Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 16:04, Rich Johnson was heard to say:
> Violent crime rates in MA are lower than in neighboring NY.
Which ignores the other four states which border MA, all closer to the
core of Mass crime, Boston, all of which have much more liberal
firearms laws including Vermont which has no state laws restricting
firearms ownership. Carry a machinegun concealed? Fine in Vermont. It
also has one of, if not the lowest, crime rates in the entire
country. New Hampshire, a stone's throw from Boston, has greater
restrictions on firearms ownership, a higher crime rate, but still
one of the lowest in the entire country.
Since the crime rates are so substantially different from one side of
an imaginary line to another, there is something more than just
geography at work. It's not like population density drops instantly
the moment one crosses the border.
> Just curious. IYO, what state has the "most rational" private
> firearms ownership policies?
Vermont comes close, but one still has to deal with all the bogus
Federal requirements. Which means that, if "availability" had any
effect on crime rates, would mean it would have the highest crime
rate. But no, it's the lowest.
I know it's easy to equate availability with misuse, but if you would
bother to read the statistical analysis that have been posted to this
thread over and over, you would understand your error.
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-----