From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Sun Sep 26 1999 - 16:27:27 MDT
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> 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.
And I agree with this, which is why I said what I said. John Lott's
book, More Guns Less Crime says that the FBI crime stats prove that
there is no deterrent effect from the Death Penalty as it is currently
practiced by the justice system, with its many appeals, loopholes, and
years of waiting, living off the public dole in a jail cell, however his
analysis also showed that allowing law abiding citizens to carry
concealed weapons DOES have a deterrent effect on crime, precisely
because the criminal is deterred by the prospect of death, meted out by
the criminal's intended victims, at the scene of the crime. I suggest
you re-read what I said. The implied threat against would-be criminals
presented by the concealed carrying public is the only death threat that
works.
>
> 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.
Southeastern NH is as urbanized today as the adjacent territory in
Massachusetts is.
>
> 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.
Well, though I stated general perceptions, others have come up with
solid stats, showing that the crime rate per 100,000 population is 3
times higher in Mass than NH. rates per 100,000 should be the same no
matter what your population density if all other factors are equal, so
obviously something is not equal.
>
> 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.
Criminals do not get nearly enough practice with their weapons to be
proficient with them from any distance. Its true that smart criminals
would avoid confrontation, but why are non-confrontational crimes also
higher in states and cities with tough gun control laws? I say it is
because such states are repressive across the board. Your own statement
disproves your argument. Since most criminals are pansies or stupid, its
obvious that they will not be as smart as you, but then again, read
on...
>
> 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).
Hardly. The fact is that only 3% of violent gun related crime is
committed with legally obtained weapons. I don't know what sort of point
you are trying to make with the rifle argument. Its rather obvious that
a criminal wants to be close at hand to quickly scoop up the victims
belongings so as to get away from the scene as soon as possible.
Shooting from 200 yards away means you have over a minute to close with
the victim, by which time it is likely police or other help has arrived
or is that much closer at hand. It is much harder for a criminal to
conceal a rifle, so they are more likely to be observed carrying the
weapon than if it were a pistol.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:17 MST