Tom Quackenbush wrote:

yourname wrote:


yourname wrote:





http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562335,00.html

Obviously ignore the leftist editorialism, but a few facts in there



SNIP



What is relevant[to the argument anyway] is rates in one state vs
another. I still don't see any positive correlation between higher gun
ownership and lower murder rate, still mostly the opposite



Well, I guess you've better eyesight than I. The article you cited
says:

"While Massachusetts has the security of knowing we have the toughest
gun laws in the nation, we're surrounded by states that have some of
the weakest laws: Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire," Jacques said.
"So ultimately, federal protections are very much needed because guns
know no borders or boundaries."

I agree that Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire border Massachusetts
and that they place less restrictions on gun ownership. I certainly
don't see how the logical conclusion is that more Federal laws are
required, based on those facts. Using your figures for number of
murders by firearm per 100,000 people, Vermont and New Hampshire, at
least, compare favorably to Massachusetts.



Other states don't compare favorably. wasn't referring particularly to
that article. Crime tends to occur in cities. Those states have no big
cities, thus one would expect lower crime. with a density of less than
10 per square mile. it is tough to get within shooting distance of
another person in N Dakota. With a density of nearly 800 per square mile
it is tough to get out of shooting distance in Mass.

I don't see a positive or negative correlation between the murder
rate and gun control laws. If there is one, it seems well camouflaged
by a multitude of other factors.

R,
Tom Q.


Tend to agree on the whole, twas the other side braggin that started it
all out