In a message dated 7/20/99 0:57:06 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> >       Actually, they are quite effective, and the best part is that
>  > they almost never have to be discharged.  In fact, the mere
>  > possibility that a firearm may be in one's home or on one's person
>  > acts as a deterrent in itself.
>
>  But a few days ago, you said:
>  "The fact that Norway has a low firearms related crime rate while its
>  private citizens have access to firearms indicates there is no
>  corelation between the private ownership of firearms and crime."
>
>  How did you manage this sudden, 180 degree change of belief?  Or were
>  you being deceitful all along?

     No change.  The distinction  is that whereas the availability of
firearms (as in your Norway example) does not have a corelation to crime,
where crime is present a firearm can act as a deterrent.  In other words, it
is not the presence of a firearm that is the source of crime.  Sorry you
think I am being deceitful.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos