"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

-- Joseph Meehan

That's the beauty of our country, Joseph. The freedom to choose. Would
it be wrong of me to insist you bought and carried guns? Of course it
would. Let each person choose for himself.

Steve

It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.


--
Joseph Meehan

Boy, have you been smoking some GOOD ****!

Steve

On Dec 11, 10:28 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:



IMO,more people might carry if we had nationwide Vermont-style carry laws.
No permit,carry open or concealed as you wish.
That's the way it used to be everywhere(pre early-1900s),and the way it
should be.

last I heard, they couldn't even get a law through saying that a cop
in one area could carry nationwide. Good luck on anything better.

That law did pass several years go but it for sure wasn't publicised.
Even soem of the cops at the local station weren't aware of it until I
showed them in the monthly 'cop' newspaper.

Harry K

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about
being armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com



And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted,
even to the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Of course you are. Good luck with that. Bwahahahahaha. Worked well for
Washington, DC.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


It's amazing how Mr. Meehan seems to be an informed educated person, yet
does not remember important historical events with regard to his side of
this debate. Taking guns away? Outlawing guns? Google England. Google
Australia. IT DOESN'T WORK! And all our laws on the books can't keep the
guns from the hands of criminals in the US.

Are you okay, Joseph?

Steve

On Dec 11, 3:57 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Same way they pass laws and outlaw murder.

--

Christopher A. Young;
.
.

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message

...



Nebraska law allows private entities to declare themselves 'gun-free-zones'
by posting appropriate 'no-gun' signs. Westroads Mall chose that option.

And how do they get the criminals to obey the signs?

Why the same way they did at that college campus shooting of course.

That is sarcasm of course just to alert the gun grabbers.

Harry k

On Dec 11, 5:26 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message

...







"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at home?
I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

-- Joseph Meehan

That's the beauty of our country, Joseph. The freedom to choose. Would
it be wrong of me to insist you bought and carried guns? Of course it
would. Let each person choose for himself.

Steve

It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let us know the instant you come up with a way to make the criminals
obey those laws.

Harry K

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:37:35 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:

And all our laws on the books can't keep the
guns from the hands of criminals in the US.

Some folks just want to legislate and legislate - morality.

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted, even to
the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

It never seems to occur to the people advocating that position that criminals
are, by definition, people who don't obey laws -- and therefore, that laws
prohibiting the private possession of guns disarm only the law-abiding.

Try this for a parallel example:

"change those laws making cocaine possession more restricted, even to the
point of totally outlawing it in private hands."

How well is that working? Do you see the problem?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.

Just like drug laws have eliminated access to drugs. Yeah, right.

Laws don't change the behavior of those who don't obey laws.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Dave Bugg wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..
Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.
I would rather not have one at home or with me.

Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about being
armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.


Not really, I have a concealed weapons permit and I can't even drive
through the adjoining state (PRofNJ) with a gun in the vehicle or on my
person.

On Dec 11, 5:26 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message

...







"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at home?
I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

-- Joseph Meehan

That's the beauty of our country, Joseph. The freedom to choose. Would
it be wrong of me to insist you bought and carried guns? Of course it
would. Let each person choose for himself.

Steve

It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's see. Guy uses gun to commit crime. Just how is adding
additional laws going to stop him from using a gun to commit a
crime? Or are you unaware that every illegal use of gun is _already_
breaking an existing law?

It has been pointed out be multiple others that confiscating guns has
not ended gun crime in other countries. Those laws have been on the
books long enough to have had the gun grabbers dreams come true, how
come they haven't?

Harry K

It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.

--
Joseph Meehan

I'm in favor of requiring everyone that are against gun ownership to post a
sign in their yard that says "No firearms allowed on this property"

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
So far I have only seen a couple of claims that privately owned
guns
(legal or illegal) have been successfully used to stop such a
shooter. I have seen a few claims to that effect, but they have
been proven to be premature and wrong.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Here are a couple examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham


...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.


I did not check your second reference, but the first one even had
it's
own footnote:

Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home
state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[9]
Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy

Neither were civilian and I seem to recall one or both guns were
police
issued.


since both "officers" were out of their jurisdictions,and in plain
clothes,they WERE effectively "civilians",and it really does not matter who
issued or owns the firearms used;what matters is that a *plainclothes ARMED
person* STOPPED the mass murderers before they could harm more than a few
people.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.


that is your own free choice;but don't expect to make the choice for ME.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home?
I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

So don't. The REAL question is do you feel the need to tell someone
else that they can't? Not a dig at you, just an honest question.

