Tim wrote: > Cramer appears to have missed the reason why Donohue raised this > issue, even though it was in the same paragraph: > > means that anything that increases gun ownership (and carrying a > la Sean Penn) is likely to put more guns into the hands of > criminals.
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. If we assume for a moment that a fixed portion of the population has criminal intent, and specialize in theft, and that there are a finite number of hours in a day in which such thieving is possible, there is some upper limit on possible gun thefts. Let's complicate the situation further. For gun theft to be possible, the thief has to know who owns the guns, when they can be stolen, and hope that they are not secured (if gun theft is such a huge problem as Donohue alleges, can we infer then that "safe storage" laws are not working?). Donohue makes the incorrect assumption that "anything that increases gun ownership" automatically increases the volume of firearms falling into the hands of criminals (or is he using Penn to postulate that it increases the number of firearms being left in automobiles, which are more convenient targets for theft). I am unaware of any research that shows a direct correlation (all this is based on theft from gun owners and not those enterprising thieves who know how to hijack shipments). -------------------- Guy Smith Silicon Strategies Marketing 630 Taylor Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510-521-4477 (T) 510-217-9693 (F) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SiliconStrat.com
