In article , "M. Eglestone"
 wrote:

> Jim McCulloch wrote:
> > 
> > I that case, Sam, although it saddens me, I have to say you were being
> > deliberately dishonest, trying to pawn off a quote as supporting Kleck's,
> > position, when in fact it you knew very well that the quote in question
> > was an integral part of a presentation of evidence that Kleck's
> > methodology is fatally flawed.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > --Jim McCulloch
> ======================================================================
> 
>  Jim, does it really make ANY difference to anyone if Kleck was right
> or wrong? 

Yes, it does. If he is right, or mostly right, gun ownership reduces
crime.  If he is wrong, or mostly wrong, it does not. So, if you care
about reducing crime, it's important to know whether he is right or
wrong.  If you don't care about reducing crime, then you have no reason to
care about Kleck's figures.

>I know for a fact that it makes no difference to me. 

No problem, Mike.

>I'll
> own and use as many guns as I feel are necessary, and I don't give a
> fuzzy rats butt about any statistics or poll takers opinions. The only
> opinion that counts in my house is MINE!

Well, Mike, there is a difference between opinion and truth--at least
outside of your house there is.

>  The public is going to continue to buy guns no matter what the laws
> say. The public will continue to USE guns no matter what the laws say.
> If you don't believe that, change the word guns to drugs and read the
> sentence again.

You are quite correct.  But Sam is being untruthful, and knows it, when he
says I am for confiscation of guns, or for prohibiting people from buying
them.  The analogy with drugs is, I believe, a good one.  I oppose the use
of drugs.  I also oppose the war on drugs, because that is not how you
reduce drug use. Now anyone can see that it is illogical, if I say that I
oppose the use of drugs, to jump to the conclusion that I think the best
way to deal with the drug problem is to criminalize drugs.  But people
like Sam, not strong in the logic department, are convinced that I want to
confiscate guns because I am opposed to the glorification of gun
violence.  

If there were a drug to make people logical I'd modify my stance, and
suggest that Sam take it.

Drugs increase or decrease in use almost entirely on the basis of
popularity, not the laws. So does gun use.  Glorification of gun use, some
of it by right-wing paranoid gun-goon nutballs, is perhaps responsible for
a small part of the popularity of gun use, but a far greater element in
the popularity of gun use can be seen at your local movie multiplex, in
about 6 out of 10 box office hits, where we see extremely intense, but
extremely unrealistic, depictions of extraordinary mayhem, gore, and
violence, more in a single evening than any ten people will normally see
in a lifetime.

As often as not, this mayhem is committed by the good guy.  What seems to
set me at odds with the tx.guns crowd, is that I raise the question of
whether the good guy is altogether justified, or remains the good guy at
all, both in some real and in some hypothetical scenarios of gun use that
have been raised since I have been posting here. 

Best regards

--Jim McCulloch