#-----Original Message-----
#From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net [mailto:owner-dakota-
#truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of jon@dakota-truck.net
#Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:23 PM
#To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
#Subject: (OT) Re: DML: window = smashed
#
#
#"Pindell, Timothy" <TPindell@otterbein.edu> wrote:
#[...]
#: Is the cause of the low crime rate due to people actually defending
#: themselves and killing criminals in the act, or is it the
#: weapon-friendly nature of the municipality that gives criminals cause
to
#: consider a target they perceive as weaker? What is the ratio of
#: criminals killed per attempted felony? Has the law increased the
number
#: of firearms used in home defense, or just increased the perception by
#: criminals that a firearm may be present? I'm not trying to be a jerk.
#: As a gun-owner myself, I just find the topic interesting.
#
#
# Its the perception. As a rule, criminals prefer easy targets.
#They're lazy, and cowards - which is why they are criminals in the
#first place... Why burglarize a home when you know there's at least
#one gun waiting for you inside? Easier to go one town over, or find
#a house with a Kerry/Edwards sign and rob that one instead. ;-)
#Taken to a larger scale, its not merely a matter of shifting crime
#away to other areas - if the entire country was well armed, the
#criminals would be inclined to find another line of work.
#
# That said, personally owned firearms are (sucessfully) used
#somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 million times per year in
#self defense in the United States. BTW, the vast majority of these
#incidents don't result in killing the criminal, or even pulling the
#trigger for that matter - when the steel clears the gunleather,
#the bad guys tend to make themselves scarce. ;-)
#
# So, it really works out to be a little bit of both. The threat
#of armed resistance will cause criminals to target people and
#locations which they calculate to be "low risk". If they guess
#wrong, and a firearm is indeed present, it serves to not only
#alleviate the immediate threat, but to curb future ones (either
#by taking this particular criminal out of circulation [via
#the court system or "natural selection"] or by sowing more doubt
#into the criminal community.)
#
#
# (BTW, if this is likely to turn into a lengthy thread, we should
#probably think about jumping over to the dmlofftopic group.)
#
#--
# -Jon-
#
# .-- Jon Steiger ---- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com --.
# | 1970 Barracuda - 1990 Dakota 'vert - 1992 Ram 4x4 - 1996 Dakota |
# | 1996 Intruder 1400 - 1996 Kolb FireFly - 2001 Ram QC 3500 CTD |
# `------------------------------------ http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
Good idea to take it off-topic. I'll cross-post this for continuity and
take all following replies directly to the off-topic list.
So...What does the Kennesaw ordinance do that the 2nd Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution could not do? Perhaps the 2nd amendment could not
supply notoriety.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 10:04:31 EST