Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 10:54, email@example.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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----