The subject of guns, freedoms, crime etc. came up in this thread: Who will be your next president?

So just to carry on a fun discussion about gun control, or the lack thereof, or anything along those lines, feel free to chime in.

For example, is there a link between having the 'right to bear arms' and crime in America (or anywhere else for that matter).

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

Just like anything else in a society, it depends on the social conditions and average built-up values of an individual.
Built-up values? Yes, coordinated (mostly government-media) efforts can create any mind they wish.
In just a few years they are able to transform a hippie sample into Rambo style destructive machine, with winner-loser mentality.

In a socially stable society, where even 'failed' people can afford a decent life, there is no much tendency towards extreme solutions.
To summarize: Even if we accept the self-armament as a fundamental right, there will be huge difference in consequences between arming people in e.g. Norway vs. Colombia.

__________________
Impossible? You just underestimate the time.

Don't be so sure. I am 60 years and started duck hunting when I was 16. I went into a store and bought the gun that I still own. Some of my family members don't like it. They don't feel protected at all.

Now it is much stricter here. You need a license to buy a new gun, but older hunters don't need a license on the supposed assumption that they can not go mad. I would have no problem giving away my gun to reduce guns/capita here. Then, when I wanted to go hunting (not so often now), I could go to the police or other authority that keep it. The duck hunting season here is from August 20th to december 23rd.

And 16 years is too low age. I would go for 20+ to buy a gun.

Guns/Per capita = Measure of freedom or ...

Added:
I just talked with my youngest daughter on the phone 2 minutes ago. She said the following:

1. On the news today. This night a woman was shot on the small island where I live.
2. Now there is gun amnesty in Norway. You can deliver in guns without being asked how you got it.
3. She was not so afraid of my gun. Then I know where I can go if ... I keep the gun and ammunision separated.

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

I don't mean to repeat myself, but since it was the other thread I said it, I'll say it here... My opinion : keep the 2nd amendment (in the US) rights but put tougher restrictions on getting guns (legally) if one has a record of certain crimes. Not just gun crimes, but any history that shows a prone to violence or harrassment cases where possessing a gun could indicate a temptation to use it.

It wouldn't solve the problem of someone getting it underground, but it would reduce more instances of gun crimes. If one doesn't already have one in the gun cabinet, then they wouldn't have the temptation to use it in a moment of fury, for those prone to going to extreme levels.

So for regular "hunting and self defense", sure.

But I do have to wonder about some instances of the self-defense part. A person must really live in a bad neighborhood or in dangerous situations on a regular basis to honestly feel the need to have one for "self defense", imo. Otherwise, I think most cases of "I carry mah six-shooter in mah piggup truck for mah right to protect mah-self" is more of a case of having one just to look tough than it is for "protection". (That was my impersonation of a certain cousin who I've had this debate with before

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

Correction:

Now I see the above story with my own eyes on the news. The woman was not shot. They only state that the death is categorized as suspect.

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

A random statistics:
Violence... The story so far » Statistics on Violence and Response - Road to Peace

An interesting study:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

Those having more time or interest can see Gun politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and try to find out the relationship between gun murder rates and gun politics.

__________________
Impossible? You just underestimate the time.

You may remember from one of my previous posts that I am a proponent of gun control laws. In my opinion there is definitely a correlation between crime and the weapon used to commit that crime. I wonder how many times people have been shot because emotions, possibly exacerbated by alcohol drug consumption, ran high and a gun happened to be around. A nasty domestic squabble can more easily turn deadly.

Notwithstanding, the 2nd Amendment does exist. One of the problems is that it isn't particularly well written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Should the two clauses be read together? or separately. The current state of the law interprets gun ownership to be a personal right recognized by the government, but there are those who focus on the 'well-regulated Militia' aspect of the Amendment and who argue that the right should be construed collectively.

