----- Original Message -----
From: dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Science has a new Martyr (and a newbie)
> Hi,
>
> I'm Dean Forster,
Welcome. Since you've been here a while, you should know what happens when
you post. <grin>
> on to the thread-
>
> I find it really disturbing that people take it for
> granted that it's wrong to defend yourself in general,
> and especially so if you're using a gun.
That's not really the argument. I would consider, for example, a policeman
who returned fire and killed someone firing at him fully justified in his
actions. The question at hand is not whether using force in self defense is
wrong, its whether the proliferation of guns contributes to the murder rate.
> That you would somehow promote the safety and welfare of others
> by allowing an aggressor to accomplish whatever end
> they have in mind instead of standing up for what is
> right.
There are indeed pacifists. Many are pacifists due to religious reasons As a
Christian, I'm not a pacifist, but I am a bit troubled by the inconsistency
between my non-pacifistic nature and the literal interpretations of the
teachings of Jesus. Since I'm not a literalist, I'm not that troubled, but
I do admit that I worry about justifying of the use of lethal force.
> When a concealed carry law is passed in the States violent crime *drops*
there.
Right, and they also drop in neighboring states that don't pass the law.
Violent crime rates have been dropping across the board during the last
decade, so one cannot attribute the drop in a state that passed the law to
the law. One needs to show that, in areas that do pass the law, that the
rates drop faster and that the rates go below those of states that don't
pass the law. For example, Minnesota doesn't allow concealed handguns and
doesn't have the death penalty. Texas allows concealed handguns and executes
more people than the rest of the US combined, IIRC. Yet, Texas's murder rate
is more than twice that of Minnesota. The causality just isn't shown, IMHO.
>Criminals (someone who breaks the law, be it with a gun or otherwise) know
that they take a big >chance when they go after a member of the general
populace, knowing that they might actually meet >opposition.
Then its best for them to shoot first and ask questions later, right?
Everything that I know about people who rob and burglarize houses indicates
that they do not do a mature risk/reward assessment before committing a
crime.
>And the very high murder rates here are attributable to criminals preying
on each other.
Well, that can only be true if you have a very broad view of criminals.
According to:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/99cius.htm
24% of murders in which the circumstances are known are due to felonious
assaults. 26% are murders of family members or a boyfriend or girlfriend.
That category alone is greater than the total British murder rate, using WT
Goodalls numbers for the British rate. Only about 8% are gang related
(including youth and adult gangs).
Now, it is probable that you can go and look at the family arguments and see
that many of the perps. had broken the law before. But, if you consider
them all criminals because they broke the law, then we have a criminal
president. I don't feel that way, thought I do think DWI is very serious.
One other thing worth noting here: about 40% of murders are the result of an
argument. The easy access to guns in the heat of an argument would seem to
be a significant factor in the murder rate. Its much harder to defend
oneself or run away when one's wife, husband, etc. gets the gun in the
drawer than if they get the knife in the drawer. Plus, more people survive
stabbings than shootings.
>The dramatically higher rate is what happens when you mix capitalism with
those with a predilection >towards violence. Criminals in the US are
generally businesspeople whose
> business is illegal. Or they're addicted to something and they're
stealing for their next fix.
But, the rate of stealing in Britain is as high or higher than the US. If
it is the direct result of stealing, then why is the ratio of
murder/theft-robbery-etc. so much higher in the US than in Britain. Why are
only 24% of murders that we can categorize associated with felonies? (About
27% of murders are classified as unknown...most of these are unsolved.)
>
> I don't have the bandwidth to keep up with the rate of
> replies i'm likely to get, but i'll give it a shot. =)
>
OK, go for it. :-)
Dan M.
