Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
> >
> > > >Facts are that guns are what keeps as many people in this country in
> > > >circulation as possible. Proven fact, undeniable. Largest statistical
> > > >database examined to date (and the most unbiased one).
> > >
> > > What database? Where can I see it for myself. If as you say, it is
> >really
> > > "undeniable" then I won't deny it. I doubt however that there is any
> >such
> > > "proven" and "undeniable" evidence.
> >
> >FBI Database of Crime Statistics, 1979 to 1995.
>
> Not even remotely close to "undeniable."
Better than any other source. Show me anything more credible.
> Sure everyone knows that crime has
> been steadily decreasing recently. *Nothing* I have ever seen attributes
> this trend to the large number of guns circulating in society. You might
> want to check out what the National Center for Policy Analysis has to say on
> this count.
>
> http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s229/s229.html
The NCPA is an avowed leftist socialist anti-gun lobbying group. They
woulnd't know the truth if it slapped them with a wet noodle.
>
> > > >I can also retort
> > > >that there should be more hateful cartoons about people and groups that
> > > >think that law abiding citizens have no right to defend their lives
> > > >against criminals.
> > >
> > > As to the need for such cartoons, suit yourself. As for the words you
> >seem
> > > to be trying to put in my mouth, I never said, or suggested, any such
> >thing.
> >
> >You quite vehemently supported the same for the opposition. If you don't
> >like it
> >one way, don't support the other..
>
> You misinterpreted my comment. What I said was "As to the need for such
> cartoons, suit yourself."
NO, you said the following, on Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:42:40 PST:
> Can there be enough hateful cartoons about an organization that fights to
> keep more guns than people in circulation?
>
> -Zero
><endquote>
Therefore, you were arguing in support of more cartoons. Stopy lying.
> What this means is, if you want to publish
> cartoons lampooning my opinions and people like me who hold them, suit
> yourself. In other words, go for it, have at it, cartoon away...I don't
> care. Comprendo?
Do you get bothered when people catch you in a lie?
>
> > > >Do you really want to continue?
> > >
> > > Only if you can turn down the posturing and the rhetoric and turn up the
> > > facts and a *reasonable* debate.
> >
> >I didn't start it, you did. I'm all for reasonable debate. Just the facts.
>
> OK, just the facts, huh? Lets start with your claim that the FBI Database
> of Crime Statistics, 1979 to 1995, somehow supports your assertion that
> "guns are what keeps (sic) as many people in this country in circulation as
> possible." And that this assertion is, in your own words, "Proven fact,
> undeniable."
>
> Where *exactly* can any such "facts" be gleaned from the FBI Database of
> Crime Statistics, 1979 to 1995? Reference to web page would be appreciated.
The only analysis done of ALL statistics in the database done was by
Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago. He found the
following, based completely on the statistics:
a) For every 1% increase in the number of citizens with Concealed Carry
permits, crime drops by an average of 1%.
b) The death penalty, as it is currently administered, has no positive
or negative effect on the crime rate.
c) Violent crime drops by an average of 8% one year after a state passes
a 'shall-issue' reform of its concealed carry statues (versus
discretionary issue statutes).
d) Spree type killings (more than one murder per incident) drop by an
average of 80% within 5 years of passage of such concealed carry laws.
he found a bunch of other things out, but these are the most salient
points. Read his book, _More Guns, Less Crime_ before you dismiss this.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:04 MDT