It certainly not my right to do so as an individual, but as a
citizen
and voter, it is my right to work towards laws to do just that.


so,in essence,you are PRO-criminal,and anti-self-defense.Whatta guy.

Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Gun control makes it safer for criminals,and LESS safe for law-abiding
citizens.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"SteveB" wrote in
:

I'm sure Herr Klinton and her ilk would like to disarm Amerika. When
they do, it will be fighting in the streets. And the true meaning of
the amendment to keep and bear arms will be understood by all. It was
to protect us from a tyrannical government. Like Hillary has in mind.
Confiscate obscene business profits. Outlaw guns. Socialize the US.

Not "socialize",but COMMUNIZE.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

-- Joseph Meehan

That's the beauty of our country, Joseph. The freedom to choose.
Would it be wrong of me to insist you bought and carried guns? Of
course it would. Let each person choose for himself.

Steve

It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree.

Those laws cannot conflict with the Constitution,and last I looked,the 2nd
Amendment prohibits gov't from infringing on the peoples right to keep and
BEAR arms.
Until you go through the *proper* process and AMEND the Constitution,that
prohibition still is in effect.

In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.


Clearly unConstitutional.

Then you ignore the clear evidence that armed citizens make people safer.
You also ignore the evidence that gun control really does not work.
Look at DC for an example.You just want a bigger "DC".

Perhaps you should move to a country more like what you desire.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Harry K wrote in
:

On Dec 11, 5:26 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message

...







"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or
at home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

-- Joseph Meehan

That's the beauty of our country, Joseph. The freedom to choose.
Would it be wrong of me to insist you bought and carried guns? Of
course it would. Let each person choose for himself.

Steve

It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun
laws reducing or even eliminating access to guns.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let us know the instant you come up with a way to make the criminals
obey those laws.

Harry K


"Gun control" hasn't worked ANYWHERE on Earth.

However,it has made people suffer more.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"SteveB" wrote in
:


"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or
at home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.

Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about
being armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com



And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted,
even to the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Of course you are. Good luck with that. Bwahahahahaha. Worked well
for Washington, DC.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com


It's amazing how Mr. Meehan seems to be an informed educated person,
yet does not remember important historical events with regard to his
side of this debate. Taking guns away? Outlawing guns? Google
England. Google Australia. IT DOESN'T WORK! And all our laws on the
books can't keep the guns from the hands of criminals in the US.

Are you okay, Joseph?

Steve




A sign of irrationality is that one keeps trying the same thing over and
over while expecting a different result.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

George wrote in
:

Dave Bugg wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..
Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.
I would rather not have one at home or with me.

Well, here in America you are free to do whatever you want about being
armed. Me, I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.


Not really, I have a concealed weapons permit and I can't even drive
through the adjoining state (PRofNJ) with a gun in the vehicle or on my
person.


Yes,you can drive thru NJ with a gun in the vehicle.
It has to be unloaded,inaccessible(trunk).Not on your person.
There was a law recently passed protecting the right of citizens to travel
with firearms stored in their vehicles.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Joseph Meehan wrote:
So far I have only seen a couple of claims that privately owned
guns (legal or illegal) have been successfully used to stop such a
shooter. I have seen a few claims to that effect, but they have
been proven to be premature and wrong.


You've been hanging with the wrong crowd.

There are few instances reported in the media, true, but there as many as
2.5 million defensive gun uses each year. As for a citizen taking out a mass
shooter, take notice that these mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones (or
places the shooter THINKS are gun-free zones): schools, gun-free malls,
churches (but see below).

Just this week, a "25" year-old female, Jeanne Assam, took down the shooter
at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

Assam had prior police training, true, but she was NOT a police officer at
the time of the shooting, was not employed by the church (she was a
volunteer member of the security contingent), and she used her
personally-owned weapon.

I'm sure the notion of a firearm in a church horrifies some. In this case,
as many as 100 lives may have been saved (the shooter had two pistols, a
rifle, and over 1000 rounds of ammunition). Assam ended the threat before
the squint even got INTO the church proper.

As for the aggregate:

--------------------------
"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent
crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns."

United States Department of Justice survey:
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr

-----------------------
"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by
law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey
conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993.
Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of
between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

---------
And many other references.

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a chap named
Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his neighbor's house.

