[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]

Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 03 May 2006 10:54, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com was heard to 
> And if the neighbourhood thief is breaking into your home, he is
> more likely to be armed with a gun if he thinks you probably are.
> Thus do fears create expectations.

Actually no. That is a demonstrably false statement.

If you were to read the statistical analysis of effects of changing 
laws, both towards greater prohibition and towards greater easy of 
owning private firearms, you would see that there the rate of "hot" 
break-ins, that is a thief entering the home when someone is at home, 
drop quickly and substantially any time private firearms ownership is 
eased, and rise any time it's prohibited.

http://www.johnrlott.com/ is an easier URL than any link to Amazon.

In interviews, thieves in prison state that they spend a great deal of 
time casing a house if they have any concern that the owner might be 
armed, to make sure that if they do break in it's only when they are 
away. It seems that thieves tend to do cost/benefit analysis. 
Something about not wanting to die for a cheap TV set or DVD player.

Ya see, in almost every state in America, if a thief breaks into your 
home they are assumed to be prepared to commit violent assault and 
therefore it is justifiable "self defense" to kill them. 
Massachusetts is a little bit different, because if they only have a 
baseball bat, then shooting them is considered "excessive force" 
unless they are already beating you to death. That's why the crime 
rate in Massachusetts is higher than in any of the states surrounding 
it where private firearms ownership is both easier and more rational.

England, since the banning of private firearms, has seen "hot" 
break-ins go through the proverbial roof. There is simply less risk.


- -- 
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central 
planning advocates in American history

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: