[Leica] Re: Cameras for guns

[lrzeitlin at optonline.net (Lawrence Zeitlin)]

On Oct 20, 2006, at 5:46 PM, B. D. Colen wrote:

The London Times a Murdoch paper. I didn't know that.
Are you sure? I didn't write the editorial, I just commented on it.

Crime RATES, of course, are independent of the number of people  
involved. Are you suggesting that guns prevent crime in rural areas  
but not in cities? In Sweden and Israel, countries with universal  
military service, reservists keep assault rifles and machine guns in  
their closets at home. I have not noticed that either country has a  
pathological homicide problem. The culture is the problem, not the  
quantity of guns.

My suggestion is to offer a one to one trade. Trade guns for Leica  
M8s. That will assure the survival of Leica as a company and former  
gun owners who get the new cameras will shoot pictures instead of  
bullets. I'll be the first to turn in my shotgun for a Leica. Even  
for an M7.

Larry Z

>
> Larry Z tells us that...
>>
>> The only statement not blaming the US for Britain's wave of violent
>> crime was an editorial in the London Times which suggested that if
>> tough gun laws were the only answer, then Washington D.C. would be
>> the safest place in the US. In fact, they pointed out, the safest
>> places are Vermont and New Hampshire, both states with the highest
>> percentage of gun ownership in the country. Perhaps, the editorial
>> suggested, the stratospheric crime rate in Britain is because there
>> are too few guns. If home owners felt that they had a moral
>> obligation to shoot housebreakers and thieves it might convince a few
>> bad guys to think twice. Then Britons too could leave doors and cars
>> unlocked - just like in Vermont. The NRA would have rejoiced.
>
> All this shows, Larry, that a Rupert Murdoch paper in the UK is as  
> "fair and
> balanced" as a Rupert Murdoch product in the U.S. -
>  First off, how could D.C. possibly control gun violence when  
> Virginia is
> one of the biggest sources in the country of guns that end up on  
> the streets
> of other cities and states? And second, of course the crimes rates  
> are low
> in New Hampshire and Vermont - they are both low population, low  
> population
> density, largely rural states.