On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:21:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"best wire" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 6:05 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"*" wrote in message

news:01c8a071$5166cf60$9e93c3d8@race...







Ed Huntress wrote in article
...

"strabo" wrote in message
...
* wrote:
Too_Many_Trolls wrote in article

...

It is a start..without proper self enforcement by the gun owners
there
will be more coming.

And that is my point and always has been...if you cannot or will
not
self regulate the Government will be happy to do it for you.

TMT


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the current Washington, D.C. handgun laws prove the
bumper
sticker...."If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

It is illegal for a law-abiding citizen to own a handgun in D.C.,
but
the
punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!

That's the idea. Crime causes fear. Fear grows government.
Socialists use government to enslave.

Don't knock it. If it wasn't for that, you righties would have to
come
up

with something new to bitch about. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

You're right!

Us righties take minor problems too seriously - such as thugs and
hoods
having guns while the lefties in government disarm the law-abiding
citizens

I think what you take too seriously is the kind of jumping to
conclusions
that strabo and his ilk are inclined to do. Strabo is looking for signs
of
"enslavement"; he finds them under every rock and in every corner.
That's
not because they're there, but only because he's sure they must be
there
somewhere and he's going to find them, even if they exist only in the
space
between his ears.

Some of these conclusions are borderline nuts. For example, the claim
above
that "the punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!"
doesn't
stand up. You can dig deeper and get precise figures for DC on this,
but
the
fact is that only 9% of violent crimes in the US involve the use of a
firearm (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005). Most criminals,
even
violent ones, don't own a gun. The numbers are there is you take the
time
to
look.

Around ten years ago I made a thorough check of FBI UCR, NCVS, and
city/state statistics, and a surprising fact came up: If criminals own
guns,
they rarely carry them in the commission of a crime. The evidence is
strong,
but not conclusive, that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns
than
the population at large. How does *that* fit into your right-wing
ideological bull****?

So what you take seriously is mostly the noise going on in your head.
You
guys aren't serious about the truth, or about checking your facts.
You're
serious only about reinforcing your own ideological crap. And that's
because
you don't have what it takes to think for yourselves, and you're too
intellectually lazy to check your facts before opening your noisy yaps.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you really are an idiot, I know many criminals...

What the hell kind of life do you lead, that you "know many criminals"?
Are
you one of them? Or do you sell them guns?

..., very few "own" guns,
and how in the **** are the above acronymed agencies going to
determine just who,and how many own or even have guns? By the people
they catch? Give me a ****ing break you stupid left nut jackass. What
defines a criminal anyway? I'll tell you, anybody you see on CSPAN
that has a (D) after their name.

One of the things that makes me sad about the changing role of gun
ownership
in our society is the decline in intelligence of the average gun owner.
It's
dropped a long way from the time when the OB/GYN next door would sit on
his
back porch with his morning coffee, at around 5:30 AM, so I could legally
hunt rabbits before school (we had to have an adult present at age 12).
He
had a great collection of custom wildcat rifles, too.

They seem to be getting dumber and dumber. Now we have morons who "know a
lot of criminals" but who don't know how to check their facts before
popping
off with a couple of anecdotes. Are you sure it's legal for you to own a
gun? You sound like one of the people who couldn't pass a background
check.

--
Ed Huntress


I'd say that we just heard the goofy ranting from a full fledged right
winger, Ed. He demonstrated everything about the right wing that people
say
is wrong with them. After hearing him you understand why things are so
screwed up. It's people like him that are electing our representatives. If
he's an example of an ordinary American you can see what has gone wrong
with
the country. On the other hand, maybe he's just one of the ignorant,
garden
variety, right wingers shooting off his mouth. That's probably it.

Hawke

Yeah, this one appears to be a real knuckle-dragger. We'll see what he comes
up with as evidence. My guess is that the answer is "squat."

If anyone is interested in where that information comes from, it was a
Department of Justice study of federal and state prison inmates. But you
have to interpret it carefully, because it's basically a study of males, and
something like 18% of them were in prison partly or wholly for gun offences
in the first place. They concluded that 48.7% of those prison inmates had,
at some time in their lives, owned a gun.

When you sort out the selection bias and so on, and accept the lack of data
in some areas, it appears out that slightly fewer criminals own(ed) guns
than the population at large. There are no directly comparable figures; 29%
for the whole population of adults is the closest study, but that's men and
women, and people who *currently* own guns, and so on, and on, and on.

Wouldn't any statistics comparing "criminals" to "non-criminals"
depend upon how the statistician defined "criminal"?

Every shooting that is not an accident or self-defense against
immediate grave peril is a prima facie crime. Accidental "collateral
damage" shootings that occur during commission of a crime are also
crimes because intent legally follows the bullet.

Any person committing a crime with a gun is obviously (by definition)
a criminal in posession of a gun, whether or not he is ever
identified, arrested, processed, tried, convicted or recorded in the
system as a criminal. The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard only
applies to whether a particular individual is held responsible for a
specific crime.

In one succinct sentence: to count crimes one need only count
victims.

The mere existance of a crime committed with a gun is proof that a
criminal was in posession of a gun at the time, whether or not the
criminal's identity ever becomes known and proven.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of "good citizens" who
have guns have become victims of crimes committed with a gun, and then
compare that percentage to the percentage of gun-related crime victims
to the total population. By "crime" I mean all gun-related crimes
committed and reported, whether or not any perpetrator was ever
identified or charged.

This measure is also imperfect because some perpetrators may and
probably do commit multiple crimes, but it would certainly be
interesting to see how it correllates with other statistics.

Let's define "good citizen" as one who truely meets the criterea used
on ATF form 4473. It's not perfect because one who meets this
standard could still become a criminal or might even be an as-yet
unproven criminal, but it's a clear definition.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 May 2008 01:21:35 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"best wire" wrote in message
...
On Apr 17, 6:05 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"*" wrote in message

news:01c8a071$5166cf60$9e93c3d8@race...







Ed Huntress wrote in article
...

"strabo" wrote in message
...
* wrote:
Too_Many_Trolls wrote in article

...

It is a start..without proper self enforcement by the gun
owners
there
will be more coming.

And that is my point and always has been...if you cannot or
will
not
self regulate the Government will be happy to do it for you.

TMT


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the current Washington, D.C. handgun laws prove the
bumper
sticker...."If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

It is illegal for a law-abiding citizen to own a handgun in
D.C.,
but
the
punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!

That's the idea. Crime causes fear. Fear grows government.
Socialists use government to enslave.

Don't knock it. If it wasn't for that, you righties would have to
come
up

with something new to bitch about. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

You're right!

Us righties take minor problems too seriously - such as thugs and
hoods
having guns while the lefties in government disarm the law-abiding
citizens

I think what you take too seriously is the kind of jumping to
conclusions
that strabo and his ilk are inclined to do. Strabo is looking for
signs
of
"enslavement"; he finds them under every rock and in every corner.
That's
not because they're there, but only because he's sure they must be
there
somewhere and he's going to find them, even if they exist only in the
space
between his ears.

Some of these conclusions are borderline nuts. For example, the claim
above
that "the punks, thugs, and gang-bangers all have one or more!!"
doesn't
stand up. You can dig deeper and get precise figures for DC on this,
but
the
fact is that only 9% of violent crimes in the US involve the use of a
firearm (National Crime Victimization Survey, 2005). Most criminals,
even
violent ones, don't own a gun. The numbers are there is you take the
time
to
look.

Around ten years ago I made a thorough check of FBI UCR, NCVS, and
city/state statistics, and a surprising fact came up: If criminals
own
guns,
they rarely carry them in the commission of a crime. The evidence is
strong,
but not conclusive, that a smaller percentage of criminals *own* guns
than
the population at large. How does *that* fit into your right-wing
ideological bull****?

So what you take seriously is mostly the noise going on in your head.
You
guys aren't serious about the truth, or about checking your facts.
You're
serious only about reinforcing your own ideological crap. And that's
because
you don't have what it takes to think for yourselves, and you're too
intellectually lazy to check your facts before opening your noisy
yaps.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you really are an idiot, I know many criminals...

What the hell kind of life do you lead, that you "know many criminals"?
Are
you one of them? Or do you sell them guns?

..., very few "own" guns,
and how in the **** are the above acronymed agencies going to
determine just who,and how many own or even have guns? By the people
they catch? Give me a ****ing break you stupid left nut jackass. What
defines a criminal anyway? I'll tell you, anybody you see on CSPAN
that has a (D) after their name.

One of the things that makes me sad about the changing role of gun
ownership
in our society is the decline in intelligence of the average gun owner.
It's
dropped a long way from the time when the OB/GYN next door would sit on
his
back porch with his morning coffee, at around 5:30 AM, so I could
legally
hunt rabbits before school (we had to have an adult present at age 12).
He
had a great collection of custom wildcat rifles, too.

