lower than many other
"bedroom suburbs" around Atlanta. If you compare to Massachusetts,
which gun advocates decry as a failed experiment in ultra liberal gun
control (we require a license for ownership), the Kennesaw crime rate is
rather high - double that of many towns in the state. Burglaries, for
instance, are much more common than in the city I live in.


Not sure where you are getting your stats (I live in the Atlanta area
and worked for many years in Kennesaw and am well aware of the local
crime stats, esp. burglary and violent crime rates)


FBI. Of course, I'm not familiar with the various towns and their
demographics, but is easy to find communities in GA with crime rates as
low or lower than Kennesaw. And most of the "bedroom suburbs" in MA
have a much lower rates.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Leanne wrote:
I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats

discussions

should be made with a bit of discretion.


We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should
we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many
gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of
nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy.

Leanne


Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal
interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police,
etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more
than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under.

Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more
likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than
than a criminal.

Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by the
threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses, this is
clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a
liability.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented.
About 750 accidental shootings took place.
Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing
themselves or others.

The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be
done as many means are available.

Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is
an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words,
12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member,
friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and
armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals.

The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed,
they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to
kill people and the environment without human intervention!
So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the weapon
should be within reach at all times or, some type of delaying/alarm/alerting
system should be in place to give one time to access and present the
firearm. Such as steel doors and frames, windows high off the ground, and a
good alarm system for the home defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house
I built had the first 2 and added the last after an attempted daylight
pre-Christmas burglery.
Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar hitting up
folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I held up my folding
tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he executed an immediate 90
degree turn away from us and left the area. No police, no blood, just peace
and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late
night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling.

Greg wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Leanne wrote:

I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats

discussions


should be made with a bit of discretion.


We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should
we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many
gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of
nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy.

Leanne



Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal
interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals (police,
etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were homicides and more
than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of age or under.

Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far more
likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or child, than
than a criminal.

Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented by the
threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some businesses, this is
clearly a factor, but for the average family, I think a gun is a
liability.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html


Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented.
About 750 accidental shootings took place.
Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally" killing
themselves or others.

The important stat was "legal intervention" which includes self-defense.
The fact that is very low would seem to imply that actually shooting a
gun in self defense is very rare, or not very successful.

The fact that more than half of the gun deaths are suicides is proof
alone that gun ownership is dangerous.


The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can be
done as many means are available.

Wrong. There are roughly 10 attempts for every successful suicide.
Which method do you think has a higher success rate: a handgun or
aspirin? Hopefully, if you or a loved one gets depressed, there will
not be a gun handy.

Also, much of the difference in suicide rates between states can be
explained by easy access to guns. In fact, membership in the NRA seems
to be an suicide risk.


Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a gun is
an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In other words,
12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's family member,
friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens were trained and
armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000 dead criminals.

More than half of the victims knew their murderer. You're assuming the
murderer is a criminal that could be deterred if only the victim had a
gun. Its more likely that the murderer is the next door neighbor who's
****ed you ran over his trash can again.

In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the
northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between
acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with
an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may
protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds
of killing a friend in a barroom fight.




The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when needed,
they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs that are able to
kill people and the environment without human intervention!
So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the weapon
should be within reach at all times or, some type of delaying/alarm/alerting
system should be in place to give one time to access and present the
firearm. Such as steel doors and frames, windows high off the ground, and a
good alarm system for the home defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house
I built had the first 2 and added the last after an attempted daylight
pre-Christmas burglery.
Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar hitting up
folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I held up my folding
tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he executed an immediate 90
degree turn away from us and left the area. No police, no blood, just peace
and security for my wife and I and the rest of the good folks wanting a late
night burger. But the firearm was there if needed, a comforting feeling.

Savannah has one of the highest murder rates in the country - almost
triple that of New York or Boston. I don't think this proves that
arming everyone makes you safer.

The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those
parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the
responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing
themselves and each other.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:33:21 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:


In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the
northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between
acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with
an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may
protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds
of killing a friend in a barroom fight.

Only if you are a criminal. It is illegal to carry a gun into a bar
in Georgia, even with a weapons carry
permit


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit,
Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities?


Jeff Morris wrote:
Greg wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Leanne wrote:

I don't carry a gun on me or my boat, but guns on boats


discussions


should be made with a bit of discretion.



