Cobol - Re: "Right to bear arms"

Author

Re: "Right to bear arms"

LX-i

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

Peter Lacey wrote:
>
> One might also argue that the right to bear arms doesn't carry with it
> the right to USE arms.

Often, just the presence of a gun can deter criminal activity - and
states with concealed-carry policies have lower rates of violent crimes.
Check #4 on this link...

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-10, 3:55 pm

In article <5ctrt0hp92ks9v0oe0p8bu3he2eqbqsqpt@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:29:45 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>"4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons
>have lower crime rates than those that don't.
>
>True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private
>citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent
>lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39
>percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons.
>In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all
>right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more
>than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number
>of violent crimes committed with guns."
>
>That's NOT true. Let's look at New York, which has the strictest gun
>laws, compared to Texas, which has the loosest.

No, Mr Wagner... let's look at the 31 states that have 'shall issue' laws
and compare their numbers to the 29 states that don't, just as the
assertion made. A sampling of three, as you gave, may not reflect the
data found in a sampling of fifty, as one familiar with statistics might
be able to tell you.

DD

Robert Wagner

2005-01-11, 8:55 pm

On 7 Jan 2005 12:00:01 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <obctt0htiue8i5ifn0jjie33hectfdl6ek@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
>You appear to have the knowledge you attribute to the Cato Institute, Mr
>Wagner, and yet you have not demonstrated this honesty in your analysis.

It's too much work for an off-topic discussion. I did an analysis 15
years ago that found guns do more damage than they prevent. The
fallacy in pro-gun arguments is assuming everyone who shoots another
in a crime of passion is 'a criminal'. It's a circular argument. Of
course they're criminals a postiori (unless they can afford Johnny
Cochran). I argued they wouldn't have become criminals if there hadn't
been guns at hand.

Note that the Cato Institute says crimes *of violence* are lower in
states with liberal gun laws. Why exclude property crime? The
deterrent effect of a gun in the house is principally against
burglary. I'll tell you why. Because in sparsely populated states, the
ones that have liberal gun laws, most crime is against property; in
densely populated states, it's proportionally more against people. If
guns didn't exist, the violent crime rate in rural states would still
be lower than urban states.

There is no way of directly measuring crimes prevented by guns. By
definition, they're unreported. The best we can do is imply them by
comparing crimes that were reported against an otherwise identical
baseline place with no guns. How about another country? There are many
to choose from, because very few countries have as many guns as the
US. In 2000, the homicide rate for all E.U. countries was 1.7 per
100,000; for the US it was 5.9.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-01-12, 8:55 am

In article <obctt0htiue8i5ifn0jjie33hectfdl6ek@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 7 Jan 2005 05:21:28 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>As everyone familiar with statistics knows, correlation does not show
>causation. There is often a third variable, called a confounder, that
>causes both variables under investigation.

That was not contested, Mr Wagner; what was pointed out was your
attempting to refute statistics from fifty states with a sampling of
three.

>
>In this case there are two confounders: population density and age. It
>is well known that crime goes up as population density increases. It
>is also well known that most crimes are committed by young people.
>Declining crime rate over the last ten years is explained by aging of
>the demographic bubble called baby boomers.

That was not contested, Mr Wagner; what was pointed out... see above.

[snip]

>An honest correlation between gun law and crime would do a regression
>analysis on density and age, then discount their effect from each
>state's crime rate. Statisticians at the Cato Institute surely know
>that; they conveniently 'forgot' to do it right.

You appear to have the konowledge you attribute to the Cato Institute, Mr
Wagner, and yet you have not demonstrated this honesty in your analysis.

DD

Chuck Stevens

2005-01-12, 3:55 pm

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:a5ott09ovsh98isp34rbm3dqfa47ltemg8@
4ax.com...

> It's too much work for an off-topic discussion. I did an analysis 15
> years ago that found guns do more damage than they prevent. The
> fallacy in pro-gun arguments is assuming everyone who shoots another
> in a crime of passion is 'a criminal'. It's a circular argument. Of
> course they're criminals a postiori (unless they can afford Johnny
> Cochran). I argued they wouldn't have become criminals if there hadn't
> been guns at hand.

This isn't as irrelevant as it sounds: My brother-in-law grew up on
Trinidad where, I'm reasonably certain, private ownership of guns was
prohibited. He hung out in some pretty seedy dives in and around
Port-of-Spain in his youth, and he comment that "cutlass" (machete) fights
were about as common there as fist-fights were twenty years ago here in the
States. And just about everybody in the laboring classes had machetes;
they were a handy tool in both the rain forests and in agriculture.

Point being: Where there's a will, there's a way (and a weapon). *Guns*
don't kill people; it's *machetes* that kill people! ;-)

-Chuck Stevens

Sponsored Links