Even aside from the 2nd Amendment, we also must consider that the United States declared its independence on the premise that the people are sovereign and possess a 'right of revolution' (essentially the legal justification for severing ties with Great Britain by force): "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." {emphasis supplied}

(The 'right of revolution' is not a 'willy nilly' - let's have a revolution - right - the Declaration gives an example when the right of revolution could be exercised by the people: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,) {emphasis supplied}

At the end of the day, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when individually a man with a muzzle loaded smooth-bore musket wasn't particularly lethal unless he was arrayed in a line of battle firing a collective volley. It is clear from the American Revolution and the American reliance on state based militia units that the Founding Fathers venerated the self-armed militia to be an effective defense against 'Invasion' - a belief that existed until sometime between the Civil War and WWI. It is also clear that the Founding Fathers were concerned about governments disarming the citizenry inasmuch as the people remained the ultimate check (in a system based on checks and balances of power) on government avarice and despotism.

These are difficult questions because while we recognize the historical importance of gun ownership to 18th and 19th century America, it is clear that firearms have become infinitely more lethal than their predecessors in 1776 and impose an annual toll on society.

Also consider that in 1776 a group of militia could theoretically match the firepower of an English regiment whereas today, even assuming that the citizens were armed to the teeth, the military possesses equipment that is so far superior that the 'minutemen' wouldn't come close to the firepower potential of the military (tanks, fighters, helicopter gunships, etc.)

Just some thoughts on it.

__________________

Rights to bear firearms, gun controls, have they been really helpful?

I mean almost everyone can have a gun of they wanted to illegally or legally. Having a gun is almost as easy as buying at supermarkets. I don't even think that the existing laws about carrying a gun reduces the crime rate in the country. Not all crimes are committed using guns. What I'm trying to say is that whatever law there would be about guns is that there will always be robbers and thieves and rapists and murderers...

__________________
Australian travel visas | Australian visa services

I wonder. Is it possible to view "the right to bear arms" as "the right to live in the past?"

150 years ago, perhaps there was a need to be able to bear arms in case Mexico invaded, or the Indians attacked or the outlaws road into town. But now? Should the right to bear arms be removed?

Or is it the case that after some many years of guns being a part of the fabric of US society that it would be impossible to remove the right to bear arms, even though that might be a 'good' idea?

__________________
http://thatsnews.blogspot.com http://thats-business.blogspot.com/ http://thatschristmas.blogspot.com

Hmm good point. Voting is considered a right... But not for felons. I have no problem with expanding the list of who shouldn't have a right to bear arms.

There is a definite sport relating to shooting which i think is cool -- like with this dude, Patrick Flanigan -- check out the video...

YouTube - Patrick Flanigan at his BEST

Now that's some impressive shooting

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

That should be 'rode' not road. Drat.

__________________
http://thatsnews.blogspot.com http://thats-business.blogspot.com/ http://thatschristmas.blogspot.com

There was, is and always will be criminals and there is no turning back the invention of guns. Since criminals will generally target the least protected, IMO, it is not rational to ban firearms.

Since guns are out-dated as defense against government corruption that leaves the alternative of protection with-in the system and it is the citizens’ responsibility to be involved. Use the privilege or lose it because there are those who have been and are working to take the privilege of citizen involvement away. This will leave the citizens unprotected and subject to abuse/control by the criminals with-in the system.

>>>

cw1865, martinscholes,… the fathers knew exactly what they were saying in that article and it is as relevant today as it was when they wrote it because… In our country today there are groups of people from Mexico who are on a "mission" to take back what they believe is their land. Forget the fact that the US purchased the land that has no meaning to them. They march in our streets waving their flag, chanting "Viva La Mexico".

They are mad, they have no respect for our laws or our people and it is this kind of threat to a states’ security for which that article was written. Don’t let the cunning talk of the elite who are trying to destroy the sovereignty of this nation fool you into thinking we don’t need to protect ourselves and that we should fear guns enough to give up our right to own then. Our generation just might see the day that we are going to need them.

>>>

Quote:

… put tougher restrictions on getting guns (legally) if one has a record of certain crimes. Not just gun crimes, but any history that shows a prone to violence or harrassment cases where possessing a gun could indicate a temptation to use it.

If men can’t brawl and get thrown into jail every once and awhile without losing the right to bear arms then the men might as well wear a dress and learn to knit. <smile>

IMO, the current restrictions for the mentally incompetent and convicted felons are fine. The keyword is convicted. Since harassment is dealt with by issuing restraining orders, it might be worth considering that some one in violation of the order may be subject to loss of gun rights determined by the details of the case, such as when physical abuse or life threats are found to be evident. Good thinking JT!

