RE: wow - is a "shadow" politician still a politician?

["Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>]

Hi Brian,

I'm actually not opposed to hunting and other forms of sports shooting.
Everyone should have a hobby.

What I really hate is government welfare programs.  Here's what is going on
a couple of miles from my house on Cape Cod:

   Federal Judge Rules that Cape Cod Pheasant Stocking Program Is Unlawful
   http://tinyurl.com/2nndyg

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Loe [mailto:knobdy () gmail com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:38 PM
To: rms () computerbytesman com
Cc: funsec
Subject: Re: [funsec] wow - is a "shadow" politician still a politician?

On 8/28/07, rms () computerbytesman com <rms () computerbytesman com> wrote:
> Let me re-ask a more specific security question:  How many more guns 
> are going to be needed in private hands in order to reduce the murder 
> rate in the U.S from its current level of ~5.5 murders per 100,000 
> people to the U.K. murder rate of ~1.6 murders per 100,000 people?
>
> Richard

Okay, let me restate the obvious, in most cases the two things (guns and
murders) do not correlate. I'll TRY to explain this, but it will take an
open mind to understand, not because you have to take a leap of faith to
"get it" but because if you're already a gun-hater you simply won't believe
the common sense behind it, just like you wouldn't believe any facts that
might back it up:

The highest murder rates in the United States are in those cities where
firearms, and specifically handguns, are banned. Therefore, people who obey
the law are not able to defend themselves. Also in those cities there are
large numbers of gangs, poor people and illegals. Therefore, most of the
murder rate is made up of bad-guy-on-bad-guy murders who have no issues with
breaking the law and possessing firearms. The gun ownership rate in these
cities is virtually ALL criminal.

Further, to back up the argument that there really isn't any correlation
here, most privately held guns are not defensive weapons but hunting and
sport firearms. Sure, they can be used for self defense but those who own
them do not have that mindset (I've never heard of a bad guy even being
threatened by a 30 thousand dollar shotgun). AND, those who do own hunting
arms are likely to own several of them. My step dad, for instance, was an
avid hunter. He owned 3 or
4 rifles for the different game he hunted as well as several shotguns for
the birds he hunted. So he alone had somewhere close to 10 guns. I have
several friends who own over 20 guns. I currently own 8 guns.
Virtually none of these guns were bought for self-defense or used in that
manner (2 of mine are hunting guns, 3 are target guns, 1 is just hella fun
to shoot). So if we HAD to correlate gun ownership rates to murder by
firearm rates we'd first have to find out how many individuals legally own
self-defense firearms and who legally carry them in the US versus those in
the UK who do the same <wink wink>.

So, again, who cares? They're not supposed to have guns and if gun bans - or
gun laws in general, for that matter - actually worked then the UK murder by
firearms rate would be ZERO and I would actually have something to account
for in regards to my position on guns. Rephrasing the question doesn't
change the answer in any way, shape or form.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.