On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:48:17 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:

You're paranoid.

I prefer the term "alert to potential threats", thanks.


I would rather live in a community where even the
cops don't need guns.

All of us would, but that very probably isn't going to happen
for any of us on this globe in this lifetime. C'est la vie.
(C'est la guerre?)

It has been that way in England for decades.

Your stats indicate that you have a less than 4:1 chance of being
a victim this year. With 27% of you as victims, I'd be rethinking
the way I lived if I were you. (I believe either you or Carl posted
the link to those stats, John.)


What advice do cops give bank clerks and convenience store owners?
Do they advise starting a shootout or just handing over the money?

I don't have stats on that handy, but I'd be willing to bet that
the police public relations guy says "Hand it over." and the cop
on the street says "Do what you have to do, but be careful."


The criminals in all countries shouldn't have
weapons of any sort, but they all do.

No they ALL don't.

Let me restate that: SOME criminals in ALL countries are armed.
(You literalists, I swear...)

If nothing else, criminals brandish weapons to keep people from
trying to stop their crime/getaway, even if they have no intention
of using it. If I were a criminal, I certainly would. Whatever means
gave me better odds of escape would be used, up to a point.


You really should read more facts about guns, John. Your country
already outranks the US in % of victims.

According to NRA statistics?

There ya go again. I think the stat I quoted came from your Homeoffice
UK link.


So why facilitate their violence?

Oy vay! Criminals will find sticks/bars/rocks on the ground
when they want to be violent. Are you going to outlaw them, too?

Escalation of the hardware is better?

You just don't understand. Guns aren't the source of the violent
confrontation, nor are sticks or rocks. People are. Civilization
is. And even in the heat of confrontation, many people have _some_
control over their emotions and wouldn't use a gun even if it were
present. Guns aren't the problem, violent people are.


Please, oh please, tell me how many weapons criminals took out
of defenders' hands in the past decade. (According to Kleck's
"Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control",

Which may or may not be fiction. I'm all too aware that both sides in
this issue have plenty of motivation to lie.

So you disregard -every- source and remain in your emotional cocoon?
I couldn't be comfortable doing that. Here's a quote from a very angry
gun-control advocate (the doyen of American criminologists, University
of Pennsylvania Professor Marvin Wolfgang) about another Kleck
defensive gun use study:

"I am as strong a gun control advocate as can be found among the
criminologists in this country. If I [had the power]...I would
eliminate ALL guns from the civilian population and maybe even from
the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill
people....
Nonetheless the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and
Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it....

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors
exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do
not like their conclusions that havina a gun can be useful, but I
cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all
objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

[Marvin E. Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Long Opposed,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86 (1995): 188.]


Homicidally bent people (your term) will find other ways to
do their damage.

Less efficient ways.

Homicide is homicide. Do you have a choice whether you are killed
by a gun or a rock? Mayhem/violence is different. Would you rather
have a bullet hole in your arm/leg or have the same guy come after
your appendage with a sharpened axe?


Look at the stats.

No. That's why, as I told Gunner, I'm giving up this debate. Both
sides of the issue are calling the other's stats bogus. Probably
they're both right. I have neither the time nor the inclination to
find out which. All I know is that it's safer where I am than it is
ten miles south of here.

I owed it to myself to find out the truth. If you don't want
to know it, so be it.

You know a source of the truth? An UNBIASED source?

I read everything I can get my hands on, weigh their truths and
biases, review how the questions were asked to determine their
validity, then make my own choice. I live alone and am very
self-sufficient, doing my own gardening, plumbing, carpentry,
auto/appliance/house/furniture repair, etc.


But in case you do, read a variety of
books and sources. Talk to the local police,

They'll recommend that I shoot it out with any armed robbers
I encounter?

Learn to acknowledge gray areas in life. You don't have to either
shoot to the death or give up entirely. There are many options in
between.

Let me ask you this: Do you have any insurance? Car, house, life,
health, appliance extended warranty, any kind? I'm betting that you
do. To me, guns are like that. I hope that I'll never have to use
one but will be very much relieved when I find that I have it when
I need it.


So let's put the -criminals- out of action, not defensive weapons.

Not possible. Especially as long as drugs remain illegal.

I'm with you there. End the war on drugs and renew the war on crime
with the many billions spent propping up drug prices. The current
mess is insane.


Read a few and make your choice from their presentations and
reviews of their books by other sources (confirmations.)

From what I see posted in here, that hasn't resolved the issue.

It has for me. My views reversed immediately once I saw what I
determined to be the truth, and I'm embarrassed for you, seeing
you the same way I was last year, with not a single (cited) fact
to back you up (views apparently based entirely upon emotion.)


OK. Name me a police agency that advocates self-defence with a handgun
against armed robbery. That advises convenience store owners to shoot
it out for instance.

I can't (see above.) That's not politically wise for them, sir. The
blankety-blank media jump on stories where the store owners get killed
or wounded while ignoring the tame (read "bloodless") stories of those
who successfully stop the criminal or end the crime, though the latter
might air on local TV news that night (but never go national/int'l.)
In any case, it's up to the person who is being robbed to determine if
they can get away with trying to pull a gun on an angry person who
already has a gun trained on their body. Most people would probably
just do as the robber said, but most people probably don't own the
store being robbed. That's a personal call.

In any case, the media run the people's emotions who, in turn, run the
politicians' emotions who, in turn, run the police administrations,
etc. But ask a cop how he really feels. He wants HELP out there.

Then again, why did you choose the worst possible scenario? The armed
robber instead of the hot-prowl burglar? In the first case, the
victim is out in the open in broad daylight/store-lights and is known
to have cash on him. Advantage: robber. In the latter, the burglar is
facing a person in their own home in the dark. Advantage: homeowner.

Amassed within the first 25 pages of "Armed" are stats which further
stunned me. I've always read that most murders were committed by
people who knew the victims. I now find out that 71% of them were
committed by people who knew the victims from drug use connections.

Myth: ordinary people commit murder
Local and national studies dating back to the 1890s showthat in almost
every case murderers are aberrants exhibiting life histories of
violence and crime, psychopathology, substance abuse,, and other
dangerous behaviors. [Kates & Polsby, "LongTerm Non-Relationship";
Kennedy & Braga, "Homicide"; and Elliot, "Life Threatening"]

Looking only to crime records, roughly 90% of adult murderers had
adult records, with an average adult criminal career of 6 or more
years, including 4 major adult felony arrests.

50% of Americans own firearms. Less than 2% of handguns and well under
1% of other guns will ever be involved in even a single violent crime.
Gun owners are a very small subset of that. [Kleck, "Point Blank: Guns
and Violence in America" (New York: Aldine, 1991), pp. 22, 47-48]
--That says it right the gun and their owners aren't the problem--

A study of citizens who rescued crime victims or arrested violent
criminals found these Good Samaritans were two-and-a-half times more
likely to be gun owners than non-owners. [Kates, "Civilian Arms"]

-
Now, instead of further discussion with you here, I'll put that time
into finishing this book. It's fascinating. I'll probably end up
buying a copy for my growing library and reading most of the cites
he shows at the end of each and every chapter.

Ciao! And good luck on your final decision to seek or not seek the
truth about an issue which will, undoubtedly, affect your future.


================================================== ========
Save the ||| http://diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! ||| Web Application Programming
================================================== ========