Re: violence...

Robert J. Bradbury (
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:31:23 -0700 (PDT)

Michael Lorrey wrote:
> Which is why giving citizens the ability to carry their own guns is so
> important. There is no surer or swifter, certain or consistent
> punishment than to be shot by your victim at the scene of the crime. Its
> the only death penalty that works.

Michael, it would be helpful to the discussion if you could make statements that more accurately reflect reality or were less easily demonstrated to be either (a) ill-worded; or (b) simply incorrect.

Many states in the U.S. have death penalties. Russia had a death penalty until it planned to join some part of the European commonwealth. But the U.S. and Russia have very high crime rates relative to Europe where there are no death penalties.

So I would have to disagree that the above statement holds much water. You may be able to make a case comparing states and counties, but you are comparing apples & oranges. They have different histories. For example, I'm grew up in Mass. just north of Boston, and I believe that your comparison between N.H. & Mass. if fundamentally flawed. N.H. is primarily has been a rural state except in a few "mill towns". Mass. is a fairly industrial state in the Eastern half (the part bordering on N.H. I suspect Mass. has a much higher population of "urban" poor, as compared to N.H. which may have "rural" poor. The religious percentages in the two states are different as well. I'm not sure if this is a factor, but it points out that *you* can't go making the claims you have been making.

If you want to do this, you have to put *all* the data into a statistical regression model and tease out exactly what the correlations are -- *and* then after you have the correlations, you still have work to do because correlations are *not* causation. If you can find studies like this and want to reference them, then please do so. Otherwise I will simply treat your messages as nothing more than speculation.

If a criminal wants to be a criminal, he just shoots you with a rifle from a hidden position 200 yards away. If they are a decent shot and you aren't going to be able to provide much of a response. If he wants to be a thief and is smart about it he simply waits until you are away from your home or car. The problem is that most criminals are either pansies or stupid.

The fact that criminals *aren't* shooting most *unarmed* people with rifles points out that the current system of laws, police, and courts *do* effectively serve as a deterent (even in states without the death penalty).