Date sent: Fri, 28 May 1999 17:14:39 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com> Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Safe Gun-Free Britain (was Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]) Send reply to: email@example.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > > Not really; gun ownership doesn't deter crime if people can't carry those
> > > guns with them. Crooks may decide not to break into people's houses
> > > because they might be armed, but that's not really a problem since they
> > > can just wait until their victims are out on the streets and disarmed by
> > > law.
> > >
> > Murder rates are higher in those US states which have a concealed
> > carry law, where both citizen and criminal is more likely to be
> > armed, than they are in the U.K., where both is less likely to be.
> Yet property crime is higher in the UK, as ar assaults. Not to mention that demographically,
> the US is far far different from the UK. I'll bet if you compare states with similar
> demographics to the UK you'll see much more closer comparison.
When a comparison might augur in your favor, you accentuate the similarities; when it might weigh against you, you stress the differences, This may be self-serving, but it is hardly truth-serving.
> > > According to that DoJ report I posted a URL for, in some areas (assault
> > > and property crimes) it has much higher crime levels than America; this
> > > is probably one reason why the anti-gunners stick to murder rates. It's
> > > possible the DoJ are fudging the figures to make America look better, but
> > > they appear to have gone to some trouble to get accurate statistics by
> > > looking both at official police reports and victim surveys... and they
> > > would seem to have a vested interest in making it look worse to get more
> > > funding.
> > >
> > Murder is the irreversible crime; it is the one which forever revokes
> > one's right to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness, as well
> > as the one to keep and bear arms.
> Thats right, but killing a criminal is not murder, and I'd much rather it were him and not me,
> and I'd much rather trust my protection to myself than to.... well since the government is not
> liable for protecting me, then I have no-one to trust but myself.
I'd much rather him not have the gun, if I can keep it out of his hands; even if I'm armed with a tommygun, one bullet from behind will kill me and I'd most likely never see it coming.
> Here's a question: What do the gun controllers propose to give me in services in exchange for
> my guns? Will they provide bodyguards? NO? Will they lock up anyone who ever exhibited a hint
> of deviancy? NO? Will they pay for the prisons they will need to enforce the fascist state
> they want to impose? NO? Well, then, no deal.
You can have yours if you're not a violent criminal, a spouse and/or child abuser, mentally deficient and/or deranged, or a child. Then, society shouldn't need your criminal, insane, abusive or underaged permission.
> definition of fascism:
> from Encyclopedia.com:
> "philosophy of government that glorifies the nation-state at the expense
> of the individual... Fascism generally gains support by promising social
> justice to discontented elements of the working and middle classes, and
> social order to powerful financial interests."
> Start enforcing the laws we already have before you come to me to ask that I give up more
You accuse me of asking for what I have not asked for (unless you belong in one of the categories of my list, in which case you are not responsible enough to be trusted in the midst of the populace with the possession of mass and at-a-distance deadly force, and therefore your permission is irrelevant, for you cannot responsibly either grant or withhold it concerning this issue).
> Mike Lorrey