man released from jail, shoots 2 the next day, then a cop the following day

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I expect Gary has some per capita BS that ignores differences in population size, demographics, density and relative income.

"Per capita" by definiton INCLUDES population size. Vermont has 1/10th the firearms homocide of England...per capita.

If demographics, denisty and relative income are the reasons for homocide...say so and leave GUNS out of it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Per capita" by definiton INCLUDES population size. Vermont has 1/10th the firearms homocide of England...per capita.

If demographics, denisty and relative income are the reasons for homocide...say so and leave GUNS out of it.

They are reasons, but the availability of guns is a factor also. Not hard to understand.

Of course there's a reason you choose Vermont, because the picture changes quite drastically at the national level

Vermont is no more representative of the USA than the county of Essex is representative of the UK.

Nor does your jumping to conclusions, accusations of violence, and subsequent reporting to moderators.

It really does you a disservice, actually. "If you disagree with me I'm telling mom."

OK Slim - I'll humour you. So when you said the best way to silence me would be illegal, what did you actually mean?

Edited July 11, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Linkies to back up any of those positions?

Yes, but I will leave you to bother with that. I really don't care if you believe me, it makes no difference given recent supreme court rulings...it really doesn't matter if you like it.

Vermont is one of 3 states that allow ANY adult to carry a concealed weapon without a license. Vermont has the lowest per capita homocide of any state and is far lower than England, Canad, or Australia. The last random homocide in Vermont was in 2006. The last police officer killed on duty was in 1932...in a car accident. Last year there were 4 (four) homocides, including one negligent homocide caused by a hunter. The other 3 were domestic violence. Just as dead, to be sure, but not the kind of thing you worry about when taking a walk late at night. With a population a bit over 600,000 it is a rate of .75 per 100,000 population. That represents a 20% decrease from 2008 when we had 5 homocides.

Any differences causing higher homocide rates in any jurisdiction would not be related to firearms.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Vermont is no more representative of the USA than the county of Essex is representative of the UK.

I will give Gary this -- I'd much rather be in Vermont than Essex.

Yes, but I will leave you to bother with that. I really don't care if you believe me, it makes no difference given recent supreme court rulings...it really doesn't matter if you like it.

I find it startling that so many people on VJ are unable or unwilling to show their work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, but I will leave you to bother with that. I really don't care if you believe me, it makes no difference given recent supreme court rulings...it really doesn't matter if you like it.

Vermont is one of 3 states that allow ANY adult to carry a concealed weapon without a license. Vermont has the lowest per capita homocide of any state and is far lower than England, Canad, or Australia. The last random homocide in Vermont was in 2006. Last year there were 4 (four) homocides, including one negligent homocide caused by a hunter. The other 3 were domestic violence. Just as dead, to be sure, but not the kind of thing you worry about when taking a walk late at night. With a population a bit over 600,000 it is a rate of .75 per 100,000 population. That represents a 20% decrease from 2008 when we had 5 homocides.

Any differences causing higher homocide rates in any jurisdiction would not be related to firearms.

All it says is that there are factors besides the availability of firearms that affect the rate of gun crime. I mean really Gary, who knew!?

Comparing Vermont to England is really a stretch though - it would be like suggesting that Munich is representative of the entire country of Germany.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will give Gary this -- I'd much rather be in Vermont than Essex.

Since we can apparently compare small population centers with large ones, I'd have to say that I'd not want to spend time in Vermont if Gary is representative of the people who live there

[slim 1,533]

If demographics, denisty and relative income are the reasons for homocide...say so and leave GUNS out of it.

Bravo.

They are reasons, but the availability of guns is a factor also. Not hard to understand.

I think Gary just disproved that.

Of course there's a reason you choose Vermont, because the picture changes quite drastically at the national level

And what you're doing by including the national level is lopping the 90% of homicides that happen in 10% of our area into 100% of the statistics. As Gary's pointed out, it's not the availability of guns that has anything to do with it.

Vermont is no more representative of the USA than the county of Essex is representative of the UK.

No, but it is pretty representative of a HIGHLY ARMED state that has almost ZERO crime. How can that be if they have so many guns?

OK Slim - I'll humour you. So when you said the best way to silence me would be illegal, what did you actually mean?

I meant the best way to silence you would be illegal. That's why I posted it. Unlike many of you here on VJ, I post what I mean. I'm not trying to dance around a TOS violation because there was no violation. I posted nothing that violated TOS yet for whatever reason, a few of you on here jumped to conclusions and one VJ member reported my post to a moderator.

I have no more of a right to silence anyone here than any of you have to silence me. That would be illegal. Well, unless we continue to let our government make decisions for us and then sometime in the not to distant future, it will probably be legal to silence anyone.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They are reasons, but the availability of guns is a factor also. Not hard to understand.

Of course there's a reason you choose Vermont, because the picture changes quite drastically at the national level

Vermont is no more representative of the USA than the county of Essex is representative of the UK.

OK Slim - I'll humour you. So when you said the best way to silence me would be illegal, what did you actually mean?

Vermont's firearms statutes can be easily printed on a business card. If there is a state with easier availability of firearms I do not imagine what it could be. In fact, there cannot be, as Vermont has NO laws which expound on the federal acquisiton laws. Any differences on a National level are not related to gun control and gun laws will not affect that.

Comparing a county is simply not sensical (sensical doesn't work for you in this argument) The county of Essex has the SAME gun laws as the other counties of England. Vermont does not have the SAME gun laws as other states, in fact it is far different. The other two that allow unlicensed concealed carry have done so only recently (Alaska and Arizona), Vermont has ALWAYS allowed it and Vermont has ALWAYS had a low crime rate. Chittenden county in Vermont has the most population but had none of the homocides. Given that there were only four, that could change, but clearly, gun laws were not the factor.

