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
--- 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
-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
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...
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
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
-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.
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]
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
___
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
- 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
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
- 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
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
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
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,
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
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
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/
___
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,
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
--- 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
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
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.
--- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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*
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
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.
--- 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
--- 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
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,
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
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
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
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
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 :
--- 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
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
--- 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
--- 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
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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
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
--- 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
--- 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.
=
_
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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
--- [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
- 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
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
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
--- 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
--- [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
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
- 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
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
- 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
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
- 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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
