In the state of Pennsylvania, a "shall issue" law was passed in 1989, but the city of Philadelphia was exempted from it. Comparing figures with Pittsburgh show that murder rates are generally higher in Philadelphia than in Pittsburgh, but the passage of a law giving citizens the right to get permits to carry concealed weapons did not have the positive effect posited by John Lott. In fact, the Pittsburgh murder rate was declining prior to the passage of the law, then increased slightly. In Philadelphia, the murder rate had been increasing, then it leveled off despite the fact that the new law did not apply in that city. The violent crime statistics for the same two counties show the same pattern.

The "first-class city" restriction applied to licence issuance in Philadelphia, it did not make permits issued elsewhere in the state (such as in the adjoining suburban counties) invalid in Philadelphia. And after observing the effect of the shall-issue law in the rest of the Commonwealth, the legislature made its application uniform thoughout Pennsylvania...even though Philadelphia still seriously drags its feet in complying with issuances.

A pretty thin concession, and damned little agreement. What I don't conceed is your original assertion that the number of legal guns and the amount of gun crime are correlated.

Spexx, taken together, the entirety of the two sentences of MaggieL's statement are by no means an agreement. They are a statement that your position is an impossible one. In this world anyway.

No, she agrees, and her assessment that it is impossible is merely her pessimistic view. Some people thought that putting a man on the moon would be impossible. They were wrong - perhaps Maggie will be wrong. I, for one, will not be so presumptuous, arrogant, or closed minded to say that it absolutely *will* or *won't* happen, only that it *is* possible.

The freedom contained in Jesus' teaching of forgiveness, wrote the German philosopher Hannah Arendt, is the freedom from vengeance, which includes both doer and sufferer in the relentless automatism of the action process, which by itself need never come to an end.

Strong stuff.

A deeply flawed analogy.

The key to the success of the lunar exploration program was the use of fail-safe design; if you failed to achieve your design intention the result should be as harmless as possible. The result of a failure of a legal effort to eliminate all firearms would be that only criminals would be armed. That's not an acceptable outcome.

Nor do I wish to return to the medivial days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all.

What I said was what I meant...and lifting part of the posting out of context is lame. I say for the case ${x}=firearms, the proposition is unacheivable, and even if it were achievable it's not desirable.

Gwennie has a bumper sticker that says "You can't beat a woman who shoots." So true.

:notworthy

Also:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Mahatma Gandhi

I can never tell when people are being sarcastic.
You cannot undo technology.
So, if you did actually dig up Merlin and release him from his crystal chamber, burn the Bill of Rights and get rid of the existing guns in the ensuing police state.
After that, within three hours, anyone knowing someone with plans, and a milling machine, would have their gun back. I would be one of them.
It is a very simplistic, and fascist, fantasy.

Not true.

MaggieL, I admire your patience and your intellect, even though your opinions coincide with mine only sometimes. But your tendency to make illogical conclusions like the one above, and others just like it, and then use them as though they were facts, misrepresents cause and effect. You frequently misuse causation and correlation. This is a typical example, and it weakens your arguments.

I don't intend this as a flame or a personal attack. You set an admirable example of arguing at a high level and I'm joining you there.

Don't stop there Big V, tell us why that statement is flawed. :question:

How so?

The full context of my statement was (spelling corrected): "Nor do I wish to return to the medieval days when power resided in the hands of the physically strong. Firearms make self-defense accessible to all." You assert "not true" without a supporting argument or evidence.

I'll make a minor consession to admit that the blind, minor children and quadraplegics don't have direct access to the self-defense benefits of firearms; they must rely on others for protection, as they do for other necessities like food. To that extent those benefiting from the ability to arm themselves fall short of "all". But not by much.

If you're "joining [me] on that level" you're not there yet.

Yes, excellent artwork....I'll have to tune in on Wednesdays for future installments. :thumb2:

The analogy was not between guns and lunar exploration, though that was a good try to go off-topic. The analogy was between people who think the possible is impossible. People like you.