Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. And to get back OT. In DB's Earth that behaviour leading to satisfaction of the urge that lets the body produce enorfins is very much frowned upon. And even meditation is seen as a form of serious drugabuse. Personally, I see winking out by using any kind of drug (including tobacco and alcohol) as a choice. And I feel that anybody who cannot resist the urge at least has a duty to determin if that is the way he/she wants to live. Also I'd like them to find a way to minimise impact of their habit on anybody elses lives. One of the problems in todays society (especially those with strong anti-drug laws) is that a person doesn't have the time to deal with the (socially not accepted forms of ) addiction itself either way. Most of the lucid time is spent acquiring money to support the habit. They float so to speak from point to point slipping further and further away from the regular lucid world. And then there is the medicinal use of cannabis. Sonja GCU: As good as it gets. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip To bring it back to the conversation at hand, it's the difference between denying that something like rape is related to legitimate needs and denying any opportunity to meet those needs. Society can pretend that such crimes have no basis whatever in legitimate needs, which I think has to change before we can begin to address such problems successfully, which would begin to end the denial (failure to offer) of treatment as an alternative or in addition to incarceration. I'm having trouble with this, including precisely 'what' and 'why,' but I'll try to delineate. I am unable to see that something like rape is related to legitimate needs - I can see for stealing, and drug use, and even 'crimes of passion' like a man finds _his_ woman with his best friend and goes berserk -- but *not* premeditated heinous crimes like rape or torture. (You didn't mention the latter, but I'm using it as another example of behavior for which I see no excuse whatsoever.) Food, clothing, shelter, comfort, feeling good, escaping from intolerable pain or loneliness, depending on the loyalty of loved ones -- these are all needs I can relate to as a fellow human, although _how_ one gets them is an issue. Even in certain child abuse cases I can see that the perpetrator is seeking affection/acceptance, albeit in a completely wrong and unacceptable way (such that if there isn't an underlying curable/controllable medical condition, incarceration/permanent separation from society is justifiable IMO). What legitimate needs in our culture* are met by rape or torture? I will allow as 'probably understandable' horrific behavior that occurs when children are subjected to unrelenting brutality, as in the case of child-soldiers who are taken out of their homes and forced by adults to participate in heinous behavior. But in our culture rape (and torture) are clearly labeled wrong bad and even evil, so that no mentally competent adult who's watched a week's worth of TV can claim not to know that these behaviors are illegal and unacceptable. Rape is not really about sex, from what I've read, but perhaps more about control - and there are plenty of ways to exert control without force. ( As for torture - no clue.) *There are cultures which still practice bride capture instead of 'courtship,' but that is not acceptable behavior here, and hopefully won't be 'there' either, in the near-future. Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? Debbi __ 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
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship ... (1) So if [I] put words in [your] head by saying that [their legitimate needs] are denied, by denial of legitimate needs do you mean self-denial by the person with the needs, or what? I honestly want to understand what you are saying. Now I understand, I think... There's ambiguity in a phrase like denying the needs. It's the difference between denying that the needs exist (like the psychological denial that makes it unbelievable that my best friend has cancer) and denial of the resources that would address the needs (like denying him medical care). To bring it back to the conversation at hand, it's the difference between denying that something like rape is related to legitimate needs and denying any opportunity to meet those needs. Society can pretend that such crimes have no basis whatever in legitimate needs, which I think has to change before we can begin to address such problems successfully, which would begin to end the denial (failure to offer) of treatment as an alternative or in addition to incarceration. I'm sorry if I misunderstood which one you were saying. It's all a bit fuzzy for me now, but my best friend really does have cancer and my thinking isn't as clear as usual (sympathy brain problems?). Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Both Nick and Dan wrote interesting replies to my last post in this subject, but I haven't had the time or energy to respond properly and may not for several days as I'm headed out of town soon. Just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring your posts... Doug Bed, very soon... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 06:51 AM 8/20/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship ... (1) So if [I] put words in [your] head by saying that [their legitimate needs] are denied, by denial of legitimate needs do you mean self-denial by the person with the needs, or what? I honestly want to understand what you are saying. Now I understand, I think... There's ambiguity in a phrase like denying the needs. I guess in a case like this it's too bad we don't speak one of the Galactic languages where there is no ambiguity (to make an on-topic comment at least). It's the difference between denying that the needs exist (like the psychological denial that makes it unbelievable that my best friend has cancer) and denial of the resources that would address the needs (like denying him medical care). To bring it back to the conversation at hand, it's the difference between denying that something like rape is related to legitimate needs and denying any opportunity to meet those needs. Society can pretend that such crimes have no basis whatever in legitimate needs, which I think has to change before we can begin to address such problems successfully, which would begin to end the denial (failure to offer) of treatment as an alternative or in addition to incarceration. I'm sorry if I misunderstood which one you were saying. It's all a bit fuzzy for me now, but my best friend really does have cancer and my thinking isn't as clear as usual (sympathy brain problems?). I can certainly understand. When you have a chance (absolutely no rush), maybe we can discuss what if anything we as members of society can do to help address the problem as you see it. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Dan Minette wrote: My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. I've heard the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug. Of course, if it were legal to buy joints like you buy cigarettes, the folks interested in just smoking pot wouldn't do anything illegal to get their drug of choice, so they wouldn't be in contact with dealers of other illegal substances, making it harder to jump from legal to illegal if marijuana were the drug of interest. But I really wouldn't want the US cigarette companies getting into the business of producing joints, considering what kind of additive crap goes into tobacco cigarettes. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... When are we going to wake up and realize that people want to get high? From the mild stimulus of caffeine, the outwardly innocuousness of nicotine and the destructiveness of alcohol. From legal stimulants and depressants to illegal hallucinogens, it seems like its human nature to want to alter ones mood. Not everyone of course, but what percent of the population do you think does none of the above? This has been rumbling around in my head for the last day. The problem with your premise is that illegal drugs stimulate production of endorphins, and so do all sorts of legitimate things, such as exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. The statement that its human nature to want to alter ones mood is the same to me as, people want to feel good. Most certainly! So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. Addiction (which actually is a problem, unlike drugs, IMO) isn't about the urge to feel good, which is totally legitimate. Addiction has to do with producing endorphins by satisfying legitimate needs -- exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. -- in inappropriate ways. I don't think there's any question that rapists, for example, commit the act in part because the risk and the violence triggers production of lots of adrenaline and other neurochemicals. There's nothing wrong with wanting the satisfaction that comes from triggering that physiological reaction, but the means of doing so is beyond inappropriate. The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Julia wrote: Hm. I thought that Quakerism was a sect of Christianity. How do you criminalize a set and *not* criminalize a subset of that set? :) Good point. Better to be safe than sorry. Let's criminalize Quakerism as well. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 07:28 AM 8/19/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Pensinger ... When are we going to wake up and realize that people want to get high? From the mild stimulus of caffeine, the outwardly innocuousness of nicotine and the destructiveness of alcohol. From legal stimulants and depressants to illegal hallucinogens, it seems like its human nature to want to alter ones mood. Not everyone of course, but what percent of the population do you think does none of the above? This has been rumbling around in my head for the last day. The problem with your premise is that illegal drugs stimulate production of endorphins, and so do all sorts of legitimate things, such as exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. The statement that its human nature to want to alter ones mood is the same to me as, people want to feel good. Most certainly! So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? This becomes very troublesome -- eliminating the urge would mean eliminating the urge to do anything that causes our bodies to produce endorphins. That would make us less than human. Addiction (which actually is a problem, unlike drugs, IMO) isn't about the urge to feel good, which is totally legitimate. Addiction has to do with producing endorphins by satisfying legitimate needs -- exercise, sports, sex, success, love, humor, etc. -- in inappropriate ways. I don't think there's any question that rapists, for example, commit the act in part because the risk and the violence triggers production of lots of adrenaline and other neurochemicals. There's nothing wrong with wanting the satisfaction that comes from triggering that physiological reaction, but the means of doing so is beyond inappropriate. The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? I think I already gave a number of examples... but you've put words in my head by saying that they are denied. What I'm saying is that people, for various reasons, fail to learn how to see that their needs are met legitimately, and thus turn to other ways. This is not to imply that their eyes simply need to be opened. Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! I can't get specific about how to meet everyone's needs! Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. Of course, they often don't want to change... Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 01:09 PM 8/19/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship So let's talk openly about them here. What are those legitimate needs which you believe are denied, and how do you think those needs should be met? I think I already gave a number of examples... but you've put words in my head by saying that they are denied. I apologize if that's what I did, but see below. What I'm saying is that people, for various reasons, fail to learn how to see that their needs are met legitimately, and thus turn to other ways. This is not to imply that their eyes simply need to be opened. Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! I can't get specific about how to meet everyone's needs! Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. Of course, they often don't want to change... You said in your earlier message: quote I sure agree that our approach is generally wrong, but not for the reasons that you're putting forth here. For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I'm not sure why that doesn't change, but it seems clear that it delivers a lot of money and power to those who use sex, violence, etc. to attract our attention. /quote (1) So if [I] put words in [your] head by saying that [their legitimate needs] are denied, by denial of legitimate needs do you mean self-denial by the person with the needs, or what? I honestly want to understand what you are saying. (2) You wrote For me, the wrongness has a lot to do with denial of legitimate needs, that is reflected in our unwillingness, as a society to talk openly about a number of things. I suggested that we start by openly talking about those things (whatever they are) here. You wrote: Habits are tough to change, especially when they're rewarded with endorphin production! Agree. Each person is an individual, with needs that differ. Strongly agree. But I think it is a poor approach to start by trying to quell the urge to feel good. Strongly agree. Feeling good, and its opposite of feeling bad, are really strong motivational forces. Most of us try to find ways to feel good as much as possible and to eliminate feeling bad as much as possible. Sometimes, of course, the only way to deal with things is to grit our teeth and work through the bad to get to the point where good things happen more often, but as you say later in the paragraph, often we don't want to change, because change is hard. That's the wrong side of the equation to start with; it's better to first try to help people learn to meet their needs, I think. So as I suggested above, if the problem (or part of it) is that we as a society are unwilling to talk openly about a number of things, why don't we start by talking openly about those things here? Of course, they often don't want to change... Strongly agree. Change is hard. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 8/17/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 2:55 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Jan Coffey wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And lemmie restate - if the UK had the US's gun laws, I WOULD be dead. And if the US had UK gun laws I would be dead. Good thing each of you has been in the country with the gun laws that kept each of you alive. Since single examples are equal, would it make sense to ask the following questions to determine which is actually beneficial to most: 1) Which country has fewer people killed? 