--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> 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
You are correct, The manner in which I worded the statment was missleading.
And probably purpousfuly so. What I ment was that ~I~ feel safer in these
states, and that these states have less crime now than before consealed carry
(actualy this may not be compleatly true, several Motorcycle Gangs have
decided to have their "war" in the Nevada desert and this has increased the
crime rather there in the past couple of years.)
I do not believe that the benifit of concealed carry can be varified at this
point. However, based on the evidence we do have (see Dan's post if you want
rows of numbers) and anicdotal evidence I hypothosize that concealed carry
reduces crime. It may increase deaths, I don't know. But if I am carrying,
then I would feel safter knowing that if someone came up to me and my wife
walking home from a movie and tried and take her from me, they would have to
deal with Wynona first. The 3 or 4 times that I or family members and friends
have had guns pointed at them and their walets taken would not have gone the
way they did. Sure, someone might have come out of these situations dead
rather than robbed, but that should be ~our~ decision, not some senator who
has a 24/7 armed gaurd anyway.
Personaly ~I~ would rather be able to relax and walk about without worry that
when placed in a situation like this again, that I will at least have a
fighting chance. Instead of having my hands tied by some law which does not
allow me to leagaly defend myself.
Can you honestly say that it is logical, when you know that the criminals do
have guns, to make it a crime for law abiding citizens to carry guns as well?
Let's take the stigma away, let's use an analogy. lets change this to the
ability to make money. The analogy is: The government officials have it, the
criminals have it, but you are not allowed, least you be a criminal. Is that
right? Is that a free society? No of course it isn't.
So how is leathal force any different?
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
