wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> <shempmcgurk@> wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@>
wrote:
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason this is off the mark is that in London during
the
> > > > > Victorian era virtually everyone owned a handgun...it was
a
> > > > > common as owning a TV is today. And practically everyone
> > > > > carried it with
> > > > > them, just as in the Wild West.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's even more amazing is that despite an almost
universal
> > > > > ownership of guns, the murder rate by guns in London at
that
> > > > > time was almost next to nothing...maybe one or two a year.
> > > >
> > > > Except by Jack the Ripper, of course...
> > >
> > > Not to mention that Shemp's stats are bullshit.
> > > In Victorian London, 70% of the population could
> > > barely afford clothes and food, much less a gun.
> > > As usual, he's talking about the rich as if they
> > > were the only ones who 'counted.'
> >
> > Although I can't find statistics that back up or refute
my "almost
> > universal ownership of guns" statement, I remember reading
that.
> > But I'll stand corrected until I am able to come up with
> > something.
>
> If you read it recently, Shemp, it's almost certainly
> related to a disinformation campaign being carried
> out by the NRA in conjunction with a show at their
> museum:
>
> http://nra.nationalfirearms.museum/whats%20new/default.asp
>
> I've seen several references to this made-up statistic
> on gun ownership in Victorian times, all traceable
> back to the NRA.
>
> I don't really want to get into a protracted discussion
> about either guns or the NRA. I got involved only because
> your statistic was obviously false given the levels of
> poverty in England in the Victorian era. We are talking
> about an age where poverty and starvation was rampant
> and in which large percentages of the population didn't
> have anything to *eat*, man.
Well, if you're right, then show some stats or facts to back
yourself up.
At least I showed something in terms of facts...and this professor
Malcolm: she does NOT represent the NRA.
If any of these people had
> a gun, they would have been able to sell it at that time
> for enough money to feed their family for several months.
>
> I think you're being had by people who want to promote
> the idea that gun ownership does not equate crime. If
> that's what they wanted to prove, they had to go no
> further than mondern-day Canada. There was no need to
> make up statistics about Victorian England.
>
You're right...because in many categories the crime rate in Canada
is HIGHER than in the U.S....and it's not the NRA saying this but
the most biased-towards-Canada source than there could be: the
Canadian government:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