2) Are people more likely to be killed by someone engaging in another criminal act at the time, or more likely to be killed in an argument? 3) Are people more likely to be killed by someone sober or by someone who has been using drugs or alcohol? 4) Are some people genetically inclined to become criminals (killers), are their inclinations solely due to their environment, or is it a combination of factors? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: 3) Are people more likely to be killed by someone sober or by someone who has been using drugs or alcohol? When are we going to wake up and realize that people want to get high? From the mild stimulus of caffeine, the outwardly innocuousness of nicotine and the destructiveness of alcohol. From legal stimulants and depressants to illegal hallucinogens, it seems like its human nature to want to alter ones mood. Not everyone of course, but what percent of the population do you think does none of the above? So the war on drugs is an attempt to stamp out human inclination by force. Why don't we spend the huge amounts of money we now waste trying to fight our inclinations on figuring out _why_ we want to get high and either eliminate the urge in a scientific manner or cater to it in a way that is less disruptive? The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Darn it! I had a reply almost done, and then our electricity flickered... (impressive storm!)... sigh --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Dan Minette wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan Coffey wrote: --- Andrew Crystall wrote: And lemmie restate - if the UK had the US's gun laws, I WOULD be dead. And if the US had UK gun laws I would be dead. Good thing each of you has been in the country with the gun laws that kept each of you alive. Since single examples are equal, would it make sense to ask the following questions to determine which is actually beneficial to most: 1) Which country has fewer people killed? 2) Are people more likely to be killed by someone engaging in another criminal act at the time, or more likely to be killed in an argument? 3) Are people more likely to be killed by someone sober or by someone who has been using drugs or alcohol? 4) Are some people genetically inclined to become criminals (killers), are their inclinations solely due to their environment, or is it a combination of factors? Most research thus far supports 'genetic tendencies but certain environmental factors required to trigger them.' This abstract is not particularly enlightening, but clicking on 'related articles' pulls up a number of studies involving twins, children of psychotic parents, and so forth: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=9196916dopt=Abstract Here is an article about impulsive aggressive disorder; the intro discussion have several linked articles as well, such as reference 7, which discusses early brain damage - antisocial behaviors. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmedpubmedid=12034876#B7 Prenatal insults like alcohol exposure can contribute to impulsivity and impaired 'executive functioning,' which can get the affected teen or adult into potentially violent situations. This is the NIH site on fetal alcohol exposure, with effects ranging from obvious physical/medical deformities to very subtle learning difficulties: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa13.htm Here is a Canadian site on fetal alcohol exposure and the correctional service: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r71/r71e_e.shtml#30 Another moderating factor which may be genetically influenced is resilience, which is the current term used to describe what I'd call the overcoming it factor - children/adults who endure bad or even horrific conditions, yet emerge without antisocial or self-destructive behaviors. Here is an NIMH article on resilience: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/baschap2.cfm ...What is the source of individual differences in personality traits? Are they determined solely by genes, or are they molded solely by the environment? During the past two decades, behavioral genetics research on the heritability of personality traits has shown that neither extreme is correct. Studies of twins, adoptees, and ordinary families have demonstrated that genetic factors only moderately influence individual differences in most personality dimensions and that environmental factors are also important. When the approaches of behavioral genetics and developmental psychology are combined, some novel findings emerge. For example, longitudinal studies of childhood temperament and early adult personality strongly suggest that personality stability over time stems more from genetic factors than from environmental constancy. However, other studies suggest that genetic influences are dynamic being activated at different times in life... This is the Program Announcement of an NIH project on novel research integrating genetics, behavior and aging. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAS-03-128.html Debbi P.S. This has nothing to do with violence, but did link up as related to emotions and brain activity/structures and is a [listref]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrievedb=PubMedlist_uids=11573015dopt=Abstract Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. __ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
Deborah Harrell wrote: Darn it! I had a reply almost done, and then our electricity flickered... (impressive storm!)... sigh snip impressive list of stuff Thanks, Debbi, looks like good stuff, though it could take a while to digest. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Could you elaborate? The disruption we've created in Columbia has torn that nation apart. And for all our efforts, we just create a more lucrative market for cocaine. And if you can coat rural Columbia with Round-Up, why can't you do the same for Afghanistan? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Could you elaborate? Sure, kill anyone growing drugs, and kill their families too. If need be, randomly kill people in the village until they get the idea that their neighbors must be stopped from growing drugs. I'm not sure that the Taliban went quite that far every time, but the notion of human rights was not exactly high on their list. The disruption we've created in Columbia has torn that nation apart. Your suggesting that there would be no gurrillas if we just allowed the cocaine traffic to flourish? Wouldn't the drug czars just own the government and run it like the Mafia then? And for all our efforts, we just create a more lucrative market for cocaine. No, that's not all we've done. With crack use down, murders are also down, substantially. There was a very strong correlation between the murder rate and crack cocaine useage. People have tried various forms of decriminalizing the use of hard drugs. The problem with them is that the tolerance tends to increase with usage. England tried to have regestered addicts who got regular limited amounts of heroin, for example, cheap or free from the government. Of course, they just used this as a subsidy of their total habit, and increased their usage by buying more on the street. And if you can coat rural Columbia with Round-Up, why can't you do the same for Afghanistan? I'd like a source that shows that at least the majority of rural Columbia has been defoliated. Afganistan is a poor country that can barely feed itself. A cash crop like poppies can make a farmer relatively rich. It takes a very repressive regieme to keep virtually everyone from trying to better their financial position this way What I find troublesome with your position is that you seem to suggest that there is an easy answer to the drug problem. Just let people use whatever they want in whatever quantities they want. The difficulty with this is 1) It interferes with the ability to work, so the money has to come from someplace else 2) Unless subsidized by the government, it will still cost money. 3) If cheap, people will tend to keep on increasing their dosage until its near fatal, or at least its no longer cheap. 4) There is a strong association with hard drugs and other crimes. There is a strong correlation between crack and violent behavior. Booze and grass are one thing, there is at least a significant fraction of folks who use/used those in a non-addictive manner. But, the fact that very liberal European countries have reversed the trend towards decriminalization of all drugs should be considered. My understanding is that, when Amsterdam decriminalized all behavior associated with drugs, the drug addicts overwhelmed the town. When New York cracked down, Time Square became someplace you could go with your teenage kids with at night. My positiojn is not really supportive of the war on drugs; there are plenty of problems with it. As I stated before, drawing the line after instead of before grass seems very reasonable. But, I do think that the position that legalizing the sale of all addictive drugs would result in a far worse state of the nation than what we have now. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States)
At 09:42 PM 8/18/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:31 PM Subject: Re: Drugs (was Most Dangerous States) Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The wrongness of our approach to this problem seems so blatantly obvious to me that I have to be suspicious of the real motives behind drug prohibitions. Doug According to your theory, which would these be? JJ No theory, JJ, just suspicions. Doesn't it strike you as a little bit suspicious, for instance, that a two bit operation like the Taliban can reduce opium exports in Afghanistan, but when the strongest, richest nation in the world takes charge production surges dramatically? No, it was predicted. There are very effective tactics to stop drug production that the US will not use, for good reason. Could you elaborate? Those used in places like China and Singapore, frex. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 07:41:01PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I agree. OTOH, if you are an 80-year-old woman with arthritis who has to shuffle around with a walker, you probably don't have the dexterity or strength to use a throwing knife, sword, or quarterstaff, Probably cannot hold a gun steady and pull the trigger, either. And if she has a walker, where will she put the gun while she shuffles around? Does she have a holster on her waist? Do you really think she could draw the gun from the holster, hold it steady, aim, and pull the trigger before the attacker gets her or ducks behind something? I think she'd be better off with a dog (if she has a yard or could get someone to walk it for her). Failing that, she probably has a better chance just crying and saying don't hurt me and letting the intruder take her stuff. I'd guess the chances of an intruder trying to hurt her are less than the chances she'd get hurt if she tried to pull a gun on the intruder. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 07:10 AM 8/17/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 07:41:01PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I agree. OTOH, if you are an 80-year-old woman with arthritis who has to shuffle around with a walker, you probably don't have the dexterity or strength to use a throwing knife, sword, or quarterstaff, Probably cannot hold a gun steady and pull the trigger, either. And if she has a walker, where will she put the gun while she shuffles around? Does she have a holster on her waist? Do you really think she could draw the gun from the holster, hold it steady, aim, and pull the trigger before the attacker gets her or ducks behind something? She had it between the cushion and the side of the chair she was sitting in, and when the intruder walked in he found himself facing a fiesty old woman who had a .38 pointed at him. An alloy-framed .38 revolver is both compact and light, and is what many who talk about self-defense recommend for women. It's main disadvantage is that one has to be somewhat careful about ammo selection, as the alloy used is not as strong as hardened steel, so you can't use the most powerful available loads (e.g., +P and +P+). I think she'd be better off with a dog (if she has a yard or could get someone to walk it for her). Failing that, she probably has a better chance just crying and saying don't hurt me and letting the intruder take her stuff. An even better idea would have been for the S.O.B. to get a job if he wants money rather than try to steal other people's possessions. And she didn't have any way of knowing if he was there just to steal from her or he planned to get some jollies by beating, perhaps raping, perhaps even killing a helpless victim. And if you think that all women cry when faced with a stressful situation, you need to meet some real women. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:41:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: She had it between the cushion and the side of the chair she was sitting in, Sure was lucky she was sitting next to it. and when the intruder walked in he found himself facing a fiesty old woman If you think all old women are feisty, you need to meet more old women. who had a .38 pointed at him. With her hand shaking wildly due to stress and age and arthritis, and poor eyesight making the intended aim off anyway. An even better idea would have been for the S.O.B. to get a job if he wants money rather than try to steal other people's possessions. No, that is a much worse idea, since it isn't likely to protect her because it isn't likely to happen. And if you think that all women cry when faced with a stressful situation, you need to meet some real women. If you think that I think that, then you need to read and think more clearly. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 01:00 PM 8/17/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:41:54AM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: An even better idea would have been for the S.O.B. to get a job if he wants money rather than try to steal other people's possessions. No, that is a much worse idea, since it isn't likely to protect her because it isn't likely to happen. And that's the root of the problem, isn't it? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 12:30:51PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: And that's the root of the problem, isn't it? And...? Your point? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 07:41:01PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I agree. OTOH, if you are an 80-year-old woman with arthritis who has to shuffle around with a walker, you probably don't have the dexterity or strength to use a throwing knife, sword, or quarterstaff, Probably cannot hold a gun steady and pull the trigger, either. And if she has a walker, where will she put the gun while she shuffles around? Most people using walkers for the long term put some kind of bag or basket on the front, I think. (Been quite awhile since I hung around a nursing home regularly, though -- but IIRC, Dan's uncle has a bag or something on his walker to hold a few things, including whatever glasses he may need.) A small gun would fit quite nicely in some of the bags I've seen attached to walkers. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:10 AM 8/17/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: I think she'd be better off with a dog (if she has a yard or could get someone to walk it for her). Failing that, she probably has a better chance just crying and saying don't hurt me and letting the intruder take her stuff. An even better idea would have been for the S.O.B. to get a job if he wants money rather than try to steal other people's possessions. And she didn't have any way of knowing if he was there just to steal from her or he planned to get some jollies by beating, perhaps raping, perhaps even killing a helpless victim. And if you think that all women cry when faced with a stressful situation, you need to meet some real women. In a *real* stressful situation where time is of the essence, the best course is not to cry, but to act. When the crisis is over, THEN you can collapse into whatever emotion you want. (Sometimes I need to cry when it's all over, but I keep myself together and deal with the situation rationally until it *is* over.) Now, there *are* times when tears are useful. Getting what you need or want out of someone at the other end of a phone line, it helps sometimes. (Discovered this by accident, had been doing my darnedest *not* to cry, but) And I won't go into detail on guilt trips laid on telemarketers (Before the Do Not Call lists, having the number listed in the name of the now-deceased family member the number had originally been listed under gave something of a good screen for telemarketers. The rest you can probably imagine without my help.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And lemmie restate - if the UK had the US's gun laws, I WOULD be dead. And if the US had UK gun laws I would be dead. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 07:41:01PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I agree. OTOH, if you are an 80-year-old woman with arthritis who has to shuffle around with a walker, you probably don't have the dexterity or strength to use a throwing knife, sword, or quarterstaff, Probably cannot hold a gun steady and pull the trigger, either. And if she has a walker, where will she put the gun while she shuffles around? Most people using walkers for the long term put some kind of bag or basket on the front, I think. (Been quite awhile since I hung around a nursing home regularly, though -- but IIRC, Dan's uncle has a bag or something on his walker to hold a few things, including whatever glasses he may need.) A small gun would fit quite nicely in some of the bags I've seen attached to walkers. Or buy the Brighto(tm) turret mounted semi-automatic senior citizen defense system. Aim a full 180° and +/- 15° degrees in the azimuth using the control button on one handle of this high quality, light and durable titanium walker, and shoot a highly effective round of buckshot with the trigger on the other handle (right and left handed models available.) Or better yet buy our optional inferred targeting system and customizable voice activated trigger so you need only wheeze Hasta la vista, baby and your defense system springs into action automatically, mowing down anything and everything in range! Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And lemmie restate - if the UK had the US's gun laws, I WOULD be dead. And if the US had UK gun laws I would be dead. Good thing each of you has been in the country with the gun laws that kept each of you alive. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States You don't know me, or my friends, my experiences, or obviously my sympathies to those who have endured this type of crulty and evil. Its not that I suspected that you don't have sympathy for victims. Its that your apparent attitude that there are just a few criminal types from the wrong side of the track who perpetrate this that feeds the shame of victims. People tend to hide problems in the family due to shame. If it is generally accepted that this happens even in good families, and the fact that the victims have no responsibility, and that there is no family shame associated with it, then victims are more likely to speak about the problem. I see what you mean. That would be unfortunate if I contributed to this. But, if it is evidence that the victim comes from the wrong type of family, then the victim feels shame for being part of a bad family. (Shame is different from guilt, BTW. Speaking roughly, shame is feeling bad about who you are; while guilt is feeling bad about what you've done.) I have little shame, and little need for it. I often forget that shame does exist. And that it can be a contributing factor. My additude regaurding this was in error. I seem to have struck an emotional chord with you and I appologize if that has made you angry at me, or hurt. I appreciate your apology, but the problem is not so much that you struck an emotional cord as that you repeated dangerous myths that I've seen damage families for 20+ years. Unfortunately, after dealing with sexual abuse, one develops a radar for it. I'll give one example. A young friend of my daughter was sexually abused by an uncle. She would sit on his lap and he'd rub against her. It was subtle enough so he could do it in front of people and only the two of them would know. We have a feeling that something was amiss, but didn't say anything. Finally, when Teri was discussing unacceptable behavior...her job with Parents Annomous dealt with that kind of stuff and my roll as a Brownie leader gave us permission to talk about safety issures for kids, the girl said well, execpt if its a family member, then its OK. We got her premission to talk to her parents, who were very uptight about it. They didn't get help, because of the shame they all felt about this type of thing happening in their family. We lost contact when we moved, but when we regained contact, we found out that the now teenage girl was boy crazy and out of control. Not all sex crazed teage females are victems of abuse either. Your morals do not neccisarily dictate what is right for everyone. In just the same light please do not suggest that females who are boy crazy are out of control and therefore have a problem. Its well known that eating disorders, sexual disfunction, etc. are tied to abuse. I do realize that there are many who are abused and attacked. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am, however, suggesting that the stats are scued to make the situation (as far as male perpitrators) seem more widespread than it is. I understand that. Unfortunately, this belief helps perpetuate the problem. I went to the web to look up sites, and in the hit or miss fashion of the web, I found more information of studies of abuse of males. Its at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/pdfs/invisib.pdf The surveys are pretty straightforward in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Phone surveys tend to have the lowest number of reported cases, annonomous surveys that people just fill in have the medium, and interviews have the most. One of the difficulties is that one needs to make reporting abuse safe for the victim. Given that, its easy to see why phone interviews are the lowest. Face to face interviews may tend to have a biased sample. But, as you see here, there are samplings that appear to be fairly random...like college students. The other explination is that it is just not as prevelent as some think it is. I disagree that this attitude makes the problem worse. The search for truth should never make the problem worse should it? Not that it is not a problem mind you. There is also a distinct lack of data in these numbers about what part of society the perpitrators come from. One of the myths is that the perps. come from a distinct criminal element or from poor families. I wasn't saying that and I wasn't refering to family on family perps. Reported cases to CPS of abuse are biased towards lower income groups, mostly because they have fewer resources to hide the problem. Yet, when surveys are done for past histories, the same bias towards lower income groups is not found. What about professions? Home invaders? Violent Rapeists? I'd
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 2:55 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Jan Coffey wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And lemmie restate - if the UK had the US's gun laws, I WOULD be dead. And if the US had UK gun laws I would be dead. Good thing each of you has been in the country with the gun laws that kept each of you alive. Since single examples are equal, would it make sense to ask the following questions to determine which is actually beneficial to most: 1) Which country has fewer people killed? 2) Are people more likely to be killed by someone engaging in another criminal act at the time, or more likely to be killed in an argument? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 04:12 PM 8/17/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 2:55 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Jan Coffey wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And lemmie restate - if the UK had the US's gun laws, I WOULD be dead. And if the US had UK gun laws I would be dead. Good thing each of you has been in the country with the gun laws that kept each of you alive. Since single examples are equal, would it make sense to ask the following questions to determine which is actually beneficial to most: 1) Which country has fewer people killed? 2) Are people more likely to be killed by someone engaging in another criminal act at the time, or more likely to be killed in an argument? 3) Are people more likely to be killed by someone sober or by someone who has been using drugs or alcohol? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 10:58:17PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: The only weapons we keep with that sort of accessibility right now are swords. And me cornered in my own house with a sword is probably *extremely* dangerous to whomever is cornering me. Do you think your son could expose the blade on the sword? How about a quarterstaff (I think Aikido experts call it a Bo) for home security? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 10:58:17PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: The only weapons we keep with that sort of accessibility right now are swords. And me cornered in my own house with a sword is probably *extremely* dangerous to whomever is cornering me. Do you think your son could expose the blade on the sword? Not at this time under normal circumstances. I don't keep it next to the bed most of the time, but it's in a place I could get to in under 10 seconds, out of his reach. If I were asleep in bed, the dogs would alert me to the presence of an intruder in enough time for me to get to it. (Unless they were out in the yard for skunk-related reasons, which may be the case tonight, depending on how well the cleanup goes today and if the skunk has the sense to get the @#$% out of our yard before they *kill* it.) The last time I had it right next to the bed, he was not sufficiently mobile to get to it or do anything if he *did* get to it. (Speaking of him as a small baby and weapons, have I mentioned the photo of him next to an unsharpened battleaxe? It's really cute, and one of my friends has a framed copy of it on display in her apartment) How about a quarterstaff (I think Aikido experts call it a Bo) for home security? That could work. I like Andy's solution of throwing knives. I'd have to train to use them, though. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 10:04:28AM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: How about a quarterstaff (I think Aikido experts call it a Bo) for home security? That could work. That was actually a non-rhetorical question, hopefully for someone who has trained with a staff or a Bo. I assume you would want a slightly shorter staff for indoor use, say 4 or 5 feet. But I wonder if the close quarters would hamper its use. I've often thought that if I ever learn a weapon, I would like for it to be the staff. Most injuries I would inflict with it would be non-lethal, it is no more dangerous in untrained hands than a baseball bat, and I like the idea of the extended reach if the attacker has a (non-throwing) knife. Of course, it would not be much use against an attacker with a gun, but even if I had a gun I think I'd not want to get into a shootout with an attacker with a gun -- in that case I'd either run or try to act submissive and weird until a distraction allowed me to run. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States You don't know me, or my friends, my experiences, or obviously my sympathies to those who have endured this type of crulty and evil. Its not that I suspected that you don't have sympathy for victims. Its that your apparent attitude that there are just a few criminal types from the wrong side of the track who perpetrate this that feeds the shame of victims. People tend to hide problems in the family due to shame. If it is generally accepted that this happens even in good families, and the fact that the victims have no responsibility, and that there is no family shame associated with it, then victims are more likely to speak about the problem. But, if it is evidence that the victim comes from the wrong type of family, then the victim feels shame for being part of a bad family. (Shame is different from guilt, BTW. Speaking roughly, shame is feeling bad about who you are; while guilt is feeling bad about what you've done.) I seem to have struck an emotional chord with you and I appologize if that has made you angry at me, or hurt. I appreciate your apology, but the problem is not so much that you struck an emotional cord as that you repeated dangerous myths that I've seen damage families for 20+ years. Unfortunately, after dealing with sexual abuse, one develops a radar for it. I'll give one example. A young friend of my daughter was sexually abused by an uncle. She would sit on his lap and he'd rub against her. It was subtle enough so he could do it in front of people and only the two of them would know. We have a feeling that something was amiss, but didn't say anything. Finally, when Teri was discussing unacceptable behavior...her job with Parents Annomous dealt with that kind of stuff and my roll as a Brownie leader gave us permission to talk about safety issures for kids, the girl said well, execpt if its a family member, then its OK. We got her premission to talk to her parents, who were very uptight about it. They didn't get help, because of the shame they all felt about this type of thing happening in their family. We lost contact when we moved, but when we regained contact, we found out that the now teenage girl was boy crazy and out of control. Its well known that eating disorders, sexual disfunction, etc. are tied to abuse. I do realize that there are many who are abused and attacked. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am, however, suggesting that the stats are scued to make the situation (as far as male perpitrators) seem more widespread than it is. I understand that. Unfortunately, this belief helps perpetuate the problem. I went to the web to look up sites, and in the hit or miss fashion of the web, I found more information of studies of abuse of males. Its at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/pdfs/invisib.pdf The surveys are pretty straightforward in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Phone surveys tend to have the lowest number of reported cases, annonomous surveys that people just fill in have the medium, and interviews have the most. One of the difficulties is that one needs to make reporting abuse safe for the victim. Given that, its easy to see why phone interviews are the lowest. Face to face interviews may tend to have a biased sample. But, as you see here, there are samplings that appear to be fairly random...like college students. Not that it is not a problem mind you. There is also a distinct lack of data in these numbers about what part of society the perpitrators come from. One of the myths is that the perps. come from a distinct criminal element or from poor families. Reported cases to CPS of abuse are biased towards lower income groups, mostly because they have fewer resources to hide the problem. Yet, when surveys are done for past histories, the same bias towards lower income groups is not found. I'd argue that its akin to the fact that illegal drug use cuts across all ecconomic, race, and social boundaries, but people serving sentences tend to be black and Hispanic and tend to be lower income. I know that drug use is rampant among the kids in the upper middle class community I live in, but their families can keep them out of jail if they do get caught. As an interesting aside, even when one logically expects ecconomic status to play a major role in decision making, the evidence for that does not exist. My wife did her master's thesis on the relationship between ecconomic status and battered wives returning to their abuser. She had a fair sample size, 190, and fully expected to see a relationship. She didn't. Besides, if the numbers are so greate, wouldn't it seem wise for possible victems to carry a leathal weapon? The problem is that it would usually require a 5 year old or a 10 year old or a 15 year old to shoot to kill
Re: Most Dangerous States
On 15 Aug 2003 at 20:48, Jan Coffey wrote: The problem is that guns are too accident prone. (and illegal over here). I'm happy with keeping a throwing blade within reach when I sleep. And yes, I've had run-ins with skinhead thugs...but I've never, admitedly, been on the worse end of the resulting injuries. You say that guns are acident prone. But you don't have a gun do you? You havent had a gun around a lot, you don't know how they work or what features they have so that accidents don't happen do you? Why not give a for example. How does this accident happen? I've handled guns yes. When I've been in Israel. I'm a good shot. And I can read rates of things like accidental shootings... If you have kids isn't every cabinet in your house kidproof? Don't you have every outlet covered? Again, not a problem with a blade. It's perfectly possible to have a kidsafe holder for one which won't stop me using it quickly. (yes, I'm arround places with kids sometimes...) And lemmie restate - if the UK had the US's gun laws, I WOULD be dead. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 10:04 AM 8/16/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 10:58:17PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: The only weapons we keep with that sort of accessibility right now are swords. And me cornered in my own house with a sword is probably *extremely* dangerous to whomever is cornering me. Do you think your son could expose the blade on the sword? Not at this time under normal circumstances. I don't keep it next to the bed most of the time, but it's in a place I could get to in under 10 seconds, out of his reach. If I were asleep in bed, the dogs would alert me to the presence of an intruder in enough time for me to get to it. (Unless they were out in the yard for skunk-related reasons, which may be the case tonight, depending on how well the cleanup goes today and if the skunk has the sense to get the @#$% out of our yard before they *kill* it.) The last time I had it right next to the bed, he was not sufficiently mobile to get to it or do anything if he *did* get to it. (Speaking of him as a small baby and weapons, have I mentioned the photo of him next to an unsharpened battleaxe? It's really cute, and one of my friends has a framed copy of it on display in her apartment) How about a quarterstaff (I think Aikido experts call it a Bo) for home security? That could work. I like Andy's solution of throwing knives. I'd have to train to use them, though. Which is one point in favor of a firearm for home defense: it takes less training to learn to fire it than it does to learn to use a throwing knife, and it does not require as high a level of physical dexterity or strength to use. Admittedly, those are also the reasons that make it more dangerous if a child finds it. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 05:30:44PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Which is one point in favor of a firearm for home defense: it takes less training to learn to fire it than it does to learn to use a throwing knife, I consider that a point against. If I have a weapon that requires skill, if it gets into someone else's hand, especially an attacker, then it probably isn't as effective against me. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 07:31 PM 8/16/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 05:30:44PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Which is one point in favor of a firearm for home defense: it takes less training to learn to fire it than it does to learn to use a throwing knife, I consider that a point against. If I have a weapon that requires skill, if it gets into someone else's hand, especially an attacker, then it probably isn't as effective against me. I agree. OTOH, if you are an 80-year-old woman with arthritis who has to shuffle around with a walker, you probably don't have the dexterity or strength to use a throwing knife, sword, or quarterstaff, and on Social Security you can't afford air conditioning so you have keep the windows open or literally die of the heat inside your closed house, you want something handy and easy to use in case some @#$%*!! decides to take advantage of the open windows and come in to steal what little you have and/or assault you. In short, there is no single answer to home/personal defense which is both safe and effective in all situations . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can kill someone in a split second of rage with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. I have never understood this. Many males have been in that Rage state, especialy dufing puberty. If you haven't, I can tell you it's rather scarry. The destructive urge is so greate that it must be released in some way. However, ones logical thinking abilities are not effected. Could you please give a cite on this? It contradicts much of what has bee Site: I have been in that state and never once did I do anything I would not have done anyway. I had full control, full knowledge, full awarness. What I ~did~ do was yell really loud, go outside and throw a glass bottle into a dumpster where it would break, but no cleanup would be neccisary. Did I consider violence? No more or less than at other times. And I made the same decision. -Not to harm others-. The fact that those who want to commit hanus acts build themselves into a range before they do it, does not mean that the rage caused it. You may become hyper angry, but sugesting that you also loose your cognative abilities to diferintiate right from wrong seems to me to be rediculous. People are still responsible for what they do. But, it is a fact of human behavior that some of the worst actions taken by people are taken on impulse...they are not planned. They cognative abilities aren't lost, but they are often surpressed. Just becouse someone enters a rage state, does not mean that they do not understand that picking up a firearm and using it is going to result in anothers death. There can be a very surrealistic component to actions taken on impulse. One of the factors involved with a gun is that is is much more surrealistic than stabbing someone with a knife. hmm? I would have to disagree. And as far as rage being surrealistic. I am not sure what you mean. Have you ever been inraged? Was it surrealistic for you? If the person has the where withal not to use the firearm in a non rage state, then the same is true for the rage state. Just becouse some people who have made the dicision to commit murder and decided to do it with a gun afterwards blame it on rage does not mean that anyone could slip into a state of rage and do something they would not otherwise do. Out of curiosity, before I go to the effort of looking up data, I'd like to ask if they would make any difference to you at all. From earlier discussions, it appears that you do not trust facts that contradict your viewpoint, particuarly if they are expressed in statistical terms. That is not true. If you can show a clear test and control, if you have narrowed any other ~reasonable~ posabilities or variables out of consideration, then statistics are very usefull. On the other hand, if you simply show statistics without a clear cause and effect relationship then I refuse to accept that the statistics are important when they disagree with my logical assesment, or personal experience. For instance the only statistics on gun control that have been posted which I feel even come close to being meanigfull are the ones showing that murders in Texas dropped after CC was introduced. Comparing Texas to NY does not narrow the scope enough to reasonably remove other variables. Still, even this statistic is less than desirable as it does not show a corolation. While I do feel more confident using this stat to suggest that CC reduces murder, I do not know what other laws were passed, what other events took place, during this time which might make the muder rate be lower. In fact there does not even need to be another factor at all. The murder rates fluctuation during this time may not be at all remarkable. This -fear of rage- argument for not keeping a gun about is BS. Really, then why did one of my Girl Scout Junior troop members from a few years ago, get shot in the head at a graduation party by someone with a concealed weapon? There would be no reason in the world for him to plan to shoot her, he really wasn't angry at her to begin with. He didn't plan to shoot her between the eyes, it just sorta happened. Calling things you disagree with BS doesn't make it so. True, and I am sorry one of your troop members was killed in such a way. or at all. I know it is easyer for people to say that humans are not really bad people, that they have mental problems or temporary mental problems and that they do unexpected violent things. But I look at it differntly, and I apologize if it brings you pain for me to say so. But this person choose to do what he did, the anger or rage did not contribute to his actions. Some people ~are~ evil
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:04 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if you don't get shot at all. Sure, and you don't die in traffic accidents if you don't hit others cars. But more people are killed by cars every year than by firearms. And, many more people lose money in traffic accidents than from crimes every year. So, maybe we worry to much about crime in general. The real question is the relative merit of stopping crimes by arming oneself with a gun in the nightstand vs. the demerits of that action. Indeed, if you talk about assaults, both physical and sexual, one is much much more likely to be assaulted by a family member or a friend of the family than by a stranger. Incest is far far more prevalent than sexual assaults by strangers assaulting a woman on the street; and is overwhelmingly more likely than someone breaking into a house to rape a woman. I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are pedophiles. I would have to strongly disagree with this. This is sexist feminist crap! Right, and my wife wasn't really a victim of sexual assault, its just that she's a feminist liar. Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. But a casual statistical survey of my friends indicates that the official numbers look close. If there is anything sexist, it is the denial of the frequency with which women become perps. When Teri was working groups for Parents Annomous, she was the only one who asked if the mother did anything. That's not all children, so not all count as pedophile. Even if you run off and get stats for this you will have to show what the definition is. The definition is pretty plain, men who are sexually attracted to children. I can get the exact definition, but I know that attraction to youth 13 and over doesn't count as pedophile. Do 1 in 20 hetero males find 17 year old females attractive? I would argue the number is much higher than just 1 in 20. Doesn't count. What about 18 year old males who find 14 year old females attractive? Nope, its grown men and children. If we are talking about post pubecent males who find pre-pubesent females attractive, I seriously doubt the numbers would be high enough to make enven a percentage. Well, from my perspective, you won't accept anything that doesn't fit your presuppositions. If we further restrict it to only those who act on it then we would have even lower numbers. But, the reality is that a significant fraction of men and women endure the shame of being the victim of sexual abuse. You'll be surprised at how many people are willing to talk about it only when it is made safe for them. It is certain that pedifiles exist and they certainly have serious problems that society needs to find a solution for. But to sugest that so many men are like that is sexist IMO. Why? With your attitude, I'd be shocked if people would be likely to admit that they were victims to you. No hard feelings, but that type of denial is a good portion of why victims of sexual assault tend to keep their mouths shut. Dan M. You don't know me, or my friends, my experiences, or obviously my sympathies to those who have endured this type of crulty and evil. I seem to have struck an emotional chord with you and I appologize if that has made you angry at me, or hurt. I do realize that there are many who are abused and attacked. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am, however, suggesting that the stats are scued to make the situation (as far as male perpitrators) seem more widespread than it is. Not that it is not a problem mind you. There is also a distinct lack of data in these numbers about what part of society the perpitrators come from. Besides, if the numbers are so greate
Re: Most Dangerous States
The question I am arguing is the handgun in the drawer for protection, not the hunting rifle that's safely stored. There is no evidence that the handgun in the drawer does any good. There is considerable evidence that it contributes to a significant number of deaths per year. ? Maybe, deaths of home invadors. I know one thing, When my wife hears a sound downstairs and sends me to check it out, I feel much more comfortable that I have a gun in my hand. I actualy get to sleep at night knowing that I can retrieve and engage in less than 4 seconds. If I did not have that gun what would I do? Call the police every other night? Lie awake for hours woried that someone is going to come in and I would be helpless? Once you have had the experience of home invasion you would understand. No Gun = No Sleep. I choose sleep. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. But a casual statistical survey of my friends indicates that the official numbers look close. In a project I worked on in 1987 (survey conducted at a university-associated clinic, data unpublished AFAIK, N ~ 200), the numbers were 1 in 7 women and 1 in 10 men reported having been sexually assaulted, at some point in their lives. That also fit fairly well with my group of friends at the time. About half of the incidents involving my friends were childhood (pre-pubescent) age. Debbi __ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. But a casual statistical survey of my friends indicates that the official numbers look close. In a project I worked on in 1987 (survey conducted at a university-associated clinic, data unpublished AFAIK, N ~ 200), the numbers were 1 in 7 women and 1 in 10 men reported having been sexually assaulted, at some point in their lives. That also fit fairly well with my group of friends at the time. About half of the incidents involving my friends were childhood (pre-pubescent) age. Since we are speaking anicdotaly. These numbers fit for my experiences if we are counting pre-pubescent on pre-pubescent assaults and pubecent on pre-pubecent assults. Once again however, I don't think you can say that every time you get X number of people in a room Y of them have sexualy assulted. It depends on what demographic the people are in. I am NOT saying that this problem does not exist. What I am saying is, there is no reason to sit in a room with 10 avarage men and think oh my god, one of these thugs might sexualy assult methen again, it never hurst to be causious, having personal use of leathal force might not be a bad idea. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. On more thing. I had a friend who left a movie theater where the bathroom line was about 20 men long. He went out back to the enclosed trash dumpster telling us that he had to pee right their. He went in the head high enclosure faced a cornder and began to releive himself. An 11 or 12 year old girl overheard him asking for us to wait for him and ran through our group waiting at the enclosure entrance. Her mother watched as she did this. She went inside the enclosure and got close enough to my friend that she could get an eyefull. My friend was arasted for sexual assult. The mother pressed charges. He is no-longer my friend, and I do not know what became of him. But he spend several years in jail, and has everyone in every neigborhood he moves into told that he is a sex offender. We use to go door to door with the police report from the case allowing everyone to read exactly what he did. If these numbers you are using include cases like my friends then the numbers are rediculous. Be ware the next time you really really have to pee. Do it in your pants. That's what the judge told him to do. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are pedophiles. I would have to strongly disagree with this. This is sexist feminist crap! Right, and my wife wasn't really a victim of sexual assault, its just that she's a feminist liar. Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. But a casual statistical survey of my friends indicates that the official numbers look close. If there is anything sexist, it is the denial of the frequency with which women become perps. When Teri was working groups for Parents Annomous, she was the only one who asked if the mother did anything. That's not all children, so not all count as pedophile. Even if you run off and get stats for this you will have to show what the definition is. The definition is pretty plain, men who are sexually attracted to children. I can get the exact definition, but I know that attraction to youth 13 and over doesn't count as pedophile. Do 1 in 20 hetero males find 17 year old females attractive? I would argue the number is much higher than just 1 in 20. Doesn't count. What about 18 year old males who find 14 year old females attractive? Nope, its grown men and children. If we are talking about post pubecent males who find pre-pubesent females attractive, I seriously doubt the numbers would be high enough to make enven a percentage. Well, from my perspective, you won't accept anything that doesn't fit your presuppositions. If we further restrict it to only those who act on it then we would have even lower numbers. But, the reality is that a significant fraction of men and women endure the shame of being the victim of sexual abuse. You'll be surprised at how many people are willing to talk about it only when it is made safe for them. It is certain that pedifiles exist and they certainly have serious problems that society needs to find a solution for. But to sugest that so many men are like that is sexist IMO. Why? With your attitude, I'd be shocked if people would be likely to admit that they were victims to you. No hard feelings, but that type of denial is a good portion of why victims of sexual assault tend to keep their mouths shut. Dan M. You don't know me, or my friends, my experiences, or obviously my sympathies to those who have endured this type of crulty and evil. I seem to have struck an emotional chord with you and I appologize if that has made you angry at me, or hurt. I do realize that there are many who are abused and attacked. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am, however, suggesting that the stats are scued to make the situation (as far as male perpitrators) seem more widespread than it is. Not that it is not a problem mind you. There is also a distinct lack of data in these numbers about what part of society the perpitrators come from. Besides, if the numbers are so greate, wouldn't it seem wise for possible victems to carry a leathal weapon? The problem with your argument here, Jan, is that Dan was quoting stats about pedophiles, people who sexually assult children under a certain age. Say, 12 or 13? (Dan? What's the cutoff?) Are you going to hand an 11-year-old girl a gun and instruct her to carry it and blow away *only* someone who molests her? I'm not going to hand an 11-year-old, boy or girl, a gun except under strict adult supervision. Someone that age certainly won't be able to get a concealed carry permit! And in the personal accounts of child molestation or attempted child molestation that I have heard from people I know, the *oldest* first-time victim (or near-victim, in this case, actually) was 11 years old. One was younger than 5 when a long-time pattern of abuse began. This is anecdotal, I know, so take it with however much salt you deem necessary. (The other thing is that a lot of the abuse is perpetrated by family members, and you're not going to hand your own kid a gun with which to blow *you* away, now, are you? Or Grandpa? Or Uncle Bob?) The thing is, by the time a child can be trusted with the weapon to defend herself or himself, that child is out of the range of interest for true pedophiles. So your weapon suggestion isn't realistic
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are pedophiles. I would have to strongly disagree with this. This is sexist feminist crap! Right, and my wife wasn't really a victim of sexual assault, its just that she's a feminist liar. Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. But a casual statistical survey of my friends indicates that the official numbers look close. If there is anything sexist, it is the denial of the frequency with which women become perps. When Teri was working groups for Parents Annomous, she was the only one who asked if the mother did anything. That's not all children, so not all count as pedophile. Even if you run off and get stats for this you will have to show what the definition is. The definition is pretty plain, men who are sexually attracted to children. I can get the exact definition, but I know that attraction to youth 13 and over doesn't count as pedophile. Do 1 in 20 hetero males find 17 year old females attractive? I would argue the number is much higher than just 1 in 20. Doesn't count. What about 18 year old males who find 14 year old females attractive? Nope, its grown men and children. If we are talking about post pubecent males who find pre-pubesent females attractive, I seriously doubt the numbers would be high enough to make enven a percentage. Well, from my perspective, you won't accept anything that doesn't fit your presuppositions. If we further restrict it to only those who act on it then we would have even lower numbers. But, the reality is that a significant fraction of men and women endure the shame of being the victim of sexual abuse. You'll be surprised at how many people are willing to talk about it only when it is made safe for them. It is certain that pedifiles exist and they certainly have serious problems that society needs to find a solution for. But to sugest that so many men are like that is sexist IMO. Why? With your attitude, I'd be shocked if people would be likely to admit that they were victims to you. No hard feelings, but that type of denial is a good portion of why victims of sexual assault tend to keep their mouths shut. Dan M. You don't know me, or my friends, my experiences, or obviously my sympathies to those who have endured this type of crulty and evil. I seem to have struck an emotional chord with you and I appologize if that has made you angry at me, or hurt. I do realize that there are many who are abused and attacked. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am, however, suggesting that the stats are scued to make the situation (as far as male perpitrators) seem more widespread than it is. Not that it is not a problem mind you. There is also a distinct lack of data in these numbers about what part of society the perpitrators come from. Besides, if the numbers are so greate, wouldn't it seem wise for possible victems to carry a leathal weapon? The problem with your argument here, Jan, is that Dan was quoting stats about pedophiles, people who sexually assult children under a certain age. Say, 12 or 13? (Dan? What's the cutoff?) Sorry , it semed to me at that point we had moved away from the child molester area and into the sexual assult area. Are you going to hand an 11-year-old girl a gun and instruct her to carry it and blow away *only* someone who molests her? I'm not going to hand an 11-year-old, boy or girl, a gun except under strict adult supervision. Someone that age certainly won't be able to get a concealed carry permit! And in the personal accounts of child molestation or attempted child molestation that I have heard from people I know, the *oldest* first-time victim (or near-victim, in this case, actually) was 11 years old. One was younger than 5 when a long-time pattern of abuse began. This is anecdotal, I know, so take it with however much salt you deem necessary. (The other thing is that a lot of the abuse is perpetrated by family members, and you're not going to hand
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 09:26 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: Besides, if the numbers are so greate, wouldn't it seem wise for possible victems to carry a leathal weapon? Maybe I'm odd, but the idea that little children packing deadly force (would that be a machine gun or what) could improve anything doesn't seem plausible. And what if their younger sibling wanted to borrow the gun... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 09:33 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: Once you have had the experience of home invasion you would understand. No Gun = No Sleep. I choose sleep. Therapy? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without bricks tied to its head. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Both women and men have been surveyed and about 1 in 4 women have been the victim of a sexual assult, and about 1 in 7 men. Now, this is slightly old data, and I wouldn't be shocked if its down to 1 in 5 women or 1 in 10 men. snipped story of young man arrested for urinating outdoors (FWIW, this should NOT have been a sexual assault case IMO) If these numbers you are using include cases like my friends then the numbers are rediculous. No. Among my friends, the assaulters were: neighbor (middle-aged man, repeat offender)- children neighbor (old man, repeat offender) - children father (full adult) - son (child) husband - wife [now ex] (both adults) date (adult man) - adult woman brother (late teen) - sister (pre-pubescent) mother (adult) - daughter (pre-pubescent) I personally don't count kids playing doctor as assault, unless a child was forced (which does happen, but I have no idea of the stats on that). So among my sample, 5 out of 7 perpetrators were full adult males (meaning men over 25 yo); one was an adult woman (vicious, repeat offenses - FWIW, in my opinion she deserved death or permanent incarceration for what she did; there truly are men and women who do not deserve to *ever* have access to children or animals). Debbi __ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