>>>

Why is it, that society allows alcohol at almost every corner gas station and in many homes but find it just too dangerous for homes to have a gun? Intoxication will cause people to harm others but we have found that prohibition leads to organized crime so we take responsibility for our actions, take our chances and prosecute justly. Oh and educate. LOL, gun class at school,… right after shop class where you learned to make it!... I think I am kidding.

>>>

Quote:

In a socially stable society, where even 'failed' people can afford a decent life, there is no much tendency towards extreme solutions.

Considering that violence is not limited to a certain class of people. I think I understand Activeco to mean, that if the middle class were eliminated then there would be more poor people which would result in more of the poor going to extremes.

This is why I support the officials who have proven, through their voting history, their compliance with the Constitution. Our Republic, supplied by the Constitution, offers a close resemblance of social stability when the articles are adhered to. This is evident by a large middle and upper class. The citizens’ accomplishments are also a testament of the social stability.

The middle class and upper class has proven its generosity and will “teach men to fish” and will generally support each other where as the government has proven its potential for greed and disrespect of the law by political figures to abuse the people. This is why the government was limited by the founding fathers.

Do a search to see how they treat the veterans. That is an example of what citizens can expect if government were in charge of heath care, or any other program. They strip the veteran’s benefits, and they increase their own pay and retirement.

It is the middle class, especially the gifted and talented standing up for the poor, which hinders the tyranny of the inconsiderate elite. This has been openly expressed by individuals who supported and practiced Eugenics and is found with a little research.

Government run socialistic programs take from the ones who have worked, sacrificed and earned, which causes resentment as if citizens had been held at gun point. Then the program gives very little of that amount to the poor, so add that with the frustration of dealing with the government bureaucracy and incompetence found with-in these programs and that is enough to cause someone to take extreme actions!

In a society where justice is for those who can afford it, does it seem unreasonable to think that most crimes would be committed by those who could afford to pay someone else to do the “dirty work” or just buy their way out of trouble? How many crimes would one commit if they were “above the law” and knew they could get away with it?

It is imperative that the candidates we vote into office have proven that they adhere to, and restrain from changing the very foundation which allowed this country to be called the greatest nation on Earth.


Right to Bear Arms
Limited Government

And an over cilling of citizen's based on the color of their skin, even by police. Such police men should loose the right to wear guns. Don't think Norway is any better. There is a case going here where a black man were knocked down, severely hurt and left by medical personell. Now they have got a symbolic penalty of NOK 6 000 (little more than USD 1 000) for not carrying him to hospital. Very often it depends on whom you look into the eyes.

By whom? I have always heard that small is beautiful

<off topic>
What about Andorra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , San Marino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Liechtenstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

Andorra: (Catalan: Principat d'Andorra) is a small landlocked country in western Europe, located in the eastern Pyrenees mountains and bordered by Spain and France. Once isolated, it is currently a prosperous country mainly because of tourism and its status as a tax haven (cw1865 - something for you?)

San Marino: It is a landlocked enclave, completely surrounded by Italy.

Liechtenstein: doubly landlocked alpine country in Western Europe, bordered by Switzerland to its west and by Austria to its east.

Landlocked country: is commonly defined as one enclosed or nearly enclosed by land.

Doubly landlocked: A landlocked country surrounded by other landlocked countries may be called a "doubly landlocked" country. A person in such a country has to cross at least two borders to reach a coastline.
</off topic>

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

Hahaha, yes small is beautiful! However,... I said greatest!

Except here in Pennsylvania. I know this isn't about guns, but just sayin... In PA to buy beer you either have to go to a beer distributor that sells by the case, or take out from a bar or other establishment that must also sell food -- and even then u can carry out only a 12 pack at a time. So if you wanted more, you have to pay and make two trips (or more) to carry it out to your car. To buy wine, liquor, etc., you have to go to a state store, which is owned by the state government. The last politician who wanted to change that, without success, was our former governor Tom Ridge (who later became the first secretary of homeland security).

I know, PA is backwards it seems. Our state maximum speed limit is 65 mph. What are we, Amish?!

(oops, wait... this is Pennsylvania...)

Anyway, how this relates to guns... PA is a highly dem state. Big government, hence the state-owned liquor stores, and even guns used in self-defense stirs up court cases, whereas in Texas they'd gold-plate your gun for you and give you the key to the city. (As we perceive it up here)

We actually did! Well, not make them. I can't remember, but I actually think it was phys ed class in middle school, and we shot 22's in a makeshift shooting range in the basement. I think around the age of 12 to prepare students who would soon be getting their hunting license. This was a rural school.

I think that's long been removed from the 'curriculum'...

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

Living in New Jersey, I love going to Pennsylvania. I hear that the Amish are 'cheating' with cell phones, is that true?

I met a Mennonite in Gettysburg who told me a comical story about how he would sneak out to learn how to drive a car...he said he wasn't going down the horse and buggy route.

__________________

Does that exclude one of the small nations I mentioned from being the greatest nation on the earth

I think some American Republicans should love to live in Andorra, a tax heaven close to the French Riviera

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

Actually I think you mean 'tax haven' but heavan is a good substitute!

Problem is that as US citizens, we are subject to tax on 'worldwide income' - now people do cheat, but theoretically that can get them into trouble.

These things already exist in the Caribbean, ie. the IBC's in places like the British Virgin Islands (or other islands for that matter) which have the advantage of being relatively close to the US and English speaking. They're trying to crack down on these offshore accounts and companies.

__________________

<off topic>
Misspelling, and I know ... haven

Yes, and Guernsey and Jersey closer to us.

I don't know whether clicken is joking or saying her meaning.

If it is serious, the way from declaring your country

1. the greates nation on the earth to.
2. Supressing other people.
3. Think that everybody that says his meaning is an enemy.

is as we should know from history not long. This forum is regrettably becoming more and more an American forum unless somebody with authority intervene.

Sad to see my (previous?) favourite forum developes like that.

I have seen serious posters come here, after some posts they get a red RepRank and leave.
</off topic>

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

The statement should be interpreted that Clicken opines that the United States is best governed by a 'strict constructionist' interpretation of the Constitution. It really wasn't an invitation to debate the actual merits of which country, region, etc. is actually the greatest. You will find that 'American exceptionalism' is still injected into speeches and public debate along the lines of: 'America is the greatest country on earth and therefore {we should be able to do something, insert virtually any goal here}.

__________________

For me personally, freedom of speech is very important.

I have seen programs on National Geographic (I don't know the quality of that Tv station. Sometimes it looks a little popularized to me) about your jails. I would not gone to your country and be put in a jail. IMO, the hardest criminals are treated worse than anmials. I can not understand how they survive. It seems like human beings can get used to nearly every treatment.

So it can not be a great nation for poor hard criminals

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

Well, first off they're showing you the facilities that house the long-term violent offenders. They're showing you the 'worst of the worst' because that makes for good TV. To be put into one of these places you will typically find a pattern of escalating criminality usually associated (though not necessarily) with the illicit drug trade.

Notwithstanding, I would suggest that we're way off on a tangent here because ultimately the thread is about the 2nd Amendment.

__________________

Agree, their strories seem a little senzational.

As usual. Who started? Am I the guilty again?

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

I am afraid so. Before you knew it, you had on us a tour of the Pyrenees.

You and I don't have much to debate on this point since we're of a similar mind on this one.

Why don't you address the core of Clicken's argument. Essentially she argues that the right to bear arms is a right (that is the current status of the law), that to make it illegal would create a situation similar to Prohibition (ie. it would just create an underground illegal trade in firearms).

I recommend that you read the DC v. Heller, a SC Case which I am following.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(for blogging purposes, wikipedia's description is fine).

You might also be interested to note: (frankly between gun control and the Union, I pick the Union)

letter sent by Montana’s Secretary of State to the Washington Times: (Montana Threatens To Secede If Supreme Court Rules Against Individual Gun Rights | KXNet.com North Dakota News)

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court’s decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached,” Op-Ed, Thursday)



The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the “collective rights” theory


A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right


There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms


As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states


Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It’s posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract


BRAD JOHNSON
Montana secretary of state
Helena, Mont.

