OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

What???? People???? Not GUNS?

What?????NOT GUNS????? Anti-gun people have been saying "It's GUNS!!!!!" for years. :/

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler

I'd say you're odds of finding an idiot to argue with in Mass are through the roof.

ral

And Miami & NYC have similar laws & are right up there in murder rates. Greg S.

Absolute and utter bullshit.

That's what the "instant background check" was supposed to do....why do you suggest anyone might need a permit?

Having a car full of guns isn't illegal in most states except under certain circumstances. Since it's assumed that it's not illegal (if it were, the issue of the "felon or not" is pointless), why should your cop even care?

So would a lawyer and a copy of the Constitution.

Why do you say that?

ral

And you would know that most states are so far behind in their paperwork, background checks are not up to snuff. Of course you agree with background checks.........\

You need an FID card in Mass to purchase gun or ammo. Pretty much a must allow permit, unlike the permit to carry

Well then why are you going on about gun laws?

Perhaps, but as i stated before, there are few safer states to live in. To review, only NH, ND, and Ia have lower murder rates[I alway use murder since i~2/3 are gun related and they are usually reported, having a body laying around and all] Only IA has 2 cities with pops of over

100k, Mass has 4, and a dozen more that are close.

Again, if you think it is OK not to respond to a federal warrant, then you are way to paranoid for polite company. Not only is it polite to answer the door, it is considered rude to set your kids on fire to make a point. Any [non arab] who thinks they are going to disappear into the gov'ts black hole is in need of a little more lithium in their diet. Did the FBI and ATF f*ck up? Ya think? The possibility that a bunch of civil servants with guns might just make a mistake would usually be enough for me to come out with hands up and have a conversation till we get the misunderstanding figured out. Had he done so, he would have himself a nice little lawsuit going right now, and a nice pile o cash coming his way. A bunch of wacked out cult members would be deprogrammed and living in Cleveland right now. Expecting a bunch of guys in windbreakers making 35.3 a year to make all the right decisions when dealing with full blown psychos in unrealistic. The majority of americans do not view him as worthy of defense. his decisions defined the day in the end, he wished to die, as true messias do, and he did

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to North Dakota with its 1.1

I should add... North Dakota has

InstaCheck, No waiting period Allows machine guns Is a Shall Issue state Is an Open Carry State knives with blades 5" or less are legal to carry anytime Has reciprocity with many other states No registration No FID

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1 Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

"In countries like Japan and England, where handguns are banned or heavily regulated, the murder rate is a fraction of what it is in the U.S.

Due to their different histories, legal systems and cultures, Japan, England and the U.S. cannot be accurately compared. However, some observations can be made.

The murder rate among some ethnic groups in the U.S. is on a par with that of Britain, even though all ethnic groups in the U.S. have equal access to firearms. This shows that gun bans, as in England, do not significantly reduce the murder rate. It also shows that in the U.S., the murder rate is driven by cultural differences between ethnic groups, and not by mere access to firearms. This means that, even if firearms were banned in the U.S., there would not be a significant reduction in the murder rate.

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per

100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

The very low rate in Japan is clearly due to cultural and historical reasons, not the ban on firearm ownership. The Japanese are largely a homogenous ethnic group with a shared culture. They do not have to deal with the same ethnic and racial friction which has caused much of the problems in the U.S.

But there is also more to the story in Japan. Its murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 people. This means the Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 18 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according to the Department of Justice). This comparison is significant because it shows that even if we could ban firearms, there probably would not be an appreciable reduction in the combined murder and suicide rate.

Lastly, some countries which have very strict gun control laws (stricter than England and Japan), have very high murder rates. For example, it is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than we do. In South Africa, guns are strictly controlled, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the US."

Btw..the murder rate currently in the US is 5.5, so we have a lower rate of combined homicides and suicides than Japan.

As has been stated before, its not the guns, its the culture.

Gunner

"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm sure it's at the top of your reading list, Gunner, but not mine.

That sounds like editorializing by the writer of whatever you read. What it's about is bad journalism, unless they documented a previous lack of candor, with specifics.

But who was it who used the word? Was it in an editorial, or did it purport to be straight reporting?

H'lo??

Who's in there???

I think Michael Moore has hijacked gunner's user ID and is posting from there.

Where is gunner, and what have you *done* with him!!

LOL.

It almost sounds here like you're saying, the answer to our problems isn't at the barrel of a weapon, but rather by reducing ethnic differences and racial friction. That we should throw down our arms and sing "kum-ba-ya" a few times and have a big group hug, and this will make the murder rate go down like it did in japan.

Dang. Maybe those pesky liberals are right after all!

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Well, "A Nation of Cowards" will get you about a thousand hits and a thousand transcripts of it , but the link to Will's column at Geocities has broken.

I don't know where to find it. Maybe Gunner does. I know it's been distributed with Time magazine's approval, because I'm the one who got their approval.

Ed Huntress

largest city is 86k people, mass has 8 such, with enough pop in those

8 cities alone to make 2 N Dakotas, yet my 99 numbers [apples to apples, eh] put their murder rate at 1.6, not so big a spread. Bet if you took the numbers from mass with all cities over 86 k removed we would look even better.

Either gun laws matter or they don't. If they do, then I haven't seen any evidence that there is higher crime in gun law states, quite the opposite. Perhaps there is less need for permitting with instant background checks, but I'll bet you weren't crazy about those either.

