Correction- My below reproof incorrectly cited Prof Spitzer as the
letter-to-the-editor author...in fact it was another letter writer
January 21, 2007
Does Owning Guns Prevent Crime? (5 Letters)
To the Editor:
Re â?oA Rifle in Every Potâ? (Op-Ed, Jan. 16):
Glenn Reynolds may be right in his contention that mandatory firearm
ownership helps maintain lower crime rates in some communities, yet the
resolution of the question of gun control is not furthered by simply
tallying the benefits that accrue to specific groups as a result of ready
access to these weapons.
The widespread availability of guns in this country brings with it benefits
to some and costs to others. Because the commerce in firearms is hardly
impeded by state boundaries, lowered crimes rates in towns like Greenleaf,
Idaho, have to be considered with respect to increased homicide rates in
cities like Atlanta.
This weighing of the pluses and minuses of an activity and determining an
appropriate level of regulation is a legitimate role for government. Gun
control is no exception.
Marc Merlin
Atlanta, Jan. 16, 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 3:06 PM
Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 38, Issue 5
Send Firearmsregprof mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Firearmsregprof digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 38, Issue 4 (rufx2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:49:00 -0500
From: "rufx2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 38, Issue 4
To: <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
one wonders why the 'acceptance-of-the-right-but-subject-to-regulation'
scholar doesn't immediately call for such an intellectual discussion,
rather
than morosely wait behind collectivist blather to perhaps distract and
weaken the resolve of those who not only engage in but verily breathe an
'activity'. one assumes they have had plenty of time, and are less than
impressed with the agenda to which they now default.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:02 PM
...snip
This weighing of the pluses and minuses of an activity and determining an
appropriate level of regulation is a legitimate role for government. Gun
control is no exception.
---Robert J. Spitzer
Cortland, N.Y., Jan. 16, 2007
The writer, a professor of political science at SUNY
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Firearmsregprof mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
End of Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 38, Issue 5
**********************************************
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