__________________

Ok, now I shall return to topic. I use to watch Tv with one eye when writing here. Today I wathced a very interesting program by Get Health, Beauty, Recipes, Money, Decorating and Relationship Advice on Oprah.com. The subject were manic depressive illness and bipolar disorder.

One person inteviewed there told about her illness, that she constantly thought of suicide before she understood that she had an illness / disorder and got medication to help her. One sentencene from her said very much to me about how used you are to guns and how natural it is in your homes.

"When I was ill, I started "exercising" with my fathers pistol."

There are some hunters in Norway, but I think that less than 1 % of our population owns a pistol.

Surely back to topic, what are the deeper meaning of the second amendment? Did they on the time it was written see the right to wear a gun as part of human rights and equivivalent to freedom?

Isn't that a little too liberalistic attitude?

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

lol...

I consider myself a moderate, and politically I'm registered as independent. I get dems thinking I'm a red neck conservative and repubs thinking I'm a whiney liberal tree hugger, lol. So I don't know if it's too liberalistic or not. But if I were a politician I'd definitely back any expansion to the list of (convicted) crimes and mental impairments that would disqualify someone from owning a gun.

I know the mafia and gangs don't buy their guns at Wal-Mart. I see that as a different issue. Then you have people with clean records and no background of violence who want to own guns. I'm fine with that. Keep careful records of who owns what and how many guns.

No civilian needs or should be entitled to military grade weaponry, ever. Guns for hunting, exhibition shooting (like that video I linked to above), or keeping a pistol for "self defense" -- fine with me.

But what I do have problems with is the idea of someone owning a gun who -- as an example -- maybe threatened or punched out a co-worker, neighbor, etc, and attends anger management classes. So either they have an assault charge on their record, or have a restraining order against them. I don't care if they've never had a gun crime in their past, I'm saying that's the type of scenario where someone does not need a gun in the house what-so-ever. When that person has a gun "lying around" somewhere, those situations are the ticking time bombs of more domestic gun deaths than NRA people care to admit.

I'd take it a step further -- it's not just those people who shouldn't have guns in the home, but anyone that lives with them. So hypothetically I shouldn't be able to have a gun in my house if my spouse had similar convicted charges, or vice-versa. It wouldn't restrict family from owning guns, it would just restrict keeping it in the residence where the convicted person (or one deemed mentally incompetant) would have access to it.

Gun ownership just isn't one of those things that's for everyone.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

The District 3.8 Hawaii 8.7 New Jersey 12.3 Massachusetts 12.6 Rhode Island 12.8 Connecticut 16.7 New York 18.0 Illinois 20.2 Maryland 21.3 California 21.3 Florida 24.5 Delaware 25.5 New Hampshire 30.0 Arizona 31.1 Ohio 32.4 Washington 33.1 Nevada 33.8 Pennsylvania 34.7 Colorado 34.7 New Mexico 34.8 Virginia 35.1 Texas 35.9 Michigan 38.4 Nebraska 38.6 Indiana 39.1 Oregon 39.8 Georgia 40.3 Maine 40.5 North Carolina 41.3 Minnesota 41.7 Missouri 41.7 Vermont 42.0 Kansas 42.1 South Carolina 42.3 Iowa 42.8 Oklahoma 42.9 Tennessee 43.9 Utah 43.9 Louisiana 44.1 Wisconsin 44.4 Kentucky 47.7 North Dakota 50.7 Alabama 51.7 Mississippi 55.3 Idaho 55.3 Arkansas 55.3 West Virginia 55.4 South Dakota 56.6 Montana 57.7 Alaska 57.8 Wyoming 59.7

Above you will see the gun ownership rates by states including Washington DC. Although its not a perfect correlation, generally the more rural the state, the greater the gun ownership rate is (which is what I would've expected)
REGION 2006
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 EXECUTIONS SINCE 1976
(As of 10/01/07) South 6.8
6.6
6.6
6.9 6.8 6.7 901
West 5.6
5.8
5.7
5.7 5.7 5.5 67 Midwest 5.0
4.9
4.7
4.9 5.1 5.3 127 Northeast 4.5
4.4
4.2
4.2 4.1 4.2 4
NATIONAL RATE
5.7
5.6 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.6

__________________

Well those charts didn't post well

2006 Murder Rate:

South: 6.8
West: 5.6
Midwest: 5.0
Northeast: 5.7

National: 5.7

Wyoming's homicide rate was 1.7 in 2006; Vermont 1.9, New Jersey 4.9, Pennsylvania 5.9, Louisiana 12.4 (highest), Maryland 9.7, Nevada 9.0, South Carolina 8.3, Alabama 8.3

__________________

Murder Rates 1996 - 2006

These are where the murder rates are located

I think you're going to have a difficult time correlating gun ownership rates and homicides based on what I have seen so far.

