Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:14:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
751 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > [snip]
> > > > All things being equal otherwise, in areas where it is eaiser to legally • obtian
> > > > a gun the crime rate is lower. This hold true in all econmic and social
> > > > classes.
> > >
> > > But which is cause, and which is effect? ie, would allowing unlimited • ownership
> > > of guns in a high crime area (without other social changes) reduce the crime
> > > rate in that area? I think not.
> >
> > Well ABC news
>
> And we can always trust reporters to get the whole story 8?)
Well given that these particular reporters lean toward supporting gun control I
would tend to assume the did their job (of being objective) by coming to the
opposite conclusion.
>
> > had a 20/20 report about a county in the USA. (I forget exactly
> > where) That county had one of the highest crime rates in the country. A • policy
> > was enacted that required all able bodied, law abiding citizens to carry a • fire
> > arm at all times while in the county. That county now has one of the lowest
> > crime rates in the country. The lesson learned is that most criminals fear
> > retaliation.
>
> I'd be interested in more information about this. How did they ensure that
> non-law-abiding citizens didn't carry guns? Over what period did the change
> take place? Did anything else happen during that period (or before) which may
> have contributed? How many law-abiding citizens chose not to carry guns • anyway?
> I'd be extremely surprised if such a law on it's own produced that result.
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > No one. 99% of gun owners never have to fire their gun.
> > >
> > > Where did you get that statistic?
> > >
> > > > The threat of force
> > > > is usually sufficent.
> > >
> > > What the percentage does "usually" represent
> > >
> > > > The media is controlled by a small group of liberals.
> > > > You only ever see the news that will benifit that position. The fact that
> > > > dozens of successful home defence senerios play out for every unsuccessful
> > > > senerio is often overlooked or ignored as a result.
> > >
> > > Do you have any stats in this?
> >
> > It is all at the local Library.
>
> I doubt any such statistics would be anywhere near accurate.
The SIRS are release yearly. 1 year ago is the most accurate data anyone could
obtain.
>
> > > You've made a lot of assertions here. I agree there are probably many
> > > successful home defence senerios played out, with & without firearms being
> > > involved. I don't think that you've been able to convince me that everyone • (of
> > > appropriate age) should own a firearm.
> >
> > You have the right to not own a firearm if you chose. My point is that I • have
> > the right to own a firearm if I chose and would use said firearm to protect
> > that right for all of afore mentioned reasons. Anyone that tells me I should
> > not have a firearm for my own good is full of baloney.
>
> Or their opinion differs from yours.
>
> You may or may not been taught how to properly handle firearms. How many
> decent, law-abiding citizens have had such training? And I don't mean just how
> to clean it, use the safety, load & aim it. I mean putting them in situations
> where they're scared, stressed, and pointing it at a real person, and taught
> what to do. Are you required to participate in such training before owning a
> gun? I maintain a firearm in the hands of someone without such training is a
> danger to themself & others, and they shouldn't have a gun.
I completly agree with you on this point. Anyone who is not properly trained
or undergoing training in the use and safety of a firearm has no buisness
owning one. That is one point that I agree with the NRA on. Another point I
agree with the NRA on is; zero tolerance on gun crimes. One strike and your
out.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) And we can always trust reporters to get the whole story 8?) (...) policy (...) fire (...) I'd be interested in more information about this. How did they ensure that non-law-abiding citizens didn't carry guns? Over what period did the change (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