I, personally, have been involved in three "defensive use of firearms" in
the past seven years (two in the Home Depot parking lot!). In all these
cases, I was approached by one or two men in a threatening manner (one had a
tire iron). Opening my jacket, putting my hand on my firearm, and saying
"Stop! Come no closer!, was sufficient to end the threat.

In each instance, I reported the encounter to the manager of the store. In
one of those episodes, the cops came and interviewed me. The cop told me: "I
usually say 'If it was up to me, I'd loan you my gun,' but I see that's not
necessary here."

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
..

Still, if shooting breaks out, do you want your gun with you or at
home? I want mine right in my waistband. All 18 rounds.

I would rather not have one at home or with me.


that is your own free choice;but don't expect to make the choice for
ME.

Liberals, like Mr. M, always claim to be pro-choice, but only when it will
put the innocent at risk.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Joseph Meehan wrote:


2. There are academic papers on the subject. Here's one: "Multiple
Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed
Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement "

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=161637

You really have to wonder about this paper when one of the two
sources is:

University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER)

Trust me, I am an Economist and while we are really good at
turning out numbers and evaluating them, we are not experts in law
enforcement.
I don't really see where the other writer who's connections appear
to be a law school was much better qualified.


Conversely, people who are good at law enforcement are not necessarily good
at crunching numbers.

As the author of "Freakonomics" pointed out, the science of economics CAN be
used analyze a lot of human interaction. For example, he demonstrated why
most drug dealers lived with their mothers (read the book).

What Lott (and others) did is tabulate crime figures from all 3050 counties
in the U.S. and correlated them against firearm usage and concealed handgun
laws. He used regression analysis to control for some thirty-odd variables
(age, income, education, etc.) in an attempt to discover cause-and-effect.

Now whether he was adding up assaults or family income, gun usage or
percentage of income invested in savings, is immaterial. The math is the
same. The "science" of economics is not confined to wages, production, and
GNP.

One further note, it is not sufficient to discount a finding by questioning
the qualifications of its proponents. This reverse "appeal to authority" is
similar to "if you can't fault the message, condem the messenger."

If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it; if someone
using the same data can reach a differing conclusion, we'd all like to see
it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer, or rodeo clown is irrelevant.

HeyBub wrote:
I saw a clear full body picture of the Omaha shooter. Anyone who
had a concealed weapon and who could shoot decently could have
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
If someone would have ignored the law, and carried in, and shot the
*******, they would have gotten in trouble.

Heh! In my state, Texas, the signage is prescribed by law. The sign must
say, exactly, "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of
a license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article
4413(29ee), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun."

But that's not all.


Or pistolas.
The letters must be at least 1" high, in colors contrasting with the
background.

That's not all either.

It has to be in Spanish also!

That makes the sign about 2x3 feet in size, should any business want to
erect one (I've only seen one such sign in seven years and it was
non-compliant (too small). I ignored it.)

As for the red-circled pistol with a slash, I think that insignia means "We
don't sell pistols."

--
Message posted via HomeKB.com
http://www.homekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/repair/200712/1

"JC" wrote in message
...
It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.

--
Joseph Meehan

I'm in favor of requiring everyone that are against gun ownership to post
a sign in their yard that says "No firearms allowed on this property"

Or shortened to "Come and get it."

Steve

Joseph Meehan wrote:

Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by
guns owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the
victim?

No, but you might find it he
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm

I wonder what the stats are on the number of people shot by intention or
accident by someone in the family or a friend using a legally held gun? How
many are shot by someone with a illegally held gun?

So you are afraid that you might accidentally or intentionally shoot a
family member or friend with your legal gun. If that's the case then I
agree, you shouldn't have one.

Leave the legal guns to people that know how to handle them so that
any member of their family or a friend will have no worries about
being accidentally or intentionally shot when they are around you.

I understand she was working as a security guard at the time, which only
supports my point. She should not be considered a civilian.

She's a Pinkerton. You trust your safety to a Pinkerton with a gun,
but you refuse to trust yourself with a gun? What does that say
about you?

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by guns
owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the victim?

Don't know about ownership. There are some stats from the Office of
Justice Programs at the FB that would give you an idea as to numbers of
murders known and unknown by type. For instance domestic violence at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf
In 2002, anyway, family murders were less likely than non-family
murders to use a firearm.

In article
,
Mark wrote:

I don't think you can compare leaving a loaded AK47 on the kitchen
table to leaving the car keys on the kitchen table.

True, cars kill a lot more people than AK-47s

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article
,
Harry K wrote:

Let us know the instant you come up with a way to make the criminals
obey those laws.