"Gun Nuts" fight all gun laws. That is stupid and unjustified. "Anti Gun Nuts" want all guns outlawed. That is stupid and unjustified.

We are the moderates. Rant all you want, we run the place. Go siddown

Yup..a few fact there, mostly wrong and misinterpret ted.

The two major factors in the decreasing homicide rates in the US was the enactment of the Three Strikes Laws, and the number of states which passed Shall Issue laws.

The third most important reason was mandatory sentencing and reduced plea bargaining.

Gunner

"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson

And this proves what? That Eastern City dwellers are more prone to homicide? Or has much larger minority groups that tend to skew the homicide figures by murdering more? Think hard on what you just claimed..you cannot win either way.....

Of course I wasnt happy with those. What part of "Shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Im sure that the Department of Justice agrees with you . Seems that they have decreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (along with Emerson btw). Odd that the Antigun nuts have claimed the opposite for years. They, as you indicated..are not moderates..however..the Moderates have never tried to put the brakes on the errosion of our gun rights. It took the Gun Nuts to do this.

Most of us gun owners pragmaticly have no problem in the main, with InstaCheck. We do have a problem with registration, and bans of "ugly guns" , and waiting periods.

I should mention, I live in California..where most of the fun guns are totally banned, yet across the border in every direction except due South, they are sold openly and enjoyed. Firearms purchases between any party, dealer or not, must go through a FFL, a 10 day waiting period is in effect and of course there is at minimum..a $35 charge for the paperwork and holding the firearm until the waiting period is up. When one wants to buy a firearm from a dealer or individual at a gun show..and that person has travelled from 800 miles away..its not worth the effort to travel the 800 miles to go pick up your $50 22, with the $35 added charge. Many states have an InstaCheck terminal at the show, seller and buyer pay the $5 to run the check, and you go home with it. The Antis, or course hate this. Do you as a Moderate have a problem with this?

Gunner

"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson

First, you would have to compare 3 strike states vs non 3 strikes, not what we were after . Second, you have shown no connection between shall issue permits and lower murder rates. Third mandatory sentences usually cause a rise in plea bargains, the state holding leverage to get the accused to plead to a lesser offense.

That said, murder rates dropped because of demographics. There were fewer babies born in around 76 to 82, so there were less 18-24 year olds around 2000, since they do a large percentage of the crimes, their lack cause a drop in crime. Neither right nor left can claim victory. Maybe the Trojan company or whoever makes the pill.

What is relevant[to the argument anyway] is rates in one state vs another. I still don't see any positive correlation between higher gun ownership and lower murder rate, still mostly the opposite

The murder rate in Japan was never high. Unless you consider the odd Shogun or two butchering his subjects in a off hand fashion. They btw..were no allowed arms of any sorts. Which is why the martial arts were developed.

As to the Liberals ..whom do you think have propped up Diversity, MultiCulturalism, and given a pass to poor behavior of minority cultures?

Ill not post the cites, for fear some Libby might make a claim of racism..but look at the FBI stats and tell me whom are committing the most murders.

Then tell me the Libs want to stop this by putting down the hammer on the guilty parties.

Id have to say..that the Libs are largely responsible for much of the crime rate. And of course..care to do a survy of which political party the violent criminals in prison belong to?

Chuckle

Gunner

"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson

"Posted on Thursday, November 8, 2001 at 06:32 AM by spwenger

In a comment to an earlier posting of a link to George Will's editorial on the meaning of the Second Amendment someone questioned the statement that Geroge Will had not always held his current "individual right" position. Here's a more specific statement from Neal Knox's Firearms Coalition Alerts List mailing of November 6:

George Will's column this weekend, citing the Fifth Circuit's "persuasive" Emerson decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right, marks a near-complete turnaround for the usually conservative pundit.

In 1992 he had enough faith that the Second Amendment meant something that he wanted it repealed, but in 1994 Jeff Snyder's "Nation of Cowards" essay began bringing him around. Looks like the 5th Circuit finished the reversal.

He wrote this weekend that President Bush, by issuing alerts of further terrorist attacks, and calling for greater public vigilance, had in effect deputized the entire populace. "So this is an appropriate time to revisit the most fundamental -- the philosophic -- reason why both the right and the fact of widespread gun ownership reflect a healthy dimension of America's democratic culture."

Very good, George. "

From what I can gather searching the net. Mr. Wills has requested his rebuttal be removed as he has changed his mind. I can only find one reference to this however.

Gunner

"No man shall be debarred the use of arms. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson

Damn. Now I owe Ed a bagel. BTW- "largely true" isn't the same thing as "true".

Not really. Let me repeat: Criminal activity doesn't occur at a state or even a county level- it's very localized- block by block. Just because one are of one city has a high crime rate, does that mean the whole state does? Of course not.

The statement "50% of the states produced 2/3 more homicide than the other 50% armed states do" is meaningless because it doesn't define how the homicides are committed- a sidearm is just about useless during a drive-by or being killed by a drunk driver (which is capital murder in some states). On the other hand, a pistol is right handy when some coked-out loser tries for your wallet. Now if you can produce a factual statement to the effect that sidearms PREVENTED so many deaths, then you have solid data.

-Carl

Maybe he wrote a couple of variations? All the references I've found are for his article in the 15 November 1993 Newsweek article, titled "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?".

A search of the Newsweek archives will turn it up, but they require that you register and pay $2.95 to retrieve the text.

R, Tom Q.