Would someone please explain this to the incredibly thick yokel. I'm
not going to waste any more time with him.


Jeff Morris wrote:

So you were just imitating an illiterate idiot. Sure, that's what you
claim now.



JR Gilbreath wrote:

Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you
keep you head.


Jeff Morris wrote:

JR Gilbreath wrote:

Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were
southen cities.




I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at
the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada.

Get a life.




Get an education.

Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of 500,000+
as you are in one with 1,000 people.




So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large
cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the
same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar
and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem.

Your
knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you
looking at 1810 census?




All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000,
according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us
what mistake you think I made.






Jeff Morris wrote:

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?

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:

wrote:
....
and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners?

What makes you say that? All I've done is point out that there seems to
be regional cultural differences that may account for the different
points of view on gun control. Until my recent research, I was unaware
that Southerners were so thin skinned that they tended to shoot each at
the slightest provocation.

Its ironic that many Southerner gun advocates will talk about protecting
their family from burglary, when their high murder rate can be
attributed to the large number of friend and acquaintance murders. Here
in the Northeast, there are almost no murders outside of the inner city.
I live in a city of about 100,000 that has about 1 murder every 5 or
10 years.

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)

When I was in Alaska (Kaktovik, north slope area), I bought a little
nylon stock Remmington 22. I really liked that thing and decided to
bring it back to Calif with me on vaction where my home was.
I didn't have a proper gun case, so I wrapped it in a towel and
taped it up a bit. At the time, firearms on aircraft was making the
news. This was the late 60's.

When I boarded the aircraft (C-46) in Kaktovik, I thought I'd be nice, and
check with the pilot. I asked him where I should put it, and he looked
a bit puzzled at my question. Finally, he suggested placing it between
my seat and the window...if that was OK with me.

When I got to Fairbanks, I asked again. The response from the pilot
was that while a pain to worry about , we'd better play the game and
put it in the cockpit.

In Anchorage, people were more business-like about it, but still not
overly concerned.

By the time I got to San Francisco, and checked in, declaring my
firearm, you would have thought I was toting a sack of rattlesnakes,
and just looking for an excuse to set them loose. One person,
(airline worker), actually held it between thumb and forefinger, and held
it away from his body as if expecting it to go off any minute.

The final hop, a commuter, was piloted by an AirForce vet. He said to
do whatever...he could have cared less.

So it's a matter of perception, isn't it?

Would I have one on my boat? I honestly don't know...but probably
not...the San Juan and Gulf Islands area isn't a war zone.... So no
reason to have one aboard.

Norm B who grew up with guns, and has all the emotional reaction at
seeing one as he would a toaster., and yes, I've twice had one
pointed at me at close range.

What's that matter? Sarcasm lost on you?

Frankly, you seemed to be trying make a point, but your lack of
communication skills have made that impossible.



JR Gilbreath wrote:
Would someone please explain this to the incredibly thick yokel. I'm
not going to waste any more time with him.


Jeff Morris wrote:

So you were just imitating an illiterate idiot. Sure, that's what you
claim now.



JR Gilbreath wrote:

Sarcasm sure goes over your head. I suppose it because of where you
keep you head.


Jeff Morris wrote:

JR Gilbreath wrote:

Well duh! Of course I thought Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia were
southen cities.





I don't know how you define "Southern." Detroit and Chicago are at
the same latitude as Boston. Detroit even borders Canada.

Get a life.





Get an education.

Also, if you get murdered you are just as dead in a city of
500,000+ as you are in one with 1,000 people.





So? I was only pointing out that your stat was only for large
cities, and there are many small cities in the South that have the
same high murder rate. Perhaps if you learned the basics of grammar
and punctuation, we wouldn't have this problem.

Your
knowledge of the population of cities is truly unbelievable are you
looking at 1810 census?





All of the cities I mentioned have populations under 500,000,
according to the 2003 FBI crime statistics. Perhaps you can tell us
what mistake you think I made.






Jeff Morris wrote:

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?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:29:09 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:

wrote:
...
and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners?

What makes you say that?

I think it was the "you must be from Georgia" remark you made to
another poster you disagreed with.
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

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:29:09 -0500, Jeff Morris
wrote:


wrote:
...

and I take it the yankee man has a problem with southerners?

What makes you say that?


I think it was the "you must be from Georgia" remark you made to
another poster you disagreed with.

You presume far too much. As I've said, I was merely pointing out the
cultural difference. His response to the assault is to carry a gun.
This is behavior I've come to associate, for better or worse, with
Southerners. Are you claiming this isn't justified? Since you seem to
think carrying is a virtue, then why wouldn't you assume I was paying
him a compliment?

Get a grip, Weeble, you're wobbling all over the place.

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.