This should make some gun enthusiasts crazy

[georgerussia 0]

Actually translate.google.com can translate PDF documents too, so it is pretty simple to verify. Page 3, as I said.

I will accept your apology.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There are 100+ countries; YOUR graph only covered 9 "selected countries", so again your claim is pretty groundless. Still even this selection was enough to make your argument invalid.

There are 200+ countries. But of the major nations, you're number 2. Deny it as much as you like - it gives us all a laugh.

[georgerussia 0]

Your list includes only FOUR out of ten largest countries by population. It also includes Spain (#28), Canada (#36), Australia (#51) and so on.

I will accept your apology.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Now will you agree that individuals have both used a gun to both commit and to prevent crimes?

See, the last one is a bit trickier. I will agree that individuals have used guns to prevent crimes from escalating.

See, if a guy with a knife walks up to me and demands money, that would be attempted armed robbery, which is already a crime. If I brandish a firearm and he takes off, I cannot claim that the brandishing of the firearm prevented a crime, at most I can claim I prevented a crime from escalating.

I could conceivably agree that some people maybe never committed a crime specifically out of fear for an individual using a firearm. But, that would be next to impossible to prove.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Now will you agree that individuals have both used a gun to both commit and to prevent crimes?

See, the last one is a bit trickier. I will agree that individuals have used guns to prevent crimes from escalating.

See, if a guy with a knife walks up to me and demands money, that would be attempted armed robbery, which is already a crime. If I brandish a firearm and he takes off, I cannot claim that the brandishing of the firearm prevented a crime, at most I can claim I prevented a crime from escalating.

I could conceivably agree that some people maybe never committed a crime specifically out of fear for an individual using a firearm. But, that would be next to impossible to prove.

To your last point

A few years after FL became a shall issue state, someone, (I dont remember if it was a reporter or researcher) did a series of interviews with people in prisons. They specifically asked them about thier (the criminals) changes in attitudes to commiting some crimes after the state had implimented the changes. The responces were interesting and addressed your point.

I will see if I can find that out there some where and post. It has been a while. But I will look

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

To your last point

A few years after FL became a shall issue state, someone, (I dont remember if it was a reporter or researcher) did a series of interviews with people in prisons. They specifically asked them about thier (the criminals) changes in attitudes to commiting some crimes after the state had implimented the changes. The responces were interesting and addressed your point.

I will see if I can find that out there some where and post. It has been a while. But I will look

Problem is they are in jail. So hard to prove they stopped committing crimes. More likely that they shifted to different crime.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

To your last point

A few years after FL became a shall issue state, someone, (I dont remember if it was a reporter or researcher) did a series of interviews with people in prisons. They specifically asked them about thier (the criminals) changes in attitudes to commiting some crimes after the state had implimented the changes. The responces were interesting and addressed your point.

I will see if I can find that out there some where and post. It has been a while. But I will look

Problem is they are in jail. So hard to prove they stopped committing crimes. More likely that they shifted to different crime.

Ya
and as you may have noticed I made no assurtions as to what they said, only that is did address your point in some way. I have been looking at bit but it was a long time ago so I dont know what I may find

But your point is well taken

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Dodatt 0]

Um, ???????
I like guns and everyone that jumped off the WTC should get an honorary D-license and some kind of BASE jumper award. rhys would probably be able to track down their names and gain credibility in 911 WTC information gathering and investigation.

How’s that?

I like to stay productive in posts, you know

[rushmc 18]

I have found this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/20/DI2007042001760.html

From an inteveiw with John Lott

Quote

Evans City, Pa.: I don't think many criminals really worry about whether their intended victim has a gun or not. It may impact on how they go about their criminal activity. If I'm a robber with a gun, I would look to catch the victim by surprise. I can see where it could stop a home invasion situation but not many others. For the 2 million instances a year where criminals are deterred by victims having guns, are these cases of just stupid extra stupid criminals? It seems like the intended victim needs time to be ready to deter a crime.

John R. Lott: Criminals are motivated by self-preservation, and handguns can therefore be a deterrent. When I was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, I must have read a thousand transcripts of court cases and time after time it was clear that criminals went after victims that they thought would be the weakest and would give them the least trouble.