We just went through this discussion a bit ago on alt.rv. Should
we or should we not carry firearms in our RV. I wonder how many
gun owners have killed with their weapon. It takes a lot of
nerve to actually do it. Talking is easy.

Leanne



Of the 30,000 gun deaths in the in 2002, only 300 were "legal
interventions." I would guess most of these were professionals
(police, etc.). Over 750 were accidental. About 12000 were
homicides and more than half were suicide. Over 600 were 14 years of
age or under.

Its pretty clear that if a gun is fired and kills someone, its far
more likely that the victim will be a family member, friend, or
child, than than a criminal.

Of course, these stats don't tell us how many crimes were prevented
by the threat of a gun. In some neighborhoods, and for some
businesses, this is clearly a factor, but for the average family, I
think a gun is a liability.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html



Your conclusion above doesn't follow the facts you just presented.
About 750 accidental shootings took place.
Over 27,000 were murders or homicides, i.e., someone "intentionally"
killing themselves or others.


The important stat was "legal intervention" which includes self-defense.
The fact that is very low would seem to imply that actually shooting a
gun in self defense is very rare, or not very successful.

The fact that more than half of the gun deaths are suicides is proof
alone that gun ownership is dangerous.


The suicides are sad but if someone wants to do it, not much that can
be done as many means are available.


Wrong. There are roughly 10 attempts for every successful suicide.
Which method do you think has a higher success rate: a handgun or
aspirin? Hopefully, if you or a loved one gets depressed, there will
not be a gun handy.

Also, much of the difference in suicide rates between states can be
explained by easy access to guns. In fact, membership in the NRA seems
to be an suicide risk.


Given the 12,000 homicides, it would seem that a homeowner having a
gun is an asset, not liability. (12000 compared to 750 accidents.) In
other words, 12000 people were killed by criminals, that is, someone's
family member, friend, or child, not the criminal. So if more citizens
were trained and armed, maybe the statistic could be changed to 12000
dead criminals.


More than half of the victims knew their murderer. You're assuming the
murderer is a criminal that could be deterred if only the victim had a
gun. Its more likely that the murderer is the next door neighbor who's
****ed you ran over his trash can again.

In southern states, where the murder rate is triple that of the
northeast, murder is much more likely to stem from a altercation between
acquaintances. In the Northeast, murder is more often associated with
an actual crime. The obvious conclusion is that while having a gun may
protect against of small risk of burglary, it greatly increases the odds
of killing a friend in a barroom fight.




The funny thing about guns is that if they aren't in your hand when
needed, they can't magically strike down the bad guy - unlike SUVs
that are able to kill people and the environment without human
intervention!
So if a person feels the need of a firearm for protection, either the
weapon should be within reach at all times or, some type of
delaying/alarm/alerting system should be in place to give one time to
access and present the firearm. Such as steel doors and frames,
windows high off the ground, and a good alarm system for the home
defense scenario. Unintentionally, the house I built had the first 2
and added the last after an attempted daylight pre-Christmas burglery.
Also had an incident in Savannah, Georgia, with a violent beggar
hitting up folks at a Burger King. Instead of presenting my .45, I
held up my folding tac knife (still folded) as he approached and he
executed an immediate 90 degree turn away from us and left the area.
No police, no blood, just peace and security for my wife and I and the
rest of the good folks wanting a late night burger. But the firearm
was there if needed, a comforting feeling.


Savannah has one of the highest murder rates in the country - almost
triple that of New York or Boston. I don't think this proves that
arming everyone makes you safer.

The more I look into this topic, the clearer the answer seems: those
parts of the country where people insist on the right, even the
responsibility, to carry a gun, do it simply because they enjoy killing
themselves and each other.

Its not clear what your point is here. Are you saying these are or are
not southern states?

From my Boston perspective, most of these cities are southern.
However, if you're claiming they are not, you should consider that this
is from a list of cities over 500,000, which excludes all cities in
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Birmingham, Little Rock, Atlanta, Jackson, and Miami have higher murder
rates than Philadelphia.

New Orleans would lead the list, having a murder rate 20% worse than
Washington.


JR Gilbreath wrote:
In 2002 the Leading cities for murders were; Washington DC, Detroit,
Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia all southern cities?