Proposition H: Mythology Instead of Criminology: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

{excerpt from the article}

"Anti-gun advocates never mention these facts. Nor do they mention all the European nations with high gun ownership rates but very low murder. Norway, with the highest gun ownership rate in Western Europe, has the lowest murder rate—far below England's. The only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia): 30 percent higher than the U.S. and ten times that of gun-dense Norway. Holland, with Western Europe's lowest rate of gun ownership, has a 50 percent higher murder rate than Norway. Greece has much higher gun ownership than the Czech Republic but much less murder. Finland has 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia but much lower murder rates."

__________________

Interesting:

For 2006, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 4.22

But you can not IMO draw significant conclusions by only looking at the tables.

Is there scientific inquires and how objective are they?

Should like some from other nations to join this interesting discussion.

From an old Monday, 12 February, 2001, 13:23 GMT

"Britain has a long tradition of unarmed police officers walking the beat with only a truncheon for protection - so the decision to introduce armed patrols on some inner-city housing estates in Nottingham has caused consternation".

How is the situation there now?

I have heard that Tokio is one of the safest big cities in the world, because the police man is as usual and natural in the streets as the post officier.

Another story (rumour) I have heard:

"If you are young growing up in certain parts of New York your chance of being killed is larger than as an American soildier in WW II."

Is that a biased estimate?

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

A typical example of how an estimate may be biased. What about the rate of hunters in Norway compared to other nations? It is much easier to use a pistol than a gun. What about the pistol ownership rate and the murder rate?

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

Great post.

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

"Why is it, that society allows alcohol at almost every corner gas station and in many homes but find it just too dangerous for homes to have a gun?"

Because guns and booze don't mix?

__________________
http://thatsnews.blogspot.com http://thats-business.blogspot.com/ http://thatschristmas.blogspot.com

I am sure it was biased either for or against the death penalty. From what I have read it appears that the overall rate in the US is between 5-6 (per 100,000) and the homicide rate is between 1-2 for Western Europe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun "Britain has a long tradition of unarmed police officers walking the beat with only a truncheon for protection - so the decision to introduce armed patrols on some inner-city housing estates in Nottingham has caused consternation".

I have been to the UK twice in my life. Once when I was pretty young, 1986, and at the time the London Police did not carry handguns. I was fairly impressed by this because at the time the UK was under direct threat from the IRA. I am not sure if they continue to do this, I have only been there one time since that time and it was really a short time (literally less than a day on a stop over flight, I took a train into London, ate lunch and went back to the airport)

Now of course I also remember being in Italy in 1988 when the Carabinieri carried sub-machine guns around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun I have heard that Tokio is one of the safest big cities in the world, because the police man is as usual and natural in the streets as the post officier.

The New York police have 're' adopted the concept of community based policing, ie. the 'beat' cop. For quite some time I guess they went out in their patrol cars, but now you see them out and about, walking, riding horses, riding bicycles, etc. {they didn't completely abandon this but it is more heavily emphasized now}

Another story (rumour) I have heard:

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun "If you are young growing up in certain parts of New York your chance of being killed is larger than as an American soildier in WW II."

Biased? More like a gross exageration. If that were the case, the governor ought to declare martial law and send the National Guard in.

Yes, of course, statistics can be skewed. Those numbers are clearly not isolated for 'long' weapons vis-a-vis concealable handguns. In New Jersey, the problem of crime is statewide, but is still focused in the 'suburb' cities of Newark and Camden. Most of the murders that are occuring are directly related to the illicit drug trade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jawn_tech lol... I'd take it a step further -- it's not just those people who shouldn't have guns in the home, but anyone that lives with them. So hypothetically I shouldn't be able to have a gun in my house if my spouse had similar convicted charges, or vice-versa. It wouldn't restrict family from owning guns, it would just restrict keeping it in the residence where the convicted person (or one deemed mentally incompetant) would have access to it. Gun ownership just isn't one of those things that's for everyone.