While you note the possibility of deterrence regarding the home, let me make it explicit by pointing to the different rates of so-called "hot burglaries," where a resident is at home when a criminal strikes. In Britain, which has tough gun control laws and bans, almost half of all burglaries are "hot burglaries." By contrast, the U.S., with laxer restrictions, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13 percent. Criminals are not just behaving differently by accident. Convicted American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than they are about running into the police. The fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot."

The point is not much different for other crimes. In my books, I find that letting people defend themselves causes some criminals to leave the area, others to switch to crimes where they don't come into contact with victims (switching from robbery to larceny), and some to stop committing crime.

As to your last point, the proof is in seeing what actually happens and the National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics finds that having a gun is by far the safest course of action.

and his survey

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/NCVS.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Criminals are motivated by self-preservation

I think his starting premise is wrong. I think criminals, like most other people in this world are motivated by greed, by money.

Quote

causes some criminals to leave the area, others to switch to crimes where they don't come into contact with victims (switching from robbery to larceny), and some to stop committing crime.

His last assertion is impossible to prove, no matter how many books he writes. I agree that the first two are likely.

[Ron 7]

Quote

See, the last one is a bit trickier. I will agree that individuals have used guns to prevent crimes from escalating.

OK, but there are crimes that are committed without weapons as well.

Quote

See, if a guy with a knife walks up to me and demands money, that would be attempted armed robbery, which is already a crime.

So in both cases a weapon can only aid the person in either committing a crime, or helping to prevent the crime.

The point being that weapons don't actually do anything but aid the person who wields it. A bad person can do more damage, and a good person can defend better.

Quote

I could conceivably agree that some people maybe never committed a crime specifically out of fear for an individual using a firearm. But, that would be next to impossible to prove.

But data exists that can be used to support that position.

From Rush's link:

"Convicted American felons reveal in surveys that they are much more worried about armed victims than they are about running into the police."

And I could agree that a person who had a gun committed a crime they would not have without the weapon... But that would be equally as impossible to prove.

The point of my position is that CRIMINALS should be punished, not law abiding citizens.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Making up more "facts", don't you?

I have still provided more than you. And backed my positions up with more than just rants... Which is also better than you.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Your list includes only FOUR out of ten largest countries by population. It also includes Spain (#28), Canada (#36), Australia (#51) and so on.

I will accept your apology.

I apologize for your lack of understanding, and your shame for the motherland.

[kallend 1,628]

Quote

I have found this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/20/DI2007042001760.html

From an inteveiw with John Lott

Ha ha. That guy discredited himself and his survey in a major way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Criminals are motivated by self-preservation

I think his starting premise is wrong. I think criminals, like most other people in this world are motivated by greed, by money.

Those are not in conflict. Does a mugger go after the football player, or the person who can't resist? Predators throughout nature go for the easier pickings because attacks are risky, and the worst case scenarios involve dying. The white shark does one attack, and then waits for the prey to bleed to death. The various big cats have to be very wary of getting kicked in the head. Muggers have the benefit of human intelligence, which helps them plan, but also informs them of even more threats. So they balance reward and risk.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I have found this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/20/DI2007042001760.html

From an inteveiw with John Lott

Ha ha. That guy discredited himself and his survey in a major way.

You should know huh

In any event. Maybe you should follow up befor you point fingers

Quote

Fradulent website and e-mail sender Owns up to Deceiving people.

During 2003 a website that pretended to be by me was set up by Eyebeam Inc. and by Jonah Perretti. Among other things the website sent out e-mails claiming that I opposed legislation to restrict suits against gun makers. I will probably be writing more on this later, but I wanted to post this now that a final settlement has been reached:


“The AskJohnLott.org site was created by The Eyebeam Atelier, Inc. This site was never associated, endorsed or otherwise affiliated with John R. Lott, Jr. E-mail sent from the AskJohnLott.org domain that was identified as coming from Lott was also never associated, endorsed or otherwise affiliated with John R. Lott, Jr. Eyebeam deeply regrets any confusion and offers a formal apology to John R. Lott, Jr. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Jonah Peretti for Eyebeam
Director of Research and Development”
For those interested, a history of the website can be found here. There were some internet bloggers who tried to defend the website on various grounds, but obviously Eyebeam Inc. and Jonah Perretti found it necessary to apologize for the confusion that their website had created.

