Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts alot
of
the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
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.

That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However,
there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider
credible.



Doug Dotson wrote:
Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts alot
of
the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
Greg wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:24:22 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:

That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However,
there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider
credible.
In other words, it disagrees with your preconceived notions.
Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:24:22 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:


That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However,
there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider
credible.

In other words, it disagrees with your preconceived notions.
Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

John Lott has been discredited by gun rights supporters, not opponents.
He has done such things as fabricate data, quote nonexistent surveys,
and use unsound methods for analysis. One of his first detractors was
the right-wing Washington Times. His creation of an Internet persona
named Mary Rosh to sing his own praise and denigrate his opponents was,
in the words of a guns rights reporter, "beyond creepy."

The problem is, people who don't care about the truth continue to claim
Lott as a credible source.

http://www.vdare.com/malkin/johnlott.htm

Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support
the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming
that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. No Congressman
introduced legislation to renew the assult weapons ban because it has become
clear that gun control is inaffective. There is an impressive body of
evidence
that areas the have liberal carry laws have less crime. The research and
conclusions in Lott's book have been verified over and over. Most works
that conclude otherwise have been found to be biased or flawed.

Doug

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
That's a good book only if you've already made up your mind. However,
there are far too many inaccuracies and bad science in to be consider
credible.



Doug Dotson wrote:
Suggest you get a copy of "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. It puts
alot of
the stats into perspective in a way that is understandable.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
Greg wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:06:28 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote:

Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support
the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming
that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. No Congressman
introduced legislation to renew the assult weapons ban because it has become
clear that gun control is inaffective. There is an impressive body of
evidence
that areas the have liberal carry laws have less crime. The research and
conclusions in Lott's book have been verified over and over. Most works
that conclude otherwise have been found to be biased or flawed.

Doug

None of the current gun laws really address the use of guns in crimes.
If they focused on criminal use of guns as opposed to the possession
of weapons in general they would probably have more effect. If
criminals knew that merely having a gun on them while committing a
felony meant life without parole, quickly you would see that many
criminals would choose not to be armed and the stupid ones would
quickly be wisked off to serve their life sentences.

The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since
their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun
crime. Gun control laws usually just mean that the victims are
unarmed. Instead, we need laws that disarm the felons instead. Seems
common sense to me.

Just as good fences make good neighbors, knowing that others are able
to protect themselves from you will make many - but not all -
criminals look for easier targets. Are you prepared to put a sign on
your front yard 'no guns are kept in here'?

A few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker around here "this
vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson'. It sends the right message.
Police rarely ever are there to protect us. They try to 'solve' the
crime after its happened. The only way to truly be protected is to
protect yourself.

I know up in the northeast part of the US there is a big belief in the
nanny state and they look longingly at european cradle to grave
socialism. This may work for some things, but not for personal
safety. There isn't a cop in your yard to keep the burglars out or
riding with you to take on the carjackers. You have to fall back on
that old american concept of self-reliance. Guns are an excellent
part of that.

Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have
guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither
do you.
Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

wrote:


....

The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since
their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun
crime.

Where do you get this nonsense???

First of all, gun ownership was already severely limited in Australia.
Second, the buy-back program only applied to certain types of weapons,
mainly semi-automatic and pump action weapons, and exemptions were
granted for legitimate needs. This was not a "total ban."

Since very few Australians were armed in the first place, its hard to
justify the claim that crime increased dramatically because a few
shotguns were turned in.

In fact, the statistics don't show any particular affect of the
buy-back. Its easy to find a few anomalies, but in a population where
there are less than 100 gun homicides a year, its easy to be misled by
statistics.

If you look at the latest report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics,
its clear that the use of guns in murder, attempted murder, and
robberies has steadily gone down in the last five years. However, since
there are relatively few guns there, the overall crime rates are not
greatly affect.

Weeble, its OK to have your opinions, but please stop making bull****
claims without doing research.
....


Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have
guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither
do you.

Actually, I do.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:06:28 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote:

Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support
the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming
that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime. No
Congressman
introduced legislation to renew the assult weapons ban because it has
become
clear that gun control is inaffective. There is an impressive body of
evidence
that areas the have liberal carry laws have less crime. The research and
conclusions in Lott's book have been verified over and over. Most works
that conclude otherwise have been found to be biased or flawed.

Doug

None of the current gun laws really address the use of guns in crimes.
If they focused on criminal use of guns as opposed to the possession
of weapons in general they would probably have more effect. If
criminals knew that merely having a gun on them while committing a
felony meant life without parole, quickly you would see that many
criminals would choose not to be armed and the stupid ones would
quickly be wisked off to serve their life sentences.

I doubt it. There is a reason they are called criminals. Studies have
shown that when a criminal commits a crime, he/she pretty much never
considers the consequences. We have many laws that make penalties
harsher when a gun is even carried let alone used. Makes no real difference.

The old NRA slogan has proved itself very true in Australia. Since
their total ban on gun ownership, they have had record violent gun
crime. Gun control laws usually just mean that the victims are
unarmed. Instead, we need laws that disarm the felons instead. Seems
common sense to me.

Same thanig happened in Britain.

Just as good fences make good neighbors, knowing that others are able
to protect themselves from you will make many - but not all -
criminals look for easier targets. Are you prepared to put a sign on
your front yard 'no guns are kept in here'?

Exactly! Who was it said that "An armed society is a polite society"?

A few years ago there was a popular bumper sticker around here "this
vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson'. It sends the right message.
Police rarely ever are there to protect us. They try to 'solve' the
crime after its happened. The only way to truly be protected is to
protect yourself.

Absolutely!!!


I know up in the northeast part of the US there is a big belief in the
nanny state and they look longingly at european cradle to grave
socialism.

Which is a absolute failure there and most anyplace it has been attempted.

This may work for some things, but not for personal
safety. There isn't a cop in your yard to keep the burglars out or
riding with you to take on the carjackers. You have to fall back on
that old american concept of self-reliance. Guns are an excellent
part of that.

You are correct, sir!

Would I prefer to live in a world where it wasn't necessary to have
guns to protect my home and family? Of course, but I don't, neither
do you.

We have to live in the reality of this world, warts and all.

Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

Doug Dotson wrote:
Actually, 2 government sanctioned studies that were intended to support
the anti-gun approach, were recently released and ended up confirming
that gun control laws do pretty much nothing to reduce crime.
snip
you didn't see Bowling for Columbine did you. put aside all the ad
hominem invective reserved for American patriot Michael Moore and
suggest reasons why all of the countries mentioned in the film have;
severe restrictions on gun ownership and coincidentally violent crime
rates that range from 10 to 100 times lower per capita than the USA,
including your country's best friend by the way and No, it's not the UK