[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Kathy,
LOL...I used the example of statistics because YOU were accepting
statistics to support your point. Now you say we can play the little
game of statistics.
I think your hypothetical fails in a big way because we are not talking
about eliminating all criminal actions of assault nor eliminating all
accidental injury/deaths via all weapons.
But common sense tells us that murders and accidents WILL decrease if the
availability of guns is greatly decreased. Certainly assault weapons and
hand guns need to be considered. A total ban for the former and a tight
control on the latter. Many people are killed when someone with a gun
makes a snap decision under stress or intense anger/emotion. Without the
gun, these deaths would be reduced dramatically. Not eliminated but
reduced, IMO.
Same for accidental deaths. When is the last time you heard of someone
being killed accidentally by someone with a knife? Take those two kids
in Jonesboro last week. Instead of an arsenal of guns and ammo, give
them an arsenal of knives. Do you really think they could have or would
have inflicted the same carnage. A gun gives someone a false sense of
removal from the killing. And it's so easy to squeeze that trigger.
People who have guns in the home have a much higher chance of being
injured or killed by a gun.
The evidence seems to be quite clear when we compare our crime
rate/murder rate with those of other countries that the easy availability
of guns DOES have a major effect on our high numbers.
We can choose to hide behind hypotheticals of comparisons with deaths by
auto accident, non-gun incidents, tobacco, aclohol, drugs, etc. But,
IMO, that is simply ducking the issue and is a more dangerous game than
playing with statistics.
But that is just my opinion.
Bill
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 09:54:29 -0500 Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Bill lets try a hypothetical here, lets say there are no guns in the
>US
>but we still have a high murder rate, only the murders are now done
>with
>knives, do we then outlaw knife ownership? Then the killers turn to
>strangulation, do we outlaw anything you can strangle a person with?
>What if they use poison? Is that then taken out of our country? Do we
>get rid of all defensive weapons in the US, even to the military
>because
>they are now illegal? Where do you stop at Bill?
>
>Banning the guns is ineffective we already know that look at DC where
>your not allowed to own a gun, but look at their murder rate. When are
>people going to stop placing the blame on a object instead of facing
>the
>real problem the people who do these murders? That Bill is the problem
>I
>see, it's not the guns it's the people who get the guns and what they
>do
>with them.
>
>Just because you take away one way to murder doesn't mean murder
>suddenly stops, people are creative and they always come up with new
>ways to murder. Look at the case we just followed the Jones case, 4
>kids
>and a mother all stabbed to death, no gun there Bill. Yet they are all
>still dead. Look at the Simpson case two people killed yet again with
>a
>knife. Maybe it's people we should outlaw?
>
>Oh I can also say to you Bill crime has gone up in areas where there
>is
>a ban on guns how do you explain that? You see I can play the
>statistic
>game also. But that's all it is, a little numbers game.
>
>William J. Foristal wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
>>
>> Hi Kathy,
>>
>> Crime went down in a lot of other areas that did not legalize guns.
>I
>> wonder how they explain that one. :) Let's face it. We have the
>highest
>> number of guns per capita than most any other country in the world.
>And
>> our crime rate (particularly the murder rate) is one of the highest
>in
>> the world. Especially when you consider crimes committed by
>citizens
>> against fellow citizens.
>>
>> IMO, anyone who argues that these two things are not related is
>simply
>> kidding themselves. I'm not saying that total gun control or a ban
>on
>> gun ownership should be enacted. But I DO think some common sense
>> controls need to be in place. Many of them have been enacted
>already,
>> but typically due to the effects of a strong gun lobby, the
>legislation
>> is so watered down by the time it is passed that it has little or no
>> effect.
>>
>> Until we wake up to the real problem we will continue to have
>incidents
>> like the one in Jonesboro, IMO.
>--
>Kathy E
>"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and
>tomorrow
>isn't looking too good for you either"
>http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
>http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