I'm for it, but its impractical. First off, if your spouse was convicted of a crime which ordinarily would prevent your spouse from obtaining a firearms permit/license, most would be ok with that because your spouse theoretically enjoyed Due Process before the government deprived your spouse of a right. Unfortunately if the government goes one step further and denies you a license or a permit, the government is now denying a right to you WITHOUT Due Process. So right off the bat, the statute is going to get knocked down. In the second half of the paragraph you note that it wouldn't restrict the spouse or family member from possessing a firearm just from keeping it in the same residence as the convicted spouse, ie. the government is now regulating the 'time, place and manner' which is typically UPHELD; however, it is largely unenforceable.

__________________

jawn

we all garner in the sweet and bitter fruitage of our own planting...thats *my* chime

i'm a 44 yr old Canadian and i dare say I have never seen a single gun in my life cept for those pointy brown things that resemble guns at the sports store..

i have never had a friend who owned a gun nor knew someone anyone who owned a gun. (that im aware of)

me and all my friends in the past 44 yrs have probably had less than three conversations about guns..

God bless Canada and all our superior ways!

btw...not having ever owned a gun has not stopped me from being the bad ass the average yank dreams of one day becoming...\o/

too bad i'm banned from entering the us...when i had time i would'uv swung down and sorted things out..

Rick

__________________
Painters Vancouver

I don't mean the spouse wouldn't get a license / permit to own a gun, just not keep it at the residence. It would be like keeping a liquor cabinet at home while the spouse has a history of crime stemming from alchoholism. Things like this can always be stipulated by a judge as a requirement for one's sentence, release, rehabiliation, etc.

Basically the bill I'm theorizing doesn't ban guns, but gives more room for judges and family services type of agencies to make the determination on a case-by-case basis.

In some cases it would be hard to enforce. But similarly, speed limits are hard to enforce in some areas, but there's still a speed limit, and a cop has the power to write a ticket, if they catch someone speeding. That's a deterrent to some, but not all. But because it's a deterrent to some, any reduction in deaths it provides makes it worth it, hence the speed limit being made. That's the rationale I'm going with in the case of broadening certain types of limitations to owning guns and accessing guns.

i.e., a judge would theoretically have the power to say in lieu of serving jail time or living in a half way house, the convict could live at home provided no guns were kept in the house, by anyone.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

LOL martin!!! I’m changing the sign in the window that says, “Beware of DOG” to, “BEWARE, I’m loaded and my gun is too!”

<serious off topic>
I appreciate the explanation CW offered on my behalf, sorry to be so late responding Kgun and thanks for questioning it. It is better to clear the misunderstanding.

The word “greatest” was used in the same sense that a coach will use it to rally the team players. I was laughing because I thought you were just giving me a hard time! I understand that even small countries can be great places to live and the residents will consider them to be the greatest. It is also understood that small groups can have the greatest powers.

Since you ask for it,… IMO, it is not good that the greatness of this country has been used by a few to undermine and dominated other nations and I am in no means in support of those actions when I point out that domination and suppression belong to the greatest of the powers. Some people may refer to the US as the greatest nation on Earth in this context however that is an illusion because the domination and occupation is not in compliance with the Constitution and has been achieved through other small groups with great powers at our expense.

I will leave this link in support of the claim that the undermining of the nation’s sovereignty is real. It isn’t just happening to this country, they are working to claim world domination.
GLOBAL ELITE GATHER_135

I am not so sure that there has been “fear” felt by the hearts of the TC as the article suggest but rather audacity because this organization has reached a point of confidence. Here is something to consider though, because as every armchair quarterback has seen it demonstrated, sometimes great teams will falter due to their over-confidence.
</serious back to topic>

OF COURSE GUNS ARE DANGEROUS!

JT are we having fun yet?

You know JT, it just occurred to me that the gun ban may not be part of the elitist plot. They are for population reduction! Regardless, I stick by the RIGHT to BEAR, if you dare!