They seem to be getting dumber and dumber. Now we have morons who "know
a
lot of criminals" but who don't know how to check their facts before
popping
off with a couple of anecdotes. Are you sure it's legal for you to own
a
gun? You sound like one of the people who couldn't pass a background
check.

--
Ed Huntress


I'd say that we just heard the goofy ranting from a full fledged right
winger, Ed. He demonstrated everything about the right wing that people
say
is wrong with them. After hearing him you understand why things are so
screwed up. It's people like him that are electing our representatives.
If
he's an example of an ordinary American you can see what has gone wrong
with
the country. On the other hand, maybe he's just one of the ignorant,
garden
variety, right wingers shooting off his mouth. That's probably it.

Hawke

Yeah, this one appears to be a real knuckle-dragger. We'll see what he
comes
up with as evidence. My guess is that the answer is "squat."

If anyone is interested in where that information comes from, it was a
Department of Justice study of federal and state prison inmates. But you
have to interpret it carefully, because it's basically a study of males,
and
something like 18% of them were in prison partly or wholly for gun
offences
in the first place. They concluded that 48.7% of those prison inmates had,
at some time in their lives, owned a gun.

When you sort out the selection bias and so on, and accept the lack of
data
in some areas, it appears out that slightly fewer criminals own(ed) guns
than the population at large. There are no directly comparable figures;
29%
for the whole population of adults is the closest study, but that's men
and
women, and people who *currently* own guns, and so on, and on, and on.

Wouldn't any statistics comparing "criminals" to "non-criminals"
depend upon how the statistician defined "criminal"?

Well, yes, but this one is pretty simple. This is the DOJ surveying
criminals currently incarcerated in state and federal prisons.


Every shooting that is not an accident or self-defense against
immediate grave peril is a prima facie crime. Accidental "collateral
damage" shootings that occur during commission of a crime are also
crimes because intent legally follows the bullet.

Any person committing a crime with a gun is obviously (by definition)
a criminal in posession of a gun, whether or not he is ever
identified, arrested, processed, tried, convicted or recorded in the
system as a criminal. The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard only
applies to whether a particular individual is held responsible for a
specific crime.

In one succinct sentence: to count crimes one need only count
victims.

And on that basis, roughly 9% of crimes committed in the US involve the use
of a gun.


The mere existance of a crime committed with a gun is proof that a
criminal was in posession of a gun at the time, whether or not the
criminal's identity ever becomes known and proven.

Again, that would be 9%. And that grossly understates the percentage of
criminals who have guns, whether in their possession or not.


It would be interesting to see what percentage of "good citizens" who
have guns have become victims of crimes committed with a gun, and then
compare that percentage to the percentage of gun-related crime victims
to the total population. By "crime" I mean all gun-related crimes
committed and reported, whether or not any perpetrator was ever
identified or charged.

I doubt if that data could be pulled out from the available statistics. And
I'm not sure if it would show anything meaningful. I think I know what
you're getting at here, but the percentage of citizens carrying a gun is so
small (the CCW percentage in Texas, for example, is roughly 1% of the adult
population, and most CCW holders don't carry a gun more than half the time)
that I doubt if you'd see a pattern.


This measure is also imperfect because some perpetrators may and
probably do commit multiple crimes, but it would certainly be
interesting to see how it correllates with other statistics.

Let's define "good citizen" as one who truely meets the criterea used
on ATF form 4473. It's not perfect because one who meets this
standard could still become a criminal or might even be an as-yet
unproven criminal, but it's a clear definition.

--
Ed Huntress

Before anyone writes off the "pro-gun crowd", consider the following:

I live in Lexington, MA which is a hotbed of rabid liberalism, and
because it's in Massachusetts, you can't own a firearm with out a
license.

My youngest step daughter is in 9th grade, and is taking "Health", which
is where the school lobbies against sex & drugs. She had a "worksheet"
on drugs she had to fill out. The final question was "Where do you stand
on your choices to use or not use drugs and WHY?

She responded with: "The answer to 'why' is plain and simple. There are
cooler ways to die. Also, why would I want to risk not being able to get
a gun license in the future?"

Her teacher commented: "Interesting perspective!"

Needless to say, I'm very proud of my step daughter. With luck, she'll
be shooting in the local high power league with my wife & I next year.
For now, she contents herself with spending saturday mornings in a bunker
with bullets cracking overhead while she scores targets at the 200 yard
line. She makes $38 for 2 and a half hours work, which is a good bit
better than baby sitting.

Doug White