William T Goodall wrote: On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 09:26 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: Besides, if the numbers are so greate, wouldn't it seem wise for possible victems to carry a leathal weapon? Maybe I'm odd, but the idea that little children packing deadly force (would that be a machine gun or what) could improve anything doesn't seem plausible. And what if their younger sibling wanted to borrow the gun... Given my previous post on the subject, plus having almost been burned by a 3-year-old that some idiot parent handed a sparkler to on July 4 in a park, I'd have to agree. (If I ever have any sort of July 4 party on my property that includes any sort of fireworks, I'm going to let everyone know in advance that handing any child under 6 a lit sparkler, or anything else lit, for that matter, will lead to *immediate* expulsion from the premises.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Once you have had the experience of home invasion you would understand. No Gun = No Sleep. I choose sleep. Therapy? grimace I'm harping here, but I have to say that I would not be able to sleep well either without knowing that I have the means to defend myself. You simply do not feel safe or secure when you've wakened to find a stranger standing in your bedroom doorway. (Well, when I had a boyfriend who was a martial arts practitioner as well as an experienced marksman, I *did* sleep quite securely... ;) ) Having been both assaulted and in severe accidents, I can personally say that therapy is quite effective for accident trauma, but residuals from assault continue for - well, ever. Not crippling, mind you, but definitely a factor in the back of your mind. Debbi Situation Assessment Maru __ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 09:26 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: Besides, if the numbers are so greate, wouldn't it seem wise for possible victems to carry a leathal weapon? Maybe I'm odd, but the idea that little children packing deadly force (would that be a machine gun or what) could improve anything doesn't seem plausible. And what if their younger sibling wanted to borrow the gun... Ar! that's not what I ment. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
On 15 Aug 2003 at 20:02, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Once you have had the experience of home invasion you would understand. No Gun = No Sleep. I choose sleep. Therapy? grimace I'm harping here, but I have to say that I would not be able to sleep well either without knowing that I have the means to defend myself. You simply do not feel safe or secure when you've wakened to find a stranger standing in your bedroom doorway. (Well, when I had a boyfriend who was a martial arts practitioner as well as an experienced marksman, I *did* sleep quite securely... ;) ) Having been both assaulted and in severe accidents, I can personally say that therapy is quite effective for accident trauma, but residuals from assault continue for - well, ever. Not crippling, mind you, but definitely a factor in the back of your mind. The problem is that guns are too accident prone. (and illegal over here). I'm happy with keeping a throwing blade within reach when I sleep. And yes, I've had run-ins with skinhead thugs...but I've never, admitedly, been on the worse end of the resulting injuries. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, August 15, 2003, at 09:33 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: Once you have had the experience of home invasion you would understand. No Gun = No Sleep. I choose sleep. Therapy? Just becouse I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get me. :) You might have trouble sleeping to if you had been through a couple of home invasions. No therapy in this world is going to stop them the next time. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Once you have had the experience of home invasion you would understand. No Gun = No Sleep. I choose sleep. Therapy? grimace I'm harping here, but I have to say that I would not be able to sleep well either without knowing that I have the means to defend myself. You simply do not feel safe or secure when you've wakened to find a stranger standing in your bedroom doorway. (Well, when I had a boyfriend who was a martial arts practitioner as well as an experienced marksman, I *did* sleep quite securely... ;) ) Having been both assaulted and in severe accidents, I can personally say that therapy is quite effective for accident trauma, but residuals from assault continue for - well, ever. Not crippling, mind you, but definitely a factor in the back of your mind. it's called ~learning~. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Aug 2003 at 20:02, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Once you have had the experience of home invasion you would understand. No Gun = No Sleep. I choose sleep. Therapy? grimace I'm harping here, but I have to say that I would not be able to sleep well either without knowing that I have the means to defend myself. You simply do not feel safe or secure when you've wakened to find a stranger standing in your bedroom doorway. (Well, when I had a boyfriend who was a martial arts practitioner as well as an experienced marksman, I *did* sleep quite securely... ;) ) Having been both assaulted and in severe accidents, I can personally say that therapy is quite effective for accident trauma, but residuals from assault continue for - well, ever. Not crippling, mind you, but definitely a factor in the back of your mind. The problem is that guns are too accident prone. (and illegal over here). I'm happy with keeping a throwing blade within reach when I sleep. And yes, I've had run-ins with skinhead thugs...but I've never, admitedly, been on the worse end of the resulting injuries. You say that guns are acident prone. But you don't have a gun do you? You havent had a gun around a lot, you don't know how they work or what features they have so that accidents don't happen do you? Why not give a for example. How does this accident happen? What if someone drops the gun? No, modern guns will not fire when droped. What if the triger catches on something? No, triger lock prevents that, along with a very heavy triger. What if someone walkes around their house with a fully loaded gun and puts their finger on the triger, slips, falls and quezes the tigger on accident? Then the gun would fire. But being recless like that is about the same as driving around at 120kph with cruise control on, bare foot with you feet drenched in baby oil. What about lawn mowers? people don't mow the lawn bare footed for a reason. What if a kid gets ahold of the gun? Well, they probably won't be able to pull back on the triger anyway. But if they could, why were they able to get to the gun in the first place? If you have kids do you put your car keys were they can get them? what about draino? If you have kids isn't every cabinet in your house kidproof? Don't you have every outlet covered? Well? I don't have kids, so my cabints are not locked, my outlets are not covered, and my gun is close enough to be usefull. Is anyone else tired of this topic yet?.. again? = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
Jan Coffey wrote: What if a kid gets ahold of the gun? Well, they probably won't be able to pull back on the triger anyway. But if they could, why were they able to get to the gun in the first place? If you have kids do you put your car keys were they can get them? what about draino? No Draino in the house right now, most cleaning supplies kept on shelves way over the kid's head, a few cleaning supplies lower down, but in cabinets with cabinet locks on them. Car keys are as accessible as my purse, which is very, sometimes, and not at all at others. He can't reach the deadbolts on the outside doors yet; as long as we keep those locked, he won't go outside on his own. (Well, he might get through the dog door at some point) If you have kids isn't every cabinet in your house kidproof? Don't you have every outlet covered? Most outlets covered. A few cabinets deliberately not kidproofed, so he has *something* to play with in the way of a cabinet. (Only thing stored in the unlocked cabinet is TP. There's a limit as to how much trouble he can get into with that, we figure.) The only uncovered outlets have large pieces of furniture in front of them, or are up high enough for him not to be able to reach anytime soon. Well? I don't have kids, so my cabints are not locked, my outlets are not covered, and my gun is close enough to be usefull. See, I can't rig a lock on a drawer or cabinet secure enough to be sure to keep him out until he's old enough to know not to mess with a gun, and still have it accessible enough to get to in the howevermany seconds I'd have if someone broke into my house. The only weapons we keep with that sort of accessibility right now are swords. And me cornered in my own house with a sword is probably *extremely* dangerous to whomever is cornering me. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Most Dangerous States http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm Nevada 7th most dangerous Texas 14th New York 24th You forgot to mention California is 13th. 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). Doug 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. That's not even get into the issue of showing corolation. Texas before concealed carry and Texas after would me a better test. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's an example of why I say mostly the argument is silly. People quote stats trying to compare things that are not at all alike. Just thought it needed to be repeated is all. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States--43 times
Dan Minette wrote: ... Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known. And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for households that have guns vs. households that don't. That's certainly a good way to do the study. But one should control for the amount of crime in the neighborhood as well, since it could well be that gun ownership is higher in high crime neighborhoods. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 11:15 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I also suggest that given that the same site lists Nevada and NewYork as 7 8 respectivly for previous years the statistical significance given their method of rating is rather low. OK Jan, I give. I'll use your standards to prove my point: Armed societies aren't more polite because I said so. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls The average homicides per 100,000 persons per year over 1998-2000 in the USA was 5.87. In England and Wales (where guns are pretty much unavailable) the rate was 1.50. In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. what about home invasion and rape? = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 02:11 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. -- William T Goodall _But_, just to complicate things a bit (I'm an agnostic in this particular debate) it has higher levels of violent crime overall (a fairly recent phenomenon), and a far more homogenous population, with massive underreporting of crimes committed against minorities (i.e. Arabs in France). It's a fact that Europe has lower homicide rates than the USA. If we accept that it actually is a more violent place overall then this is excellent evidence that gun control works to reduce homicide is it not? And I would rather be mugged or get some broken ribs or whatever than be shot dead. Persony I would rather have the lowlifes shooting eachother more and me not be the vitm of violent crime where the perp uses knives and clubs. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't you post it? Well, it's more than half a meg Again, I'd be happy to send it to you offlist. :) Just let me know what format you'd prefer. PDF = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for households that have guns vs. households that don't. How would a criminal know which household has a gun in it and which household does not? If guns in households could act as a deterrent at all (which I don't believe they can), a criminal would have to avoid all households just in case he randomly selected one that happened to have a gun in it - or carry a gun himself and avoid none. Obviously the first isn't happening, and neither is the second. A first order conclusion would be that some people having guns in their houses doesn't deter crime much if at all. (And don't argue that therefore everyone should have a gun in their house; the increase in accidental or spur-of-the-moment shootings would far outstrip the crime deterred.) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if you don't get shot at all. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
Robert Seeberger wrote: But there's more. Included in the 43 times of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly .[that] the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear. What I can say on the subject is that if someone attempts suicide, they're more likely to be successful if they use a gun. During the period when I was in high school, plus my first two years of college, and my sister was in junior high and high school, there were 2 suicides in our town that we were aware of, and 1 attempted suicide that we were aware of. The successful suicides were both with guns. I think I heard rumor of a third suicide during that time, but I don't know what was used. The 1 attempted suicide I know of did *not* use a gun, and he was found before he died, and they got him help. (This is a town that had less than 6000 people by the end of the period in question, and fewer than that at the beginning.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:13:01 EDT Atr the same time Texas was trying to keep more freedoms New York was inacting more and more strict laws which, while reducing the crime rate, aslo affected the freedoms of the law abiding citizen. Huh? When did New York become a police state? I believe what Jan is referring to is that it is HARD to get a gun here. Obtaining a permit to legally carry as a civilian in NYC is next to impossible unless you're related to someone. It's almost as difficult to get one in the rest of the state too. You won't hear me objecting, either. (Sorry Jan... we'll just have to agree to disagree.) :) I know how to load/aim/fire a rifle, shotgun, handgun and crossbow. I plan to teach my kids the same thing when they hit a certain age. But I won't allow firearms in my house. At some point a few months back I posted info on NY's gun laws. If I have it archived and you'd like me to repost, let me know. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Robert Seeberger wrote: Even more worthless is comparisons to British murder rates. Crime (non-firearm) is much more violently perpetrated in Britain as compared to America. ( In one stupid argument, I saw an American arguing with a Brit that our criminals were much more civilized LOL) Why does that make comparisons worthless. Murder = death. Are Brit murder victims more/less dead than ours? It just a completely different dynamic at work. Which makes comparisons more difficult, but not worthless by a long shot. IMO. Do either you or Gautam have a reference for the stuff on violence in Europe or a good starting point for a search. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Atr the same time Texas was trying to keep more freedoms New York was inacting more and more strict laws which, while reducing the crime rate, aslo affected the freedoms of the law abiding citizen. Huh? When did New York become a police state? So if there is any corolation, (which you have not shown) it would be that taking away peoples freedoms reduces crime. But we knew that already. Look for stats on Rusian crime during the harsh soviet years, or crime in Germany during the 3ed Rich. You can look for stats on Russian crime during the harsh Soviet years but good luck finding any since the Soviets never published them. In fact, there was plenty of crime in the Soviet Union, but public knowledge of it was suppressed. This is a false dichotomy. Taking people's freedoms away does not lessen crime. The same as with the Ashcroft delusion that suppressing our rights will somehow translate into better national security (esp. as Ashcroft is doing things he wanted to do anyway and merely using 9-11 as a pretext and excuse). You can fight crime without repression - and without arming every man, woman and child in the country. New York City is an example (within limits). Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 05:21 PM 8/11/03 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by any cause. Its a mountain made out of a molehill. Except the mountain is usually not fatal and the molehill is fatal. Detering crime is good but the cost may overwhelm the benefit if even a statistically small number of innocent individuals (in particular the owner or a family member is killed). After all the death rate in the mole hill is %100. If we had effective gun control then the death rate would go down for both the criminals and the victims. Then why not have mandatory swimming lessons for everyone? (I think you know what comes next. I'm gonna pull a Dan!) You are mangling the metaphor. The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And that's what I meant about people only seeing the extremes of the debate. Frex, locally, the other day a would-be robber tried to break into a house by climbing in a window. The house belonged to a retired state trooper, who first fired a warning shot. The robber kept coming, so the homeowner shot him in the leg. Crime stopped, criminal survived to be tried for his crime. Maybe he will even learn something from the experience. FWIW, if anyone knows where I can get a _Star Trek_-type phaser with a stun setting which will instantly stop anyone without causing permanent damage, I'd love to get one in preference to a firearm. Unfortunately, currently available less-than-lethal weapons are not always effectivesome people can still get up after being shot with a taser, and some people are naturally immune to pepper spraywhich means that when someone is coming at you with the apparent intent of doing you harm, about the only option for stopping him certainly and immediately is to use deadly force. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can kill someone in a split second of rage with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. I have never understood this. Many males have been in that Rage state, especialy dufing puberty. If you haven't, I can tell you it's rather scarry. The destructive urge is so greate that it must be released in some way. However, ones logical thinking abilities are not effected. You may become hyper angry, but sugesting that you also loose your cognative abilities to diferintiate right from wrong seems to me to be rediculous. Just becouse someone enters a rage state, does not mean that they do not understand that picking up a firearm and using it is going to result in anothers death. If the person has the where withal not to use the firearm in a non rage state, then the same is true for the rage state. Just becouse some people who have made the dicision to commit murder and decided to do it with a gun afterwards blame it on rage does not mean that anyone could slip into a state of rage and do something they would not otherwise do. It may be easier for such people to blame whatever they do in a rage on the state they were in and the endocrin coctail they were subject to, but it is not the state's fault. You still know what you are doing, and you still control your actions. This -fear of rage- argument for not keeping a gun about is BS. People who are not going to pick up a gun and kill someone out of anger, are not going to do it either if that anger turns to rage. People who are likely to pick up a gun and kill somone are going to find some other way to do it even if they can't have guns. Granted, they are less likely to succede. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States I wonder: if you looked at *areas* more likely to have guns in the household vs. *areas* less likely to have guns in the household, would you see a noticeable difference in the crime rate in those *areas*? That is an interesting, but seperate question. When I was talking about areas, I was thinking less of broad areas in the state, but the difficulty in getting data on units as small as neighborhoods. My reference is that the Woodlands, an unincorporated area of about 70k people, has 7 different official neighborhoods. So, with neighborhoods in the 5k-20k size, one would get a lot of neighborhoods in any metro area. How about rural vs. urban areas with each characteristic? (I think that gun deaths are less likely with the same %age of gun owners in rural areas than urban, but I may be wrong on that.) I would tend to agree. Guns that are used in hunting and are locked up, with the ammo locked separately take more conscious thought to use than a loaded gun in the drawer. One can kill someone in a split second of rage with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:04 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if you don't get shot at all. Sure, and you don't die in traffic accidents if you don't hit others cars. But more people are killed by cars every year than by firearms. And, many more people lose money in traffic accidents than from crimes every year. So, maybe we worry to much about crime in general. The real question is the relative merit of stopping crimes by arming oneself with a gun in the nightstand vs. the demerits of that action. Indeed, if you talk about assaults, both physical and sexual, one is much much more likely to be assaulted by a family member or a friend of the family than by a stranger. Incest is far far more prevalent than sexual assaults by strangers assaulting a woman on the street; and is overwhelmingly more likely than someone breaking into a house to rape a woman. I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are pedophiles. 10%-20% of women have been sexually assaulted as youth/children. Priests and kids make the headlines, but, as my wife Teri pointed out, odds are the numbers of priest perpetrators that make the press are low because they are much lower than one would expect if the fraction of perps among priests are the same as society in general. In short, look around at the guys you hang with, and if there are 30 of them, odds are that one has been or is a perpetrator In reality, these guys don't go to jail, its the folks who commit less serious crimes and are not good at hiding them or defending themselves that go to jail. In particular, the jails are full of drug offenders. Yet, the more serious perpetrators are protected by their victims, so the family doesn't have the shame associated with being a bad family. This makes the division between the criminal type and the law abiding citizen type much harder to define. I think we think of the criminal type as folks we don't know who are likely to hurt folks that they don't know, including us. The others are not really important. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States, now 43 times
- Original Message - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States, now 43 times Robert Seeberger wrote: ... Evaluating the 43 times fallacy ...a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. Most of the criticisms are valid, but there are a couple of flaws. (I've snipped all but the flaws.) ... How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. But this isn't fair either, since the intent of the criminal is unknown. The factor of 1000 is used as if all of these were prevented homicides. A large fraction were probably prevented burglaries, which should not be counted as high as human life. (Possessing a gun would have to foil MANY burglaries for that to be worth a sizable risk of killing a family member!) ... Reverse causation is a significant factor that does not lend itself to quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for a substantial number of additional homicides in the home. A person, such as a drug dealer, who is in fear for his life, will be more likely to have a firearm in his home than will an ordinary person. Put another way, if a person fears death he might arm himself and at the same time be at greater risk of being murdered. Thus Kellermann's correlation is strongly skewed away from normal defensive uses of firearms. His conclusion is thus no more valid than a finding that because fat people are more likely to have diet foods in their refrigerators we can conclude that diet foods cause obesity, or that because so many people die in hospitals we should conclude that hospitals cause premature death. Reverse causation thus further lowers the 0.006 value, but by an unknown amount. This is often called a confounding variable, one factor that increases the likelihood of both the cause (explanatory) and the effect (response) variables in a study. They seem to be proposing fear of death by homicide as a confounding variable, but it is not stated very clearly. One can successfully argue for some connection here. Certainly people at high risk of being killed by homicide tend to know this. And if one is afraid of homicide, one is more likely to shoot people without carefully verifying they are strangers, leading to more accidental killings of family members. But it doesn't seem to me to be a very strong effect, and it could well be countered by people in an armed household knowing enough not to do things like climb in the window when you forget your keys, rather than knock and wake everybody up. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually. There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others? Dr. Kleck's Answer Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences
Re: Most Dangerous States--43 times
At 12:36 AM 8/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: - Original Message - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:46 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States--43 times Dan Minette wrote: ... Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known. And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for households that have guns vs. households that don't. That's certainly a good way to do the study. But one should control for the amount of crime in the neighborhood as well, since it could well be that gun ownership is higher in high crime neighborhoods. I have no argument with that. But, my understanding of gun ownership around here is that its not really a neighborhood by neighborhood thing, but more of an area by area thing. Nonetheless, normalizing for % of gun ownership as a function of the crime rate in an area/neighborhood is a necessary control for a good study...at least it has to be done one way or another. Dan M. Would there be some relevance to legal gun ownership? Kevin T. - VRWC Armed, but not dangerous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if you don't get shot at all. Sure, and you don't die in traffic accidents if you don't hit others cars. But more people are killed by cars every year than by firearms. xponent Silly Arguments'R'Us Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:14 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. Actually, the statistics support the Clinton boom decreasing crime, and not much else. Well, maybe the end of the crack epidemic too. Yes, poverty doesn't cause crime in individual cases, but the crime rate is anti-correlated with the ecconomic prosperity of the lower income bracket. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One can kill someone in a split second of rage with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. I have never understood this. Many males have been in that Rage state, especialy dufing puberty. If you haven't, I can tell you it's rather scarry. The destructive urge is so greate that it must be released in some way. However, ones logical thinking abilities are not effected. Could you please give a cite on this? It contradicts much of what has bee You may become hyper angry, but sugesting that you also loose your cognative abilities to diferintiate right from wrong seems to me to be rediculous. People are still responsible for what they do. But, it is a fact of human behavior that some of the worst actions taken by people are taken on impulse...they are not planned. They cognative abilities aren't lost, but they are often surpressed. Just becouse someone enters a rage state, does not mean that they do not understand that picking up a firearm and using it is going to result in anothers death. There can be a very surrealistic component to actions taken on impulse. One of the factors involved with a gun is that is is much more surrealistic than stabbing someone with a knife. If the person has the where withal not to use the firearm in a non rage state, then the same is true for the rage state. Just becouse some people who have made the dicision to commit murder and decided to do it with a gun afterwards blame it on rage does not mean that anyone could slip into a state of rage and do something they would not otherwise do. Out of curiosity, before I go to the effort of looking up data, I'd like to ask if they would make any difference to you at all. From earlier discussions, it appears that you do not trust facts that contradict your viewpoint, particuarly if they are expressed in statistical terms. This -fear of rage- argument for not keeping a gun about is BS. Really, then why did one of my Girl Scout Junior troop members from a few years ago, get shot in the head at a graduation party by someone with a concealed weapon? There would be no reason in the world for him to plan to shoot her, he really wasn't angry at her to begin with. He didn't plan to shoot her between the eyes, it just sorta happened. Calling things you disagree with BS doesn't make it so. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States--43 times