Good neighbours like Norway and Sweden

Standing shivering on shivering ground with a gun in your hand? What about a Siberian Husky



or two, so an uninvited man will not even come close to your house? You don't wear a pistol on the street?

My picture as I remeber it since I was young of a brave English "Bobby"



without a gun to defend himself.

Violence fosters violence. Guns should IMO only be used as an exeption and not as a rule.

Time to change your rules?

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

<crossing arms> No rules change.

Violence may foster violence but just because you have a gun doesn’t mean you are violent. It means you are not a sitting duck, and that’s no bull! Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

I don't think a Husky would like it here in the south, but there are other good companions like German Shepards that like it just fine. So I guess you are right, I should keep both signs in the window!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clicken <crossing arms> No rules change.

James : Ya... ya. By the way, the same procedure as last year, Miss Sophie?


Miss Sophie : The same procedure as every year James!

YouTube - Freddie Frinton - Dinner for One

YouTube - DINNER FOR ONE 2/2

Or this modern version?

Bernd das Brot - Dinner for one - Teil 1

Bernd das Brot - Dinner for one - Teil 2

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

Gun control is as ridiculous as alcohol control and tobacco control.

The poison or weapon isn't the core issue. Just because someone owns a gun or several guns doesn't mean they are criminals. Just as someone who drinks alcohol isn't necessarily an alcoholic. Just because a person smokes cigars on special occasions doesn't mean they're addicted to tobacco.

Do these industries need to be monitored? Of course they do. Where, when, how, and etc. these items are purchased should be tracked, categorized, and maintained by government agencies.

Should you be personally be tracked, tagged, recorded when you make these purchases? Of course not! Why you purchase these products isn't anyones concern but your own.

Government agencies should educate people on products that have the potential to be abused and/or that may cause harm. How or where this happens should be studied and measured on a regional basis. Sexual education as well as Drivers education programs are two examples of this. Responsible use should be the main focus of these programs.

By trying to restrict use of these products or totally banning them from circulation you drive them underground.

I believe that people should be allowed to protect themselves, their properties, and their loved ones by whatever force necessary. If a perpetrator(s) is going to threaten or endanger your personal space you should be allowed the means to protect yourself. A perpetrator already has no respect for civil rights and liberties as they their interests involve bringing harm to their victims. Why would they respect the more trivial laws such as gun licenses and permits?

__________________
He who has a hundred miles to walk should reckon ninety as half the journey.

I know I am! Absolutely! Everyone in this thread should be commended. People have different views and ideas and talking about them intelligently. (well, at least respectfully and at times humorously... not that I'm always that intelligent) The model that every discussion should follow across every category and forum!

Power to the people!

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

With or without guns?

__________________
Impossible? You just underestimate the time.

No guns. Only fish.

The people of the future don't carry guns, as evidence shows in Star Trek. Only Starfleet personnel has phasers, not the common folk.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

You're right....but it's also true that people who drink and smoke are pretty much stupid since only a stupid person would willingly poison the body.

Unless you care to demonstrate the smart side to those activities.

Rick

__________________
Painters Vancouver

<whistle>
Alcohol And Health

</whixtle>

__________________
Clicken
Math Flash Cards Online

Lol, hogwash. I like the oxymoron "sensible drinking".

There is nothing "sensible" about it, despite what a few crack addicted so called 'health professionals' say.

Am I the only one who hasn't lost his fricken mind?

__________________
Painters Vancouver

<LOL> are you sure you know where your mind is?

Sure do click; and it doesn't fall prey to party line tripe.

__________________
Painters Vancouver

Well, a glass of red wine a day supposedly makes one live longer ... No? I'm conducting my own test to see if it works... I'll get back to you on that.

For self defense I do have a tomahawk. Not kidding there. Father in law gave it to me and showed me how to throw tomahawk like the mountain men used to as sport, with a wood block as the target. Now I'm pretty good at it. I could hit the hair on a fly from 50 feet. So if someone breaks in, I don't need a gun. I got my trusty tomahawk.

Note: the Native Americans didn't throw tomahawks in battle like you see in movies. Once you throw your weapon, now you don't have one. But the mountain men did as a game, just at targets. But still. If someone broke in my house, big mistake.

I'm also good at Jarts.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade