I wrote:
>No, I didn't forget, I just didn't think it had any relevance in > >the current discussion. If anything, since California's rate is >about the same as Texas and it is listed as less dangerous than >Nevada, it falsifies Jan's implication that Nevada and Texas are >much safer (or much more "polite").
I didn't say that, I said that ~I~ felt safer.
But as long as we are at it, it wouldn't have falsified it if that had been what I meant. California has the strictst gun laws and yet there are 37 "safer" states even by their standards. Europe is no shining example either.
You said:
<< The way we have criminalized the carrying of a gun shifts that power instead to criminals and makes our society more susceptible to those who would do harm.
....unless you live in Texas or Nevada. >>
and
<< C) everyone should have a gun.
Why? Because if that criminal knew that everyone was likely to be packing, they would not have done what they did. Texas and Nevada have it right. Make the gun be concealed. That way no one knows who is armed and who isn't.
It proactively fights crime. The other alternative is to be a society of victims. >>
and
<< Then why do Texas and Nevada have less violent crime? >>
It's clear to me that you are implying Texas and Nevada are much safer because they allow concealed weapons. The last is a statement of fact that you have yet to verify with data.
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
