On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:01:06 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 3:36 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:07:21 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

More likely we want to be able to defend ourselves.

See above.

I did. You don't think people should be able to defend themselves? My
reluctance to kill is less than my reluctance to be killed.

No, you have a perfect right to defend yourself. And if you have to,
it's time to move.

Easy to say assuming unlimited funds and options.

No, you don't need unlimited funds and options. What you need is the
good sense not to plant yourself and your family in a shooting
gallery.

In the real world, not
so much. For that matter, the number of safe places to move to is
dropping rapidly.

I can suggest a few if you're interested. Crime rates for nearly every
town in America are published online.



One of the unintended consequences of the DDT ban is the rise of malaria
in countries where it had been in decline.

Yeah, like the US. We have malaria all over the place now.

When did you join the idiot brigade, David?

Not so far. So the rest of the world is ****ed as long as the US is OK?

The rest of the world can do what it wants with DDT.

Not if the program gets US funding, which many do.

WTF? So we're responsible for malaria in Africa? We're supposed to
fund their mosquito repellants because of our domestic decisions? Let
them get their DDT from India -- they still make it -- and have China
pay for it.

We already give millions for malaria abatement. Bill Gates gives
millions more.



You have to be a little more thoughtful and careful about these
absolute pronouncements. There are LOTS of bans that have succeeded.

Few that infringe on human rights, though.

It doesn't seem to matter. That isn't a factor in success.

Infringing on human rights matters to me, if not to you.

It doesn't matter in terms of whether bans succeed or fail.

In general, maybe, but in terms of specific bans, it matters.


Virtually all of them were purchased legally. You still haven't
addressed that.

Yes, a pistol is purchased legally in 1950, stolen in 2014, bought on
the street in 2014 and used in a crime in 2014. What's your point?

David

The point is that you aren't paying attention to the stats. According
to the FBI, the average time between a legal gun purchase and its use
in a crime is 2-1/2 years.

The actually time I used is irrelevant.

No, it actually tells us quite a lot about the flow of guns from the
legal market to the crime market. There have been some analyses done,
which show it can't physically be the result of thefts. It's mostly
black market buyers in VA, SC, FL, etc., taking abvantage of their
laissez-faire attitudes toward gun running.

Of course, this ignores that the
vast majority of legal purchases are never used in crime.

Gee, ya' think? How did this ridiculous idea become part of the
discussion?


Among our many stupid laws, we have practically none regarding
responsibility to keep guns safe. Contrast that with Switzerland, for
example.

I'm sure that guns illegally owned by criminals are always safely stored.

It's not the criminals' storage methods that we have to worry about
it. It's the dimwits who make it easy to steal their guns.

--
Ed Huntress


David