This website was taken down during the spring of 2004.

Huh, imagine that John?

Can you claim the same?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I have still provided more than you

As usual... claims, claims... and no proof.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I apologize for your lack of understanding, and your shame for the motherland.

Interesting how people have no problems to make something up to apologize for, but have a problem apologizing for something they indeed said which was proven false.

Speaks a lot about honesty and integrity of one's character though.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 1,628]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have found this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/04/20/DI2007042001760.html

From an inteveiw with John Lott

Ha ha. That guy discredited himself and his survey in a major way.

You should know huh

In any event. Maybe you should follow up befor you point fingers

Quote

Fradulent website and e-mail sender Owns up to Deceiving people.

During 2003 a website that pretended to be by me was set up by Eyebeam Inc. and by Jonah Perretti. Among other things the website sent out e-mails claiming that I opposed legislation to restrict suits against gun makers. I will probably be writing more on this later, but I wanted to post this now that a final settlement has been reached:


“The AskJohnLott.org site was created by The Eyebeam Atelier, Inc. This site was never associated, endorsed or otherwise affiliated with John R. Lott, Jr. E-mail sent from the AskJohnLott.org domain that was identified as coming from Lott was also never associated, endorsed or otherwise affiliated with John R. Lott, Jr. Eyebeam deeply regrets any confusion and offers a formal apology to John R. Lott, Jr. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Jonah Peretti for Eyebeam
Director of Research and Development”
For those interested, a history of the website can be found here. There were some internet bloggers who tried to defend the website on various grounds, but obviously Eyebeam Inc. and Jonah Perretti found it necessary to apologize for the confusion that their website had created.

This website was taken down during the spring of 2004.

Not what I was referring to. The dog ate Mary's hard drive with all her his "survey" data on it so no-one could check it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I apologize for your lack of understanding, and your shame for the motherland.

Interesting how people have no problems to make something up to apologize for, but have a problem apologizing for something they indeed said which was proven false.

Speaks a lot about honesty and integrity of one's character though.

I'll repeat that apology.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I'll repeat that apology.

No need, I already understood how much your opinion worth. Will get me through Bay Bridge toll if I add extra $4.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Not what I was referring to. The dog ate Mary's hard drive with all her his "survey" data on it so no-one could check it.

Hey, it worked for CRU.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Those are not in conflict. Does a mugger go after the football player, or the person who can't resist?

It depends. For example, if a football player wears expensive jewelry, a criminal would likely to go after him, and skip an old lady in a wheelchair.

Even comparing only gun ownership, the situation is not as easy as you tried to suggest it is. For example, if none of them has a gun, but the criminal does, it makes no big difference to the criminal in his target selection. Same result if both of them have guns.

Quote

Predators throughout nature go for the easier pickings because attacks are risky, and the worst case scenarios involve dying.

If this was true, all the crime would be would be non-violent. While it is still possible to get hurt selling drugs or committing burglaries, the chance is significantly less than doing armed robberies.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Not what I was referring to. The dog ate Mary's hard drive with all her his "survey" data on it so no-one could check it.

Hey, it worked for CRU.

He has not followed up on that one either (I suspect there may be another he may not bring up)

The loss of his hard drive was verified by others. Then with help, he rebuilt the data which is now available on his web site. But, that info is so today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,628]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not what I was referring to. The dog ate Mary's hard drive with all her his "survey" data on it so no-one could check it.

Hey, it worked for CRU.

He has not followed up on that one either (I suspect there may be another he may not bring up)

The loss of his hard drive was verified by others. Then with help, he rebuilt the data which is now available on his web site. But, that info is so today

Oh, yes, Mary's Lott's web site. What a reliable source of rebuilt _ peer reviewed believable information.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.