Just pass a law requiring lawbreakers to stop breaking the law, and
prosecute any you catch in the act

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
"JC" wrote:

I'm in favor of requiring everyone that are against gun ownership to post a
sign in their yard that says "No firearms allowed on this property"

I'll even volunteer to pay for the sign

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:27:49 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:


And to change those laws making gun ownership more restricted, even to
the point of totally outlawing them in private hands.

Well, that'll make them more expensive, and a little harder to get. On the
other hand, there won't be any paperwork to fill out, just hand over the cash.

Honest question..... Why do people think making guns illegal will be any more
effective than making drugs illegal? That sure worked, didn't it?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:00:16 -0600, nick hull wrote:

In article ,
"JC" wrote:

I'm in favor of requiring everyone that are against gun ownership to post a
sign in their yard that says "No firearms allowed on this property"

I'll even volunteer to pay for the sign

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

I've offered to provide, at no charge, signs that state:
"This is a gun free house"
No takers yet.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:44:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

My town (Houston), is in the news because a couple of weeks ago a chap named
Joe Horn wasted two goblins as they were burglarizing his neighbor's house.

I never got the follow-up news, iirc he was on a 911 call - stating he
was going too shoot the burglars next door. The shot gun blast (TWO?)
was heard on the 911 tape released to the media.

These were not goblins. Check their history of predatory nature. These
were serious crooks/thugs on the street.

What I missed; is not knowing if Joe Horn has been cleared. My take
the law would be on his side.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:13:32 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by guns
owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the victim?

My only number is THAT all were kill by guns; regardless of the
relationship! Do I win?

on 12/12/2007 6:43 PM Oren said the following:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:13:32 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:


Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by guns
owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the victim?


My only number is THAT all were kill by guns; regardless of the
relationship! Do I win?


If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns... or so they say.
Too bad many people only became outlaws AFTER they used the guns.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

One further note, it is not sufficient to discount a finding by
questioning the qualifications of its proponents. This reverse "appeal to
authority" is similar to "if you can't fault the message, condem the
messenger."

I agree. I have not discounted the findings, I have clearly stated I
have not ever reviewed them However I did point out that the normal and
usual expected expertise of an Economist does not include crime studies.
That certainly does not make him wrong, but it does eliminate any special
authoritative weight

I would disagree as would many others who have actually
read Lott's work.

If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it; if
someone using the same data can reach a differing conclusion, we'd all
like to see it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer, or rodeo clown is
irrelevant.

As stated I have not reviewed it. I did not car to download the detail
and without the detail it is nothing more than the opinion of someone
without any apparent authority on the subject.

If you are seriously interested in the effects of gun control
it won't take you long to discover that Lott's work is pretty
much required reading. His is not the only work you should
review (and not the only point of view) but a very brief review
of the literature should reveal the importance of Lott's
contributions.

Again, if you read Lott's work, you will quickly appreciate
the applicabilty and value of his economics background as
applied to the subject matter.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:49:06 -0500, willshak
wrote:

on 12/12/2007 6:43 PM Oren said the following:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:13:32 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:


Does anyone have good numbers on the number of people killed by guns
owned by friends and family vs guns used by those unknown to the victim?


My only number is THAT all were kill by guns; regardless of the
relationship! Do I win?


If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns... or so they say.

Oh, I'm already on the waiting list.

Too bad many people only became outlaws AFTER they used the guns.

Some people have never seen or had eye contact with an outlaw.,,much
less use a gun.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:40:36 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote:


"JC" wrote in message
m...
It is also the beauty of out country to make laws to increase our
safety, even if some disagree. In this case I am in favor of gun laws
reducing or even eliminating access to guns.

--
Joseph Meehan

I'm in favor of requiring everyone that are against gun ownership to post
a sign in their yard that says "No firearms allowed on this property"

Or shortened to "Come and get it."

Steve


Even shorter. " I Surrender!"

On Dec 12, 12:40 pm, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:27:49 -0500, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

..

Convicted felons are already outlawed from gun possession, but they
have them.

Some, do you know the percentage?



You want to take them from law abiding folk?

Yes, see below.



I consider my gun as insurance. Better to have it and not need it,
than to need it and not have it.

I wonder what the stats are on the number of people shot by intention or
accident by someone in the family or a friend using a legally held gun? How
many are shot by someone with a illegally held gun?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

You are the one wanting to take guns away. Surely you have a reason
based on facts, why don't you provide the data?

Harry K