[slim 1,533]

Since we can apparently compare small population centers with large ones,

You guys do it all the time. Why are you trying to prevent Gary from doing so?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bravo.

I think Gary just disproved that.

And what you're doing by including the national level is lopping the 90% of homicides that happen in 10% of our area into 100% of the statistics. As Gary's pointed out, it's not the availability of guns that has anything to do with it.

No, but it is pretty representative of a HIGHLY ARMED state that has almost ZERO crime. How can that be if they have so many guns?

The availability of guns has "something" to do with gun crime rates - I have never believed that it is the only factor.

Point is - if you are prepared to make distinctions between the gun crime rates in different parts of the US, you have to do that with the UK as well.

I meant the best way to silence you would be illegal. That's why I posted it. Unlike many of you here on VJ, I post what I mean. I'm not trying to dance around a TOS violation because there was no violation. I posted nothing that violated TOS yet for whatever reason, a few of you on here jumped to conclusions and one VJ member reported my post to a moderator.

I have no more of a right to silence anyone here than any of you have to silence me. That would be illegal. Well, unless we continue to let our government make decisions for us and then sometime in the not to distant future, it will probably be legal to silence anyone.

You just repeated what you said - that doesn't add any meaning whatsoever. So what is this "best way" that would be illegal?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Vermont's firearms statutes can be easily printed on a business card. If there is a state with easier availability of firearms I do not imagine what it could be. In fact, there cannot be, as Vermont has NO laws which expound on the federal acquisiton laws. Any differences on a National level are not related to gun control and gun laws will not affect that.

Comparing a county is simply not sensical (sensical doesn't work for you in this argument) The county of Essex has the SAME gun laws as the other counties of England. Vermont does not have the SAME gun laws as other states, in fact it is far different. The other two that allow unlicensed concealed carry have done so only recently (Alaska and Arizona), Vermont has ALWAYS allowed it and Vermont has ALWAYS had a low crime rate. Chittenden county in Vermont has the most population but had none of the homocides. Given that there were only four, that could change, but clearly, gun laws were not the factor.

Gary, working off of the premise that I believe that the availability of guns are the only factor that is pertinent in the rates of gun crime is a false assumption. I do not believe that.

[slim 1,533]

Point is - if you are prepared to make distinctions between the gun crime rates in different parts of the US, you have to do that with the UK as well.

Then why aren't all of you saying, "In the US, you're five times as likely to be killed if you go to an urban area and are a young black or Latino male." What I keep seeing posted is "England is safer than the US."

So what is this "best way" that would be illegal?

The best way would be to deny your 1st Amendment rights and to make it legal to do so. You folks on here keep advocating we allow the government to be in that position someday.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

No, but it is pretty representative of a HIGHLY ARMED state that has almost ZERO crime. How can that be if they have so many guns?

I'm perplexed by this statement; it looks suspiciously like post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because there are lax gun control laws in Vermont, does that mean that there is a proportionately higher rate of gun ownership?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Since we can apparently compare small population centers with large ones, I'd have to say that I'd not want to spend time in Vermont if Gary is representative of the people who live there

Maybe I am not.

Vermont was the first state to be declared as going for Obama in the election, had one of the highest margins of election victory for Obama and is often referred to as the "most liberal state". It was the first state to allow gay civil unions and the first to allow Gay marriage by legislation...not by court order. It is very socially liberal, has the highest per capita (oh no, per capita again) tax rate in the US (all taxes considered) My very good friend (with whom I do not always agree) Bernie Sanders, claims to be the US's only "Socialist" Senator and in fact is an "Independent" because the Democrats are too conservative for him. It is the ONLY state that George Bush refused to visit as Preseident and in fact they issued a warrant for Bush's arrest if he came here. No kidding! For war crimes! Our other Senator, one of the most influencial in Washington, Pat Leahy, is just as liberal.

Our former Governor was the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee that got Obama elected.

I take it you are the more conservative type then?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then why aren't all of you saying, "In the US, you're five times as likely to be killed if you go to an urban area and are a young black or Latino male." What I keep seeing posted is "England is safer than the US."

I don't know Slim - why do you keep repeating yourself when confronted with reasonable requests for information? You apparently want to debate the topic, but you want to provide absolutely no substantive detail with which to do so. What kind of a debate do you feel is possible?

The best way would be to deny your 1st Amendment rights and to make it legal to do so. You folks on here keep advocating we allow the government to be in that position someday.

Sure, I totally believe that that is what you meant. And clearly so did everyone else.

Seriously what an absolute crock.

Maybe I am not.

Vermont was the first state to be declared as going for Obama in the election, had one of the highest margins of election victory for Obama and is often referred to as the "most liberal state". It was the first state to allow gay civil unions and the first to allow Gay marriage by legislation...not by court order. It is very socially liberal, has the highest per capita (oh no, per capita again) tax rate in the US (all taxes considered) My very good friend (with whom I do not always agree) Bernie Sanders, claims to be the US's only "Socialist" Senator and in fact is an "Independent" because the Democrats are too conservative for him. It is the ONLY state that George Bush refused to visit as Preseident and in fact they issued a warrant for Bush's arrest if he came here. No kidding! For war crimes! Our other Senator, one of the most influencial in Washington, Pat Leahy, is just as liberal.

Our former Governor was the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee that got Obama elected.

I take it you are the more conservative type then?

You take it the way you want, as you invariably always do. But I wasn't talking about politics - I was talking about ego and attitude.