RE: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Joe E. Dees (email@example.com)
Fri, 28 May 1999 13:11:16 -0500
From: Al Villalobos <ALV@qm.com>
Subject: RE: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Date sent: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:51:32 -0700
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To continue on the subject of FACTS (remember those?) Prof. John Lott's
> work on the gun issue has been offered by the pro gun side as "the"
> definitive work on the subject.
> Can any anti-gunners offer any comparable, scientifically rigorous work to
> refute the evidence presented by the other side?
Pro-gunners play the intellectually dishonest DEA medical
marijuana game, refusing to let the laws be tested in practice, then
claiming that there's no evidence to justify them when they fight
tooth and nail to prevent the experiment from going forward so that
such evidence can be gathered.
> Remember everyone, hard, cold facts don't go away just because you dont want
> to believe them.
So, pass the laws provisionally and let the cold, hard facts be
gathered, whydoncha, instead of stupidly, and with no evidence of
your own, maintaining that it is better for the underage, abusive,
retarded, criminally violent and insane to be armed than not.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael S. Lorrey [SMTP:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 8:24 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
> > Steve Tucker wrote:
> > > My main point was to find out if anyone is even interested in evidence
> > here. So far
> > > I've seen evidence backing the increased benefits to society of gun
> > ownership, but none
> > > for gun banning. No one has officially asked (on this list anyway) if
> > someone knows of
> > > such evidence, so I thought I'd step forward.
> > The largest study done that shows evidence for gun control was a study of
> > five hand picked
> > counties at different times, that demonstrated that crime went up. It was
> > such a small
> > sample that in each case the increase in crime was attributable to a
> > single individual or
> > gang in that jurisdiction on a continuous string of crimes. I don't recall
> > the name of the
> > person who did the study, but she was the person who called Prof. Lott's
> > study 'flawed'. I
> > know he mentions her in the back of his book.
> > Mike Lorrey