From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Sep 26 1999 - 11:31:23 MDT
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).
R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:17 MST