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's certainly a good way to do the study. But one should control for the amount of crime in the neighborhood as well, since it could well be that gun ownership is higher in high crime neighborhoods. But it is also true that people's fear of crime does not always have much to do with any actual crime rate. A lot of people still think of New York City as dangerous even though it has one of the lowest crime rates of any large city in the USA, and has had for almost a decade. People who live in low-crime areas but hear or read or watch a lot about crime elsewhere may have an exaggerated fear of crime in their own areas. Conversely, basic human denial being what it is, people who live in more dangerous areas, in order to cope, may persuade themselves that things aren't really that bad. It's very hard to do reliable science outside the laboratory where you can control conditions, or at least when dealing with animate objects. I don't think anyone really knows the deterrent value of a handgun. BINGO! Now look at your own arguments in the same way. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:04 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Robert Seeberger wrote: Even more worthless is comparisons to British murder rates. Crime (non-firearm) is much more violently perpetrated in Britain as compared to America. ( In one stupid argument, I saw an American arguing with a Brit that our criminals were much more civilized LOL) On what basis do you make this claim Rob? On the basis that every time I participate in one of these GC discussions, I end up running into articles that discuss this. Its mainly news articles from Britain. For the life of me I can't think of any reason why Pommie criminals should be more violent than your home-grown ones. I can't either. But as I said earlier in the thread, it is a completely different dynamic. I think also that the same could be said about Gun Control if comparing New York and Texas. It looks like it might be working in New York, but I don't think it would work in Texas for a very very long time. The environments are far too different to make a direct comparison that is meaningful. I think crowding 23.7K people per sq. mi. is quite a different situation than what you see in Texas where we max out around 3K per sq. mi. That's an example of why I say mostly the argument is silly. People quote stats trying to compare things that are not at all alike. xponent The Vault Of Mindless Fellowship Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: And personally I would prefer they sober up and get a job rather than holding me up or robbing my house or place of business to buy drugs. Who has a suggestion for bringing about that state of affairs? We could extend the highly successful war on drugs to include alcohol!! Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:02 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States The 43 times claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state, Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known. And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for households that have guns vs. households that don't. I wonder: if you looked at *areas* more likely to have guns in the household vs. *areas* less likely to have guns in the household, would you see a noticeable difference in the crime rate in those *areas*? How about rural vs. urban areas with each characteristic? (I think that gun deaths are less likely with the same %age of gun owners in rural areas than urban, but I may be wrong on that.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:40 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls The average homicides per 100,000 persons per year over 1998-2000 in the USA was 5.87. In England and Wales (where guns are pretty much unavailable) the rate was 1.50. In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. what about home invasion and rape? You were the one who wanted homicide numbers because they are reliable. What is considered a homoside in GB compared to the US. Where is the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates? What about sidewalks and death from falling? = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by any cause. Its a mountain made out of a molehill. Except the mountain is usually not fatal and the molehill is fatal. Detering crime is good but the cost may overwhelm the benefit if even a statistically small number of innocent individuals (in particular the owner or a family member is killed). After all the death rate in the mole hill is %100. If we had effective gun control then the death rate would go down for both the criminals and the victims. You don't know that. You have not shown sufficient corolation to the stats to say that with any certinty. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It's there -- but look at the extension. It's an Excel spreadsheet that you have to download. My virus-protection software detected no virus. I have data now. I just don't feel like spending what little vertical time I have left today going over statistics. I'll be happy to send the .xls file to Jan if he requests. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States I wonder: if you looked at *areas* more likely to have guns in the household vs. *areas* less likely to have guns in the household, would you see a noticeable difference in the crime rate in those *areas*? That is an interesting, but seperate question. When I was talking about areas, I was thinking less of broad areas in the state, but the difficulty in getting data on units as small as neighborhoods. My reference is that the Woodlands, an unincorporated area of about 70k people, has 7 different official neighborhoods. So, with neighborhoods in the 5k-20k size, one would get a lot of neighborhoods in any metro area. How about rural vs. urban areas with each characteristic? (I think that gun deaths are less likely with the same %age of gun owners in rural areas than urban, but I may be wrong on that.) I would tend to agree. Guns that are used in hunting and are locked up, with the ammo locked separately take more conscious thought to use than a loaded gun in the drawer. One can kill someone in a split second of rage with the other, the former takes at least a bit of obvious effort. Well, there are 50 or 60 million gunowners in the US. Compared to those numbers the number of rage killings is pretty minute. Rage killings are still a small fraction of reported defense uses too. I think there is too much focus on the negative stats and probabilities and this blinds people to the reality of the situation. xponent More Facts Please Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:28:45 +0100 On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:44 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Homicides per 100,000, average per year from 1998-2000 Dallas TX - 20.42 New York NY - 8.77 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It is a spreadsheet. Are your MIME types set correctly? It's an Excel file. Jan, if you need it converted to Adobe Acrobat PDF format and sent to you offlist, let me know. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Most Dangerous States http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm Nevada 7th most dangerous Texas 14th New York 24th You forgot to mention California is 13th. 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). This is a bit off on a tangent but deserves to be seen. Evaluating the 43 times fallacy by David K. Felbeck Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners August 10, 2000 Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. This statistic is used regularly by anti self-protection groups which surely know better, and was even published recently without question in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this 43 times number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing else, the repeated use of this statistic demonstrates how a grossly inaccurate statement can become a truth with sufficient repetition by the compliant and non-critical media. The 43 times claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state, Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known. Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted. How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's 43 times is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude, The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned. In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst. This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the 43 times figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument. But there's more. Included in the 43 times of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly .[that] the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear. Yet they proceed anyway to include suicides, which comprise the vast majority of the deaths in this study, in their calculations. Omitting suicides further reduces the 43 times number from 0.043 to 0.006. Reverse causation is a significant factor that does not lend itself to quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for a substantial number of additional
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 11:15 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: I also suggest that given that the same site lists Nevada and NewYork as 7 8 respectivly for previous years the statistical significance given their method of rating is rather low. OK Jan, I give. I'll use your standards to prove my point: Armed societies aren't more polite because I said so. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls The average homicides per 100,000 persons per year over 1998-2000 in the USA was 5.87. In England and Wales (where guns are pretty much unavailable) the rate was 1.50. In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:03 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:02 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Most Dangerous States http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm Nevada 7th most dangerous Texas 14th New York 24th You forgot to mention California is 13th. 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). This is a bit off on a tangent but deserves to be seen. Evaluating the 43 times fallacy by David K. Felbeck Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners August 10, 2000 Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. This statistic is used regularly by anti self-protection groups which surely know better, and was even published recently without question in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this 43 times number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing else, the repeated use of this statistic demonstrates how a grossly inaccurate statement can become a truth with sufficient repetition by the compliant and non-critical media. The 43 times claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state, Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified.A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known. And the best way to show how this is true is to show how the % of people who are victims of crimes and own guns are much lower than the % of people who simply own guns. If owning guns is as much of a deterrant as this author suggests, than one should see a significantly lower crime rate for households that have guns vs. households that don't. That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by any cause. Its a mountain made out of a molehill. xponent Effort Better Placed Elsewhere Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:53:10 -0500 At 05:21 PM 8/11/03 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip FWIW, if anyone knows where I can get a _Star Trek_-type phaser with a stun setting which will instantly stop anyone without causing permanent damage, I'd love to get one in preference to a firearm. www.phasers.net Jon well they would have 'em if they existed. Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by any cause. Its a mountain made out of a molehill. Except the mountain is usually not fatal and the molehill is fatal. Detering crime is good but the cost may overwhelm the benefit if even a statistically small number of innocent individuals (in particular the owner or a family member is killed). After all the death rate in the mole hill is %100. If we had effective gun control then the death rate would go down for both the criminals and the victims. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:04 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 6:00 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And many more don't. Your chances of surviving are extremely greater if you don't get shot at all. Sure, and you don't die in traffic accidents if you don't hit others cars. But more people are killed by cars every year than by firearms. And, many more people lose money in traffic accidents than from crimes every year. So, maybe we worry to much about crime in general. The real question is the relative merit of stopping crimes by arming oneself with a gun in the nightstand vs. the demerits of that action. Indeed, if you talk about assaults, both physical and sexual, one is much much more likely to be assaulted by a family member or a friend of the family than by a stranger. Incest is far far more prevalent than sexual assaults by strangers assaulting a woman on the street; and is overwhelmingly more likely than someone breaking into a house to rape a woman. I realize that folks talk about these folks being monsters and needing to seriously punish them. But, if the numbers used by people working with victims and survivors are right, roughly 1 in 20 men (maybe 1 in 25) are pedophiles. I would have to strongly disagree with this. This is sexist feminist crap! Even if you run off and get stats for this you will have to show what the definition is. Do 1 in 20 hetero males find 17 year old females attractive? I would argue the number is much higher than just 1 in 20. What about 18 year old males who find 14 year old females attractive? Are these people pedifiles? Where do you draw the lines? If we are talking about post pubecent males who find pre-pubesent females attractive, I seriously doubt the numbers would be high enough to make enven a percentage. If we further restrict it to only those who act on it then we would have even lower numbers. It is certain that pedifiles exist and they certainly have serious problems that society needs to find a solution for. But to sugest that so many men are like that is sexist IMO. = _ 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
Re: Most Dangerous States
At 10:30 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 02:11 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. -- William T Goodall _But_, just to complicate things a bit (I'm an agnostic in this particular debate) it has higher levels of violent crime overall (a fairly recent phenomenon), and a far more homogenous population, with massive underreporting of crimes committed against minorities (i.e. Arabs in France). It's a fact that Europe has lower homicide rates than the USA. If we accept that it actually is a more violent place overall then this is excellent evidence that gun control works to reduce homicide is it not? And I would rather be mugged or get some broken ribs or whatever than be shot dead. Persony I would rather have the lowlifes shooting eachother more and me not be the vitm of violent crime where the perp uses knives and clubs. And personally I would prefer they sober up and get a job rather than holding me up or robbing my house or place of business to buy drugs. Who has a suggestion for bringing about that state of affairs? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:40 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls The average homicides per 100,000 persons per year over 1998-2000 in the USA was 5.87. In England and Wales (where guns are pretty much unavailable) the rate was 1.50. In fact the whole of Europe has much lower homicide rates than the USA, and much stricter gun control. what about home invasion and rape? You were the one who wanted homicide numbers because they are reliable. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
