Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Kathy
Little off-topic but pertinent I think. Do the insurance companies charge more
to the householder that has guns in his/her house?? I know they do if people
have breeds of dogs that are considered guard dogs (no matter if they are
trained to be guard dogs or not). This strikes me as strange as you pay less if
you have a security system (which only works after the robber has entered the
house), but you pay more for a security system that usually works before the
robber enters the home. Does the same hold true for having a gun for
protection??
jackief
Kathy E wrote:
> Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I tend to think so. Common sense also comes into the reasoning, if
> someone is going to break into a house which will they choose? The one
> where they know the owner has a gun or where they know the owner
> doesn't? Of course they're going to go to the house free of guns. No use
> risking getting shot when they can go to another area and accomplish the
> same thing with less chance of being harmed.
>
> Steve Wright wrote:
> > Thats really interesting coming from a country with little gun ownership
> > (just sport and drug dealers), do you think that violent criminals just do
> > there business elsewhere?
> >
> > Steve
> --
> Kathy E
> "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
> isn't looking too good for you either"
> http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
--
In the sociology room the children learn
that even dreams are colored by your perspective
I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
